Lunar eclipse photography

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Chris Brown, Nov 7, 2003.

  1. Chris Brown

    Chris Brown Guest

    Is anyone else planning to try and get a photo of tomorrow night's lunar
    eclipse? I'm going to give it a try - I have an EOS 10D which I'll be using
    with a Canon 300mm f/4 L IS USM [1], with a Canon 1.4x teleconvertor. This
    essentially makes it into a 420mm f/5.6, which gives me a field of view
    roughly equivalent to a 680mm lens on a 35mm camera.

    Looking around on the web, this suggests that I'll want to keep my exposure
    under about 0.8 seconds if I want a sharp image, otherwise I'll get motion
    blur (I don't have access to a tracking telescope). Could be challenging.
    Hopefully I won't need to raise the ISO above 400.

    [1] *Why* didn't I buy the f/2.8? Oh yes, it weighs a ton, and my wife would
    have killed me. ;-)
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 7, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Some of the best photos I have seen of an eclipse have been with
    moderate telephoto lenses.

    The trick is to take a series of images on the same frame. Make sure
    the images don't overlap.



    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


    "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Is anyone else planning to try and get a photo of tomorrow night's lunar
    > eclipse? I'm going to give it a try - I have an EOS 10D which I'll be

    using
    > with a Canon 300mm f/4 L IS USM [1], with a Canon 1.4x teleconvertor. This
    > essentially makes it into a 420mm f/5.6, which gives me a field of view
    > roughly equivalent to a 680mm lens on a 35mm camera.
    >
    > Looking around on the web, this suggests that I'll want to keep my

    exposure
    > under about 0.8 seconds if I want a sharp image, otherwise I'll get motion
    > blur (I don't have access to a tracking telescope). Could be challenging.
    > Hopefully I won't need to raise the ISO above 400.
    >
    > [1] *Why* didn't I buy the f/2.8? Oh yes, it weighs a ton, and my wife

    would
    > have killed me. ;-)
     
    Joseph Meehan, Nov 7, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chris Brown

    Guest

    Chris Brown <_uce_please.com> wrote:

    > Is anyone else planning to try and get a photo of tomorrow night's lunar
    > eclipse?


    The weather gods have been successfully propitiated! Though just to
    make sure I have some more virgins, and an active volcano, should
    clouds appear tomorrow evening.

    > Looking around on the web, this suggests that I'll want to keep my exposure
    > under about 0.8 seconds if I want a sharp image, otherwise I'll get motion
    > blur (I don't have access to a tracking telescope).


    google: "barn door tracker" (include the quotes). There are complex
    ones, and very simple ones.

    10D sensor is 22.5mm wide. With the 420mm lens, the horizontal field
    of view is about atan(22.5/420)==3.1 degrees. At 3152 pixels, thats
    9.8e-4 degrees/pixel. The Earth rotates at about 360/86164 == 4.2e-3
    degrees/second, or about 4.2e-3/9.8e-4 == 4.3 pixels/second across the
    width of the sensor.

    So 0.8 seconds may be a bit long, but I don't think you'll need
    exposures that long anyways: even eclipsed the Moon is fairly bright.
    And tomorrow nights eclipse is not particularly deep.

    > [1] *Why* didn't I buy the f/2.8? Oh yes, it weighs a ton,


    Exercise.

    > and my wife would have killed me. ;-)


    "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger." -- Nietzsche said that,
    though perhaps not in the same context...
     
    , Nov 7, 2003
    #3
  4. Chris Brown

    HRosita Guest

    HRosita, Nov 7, 2003
    #4
  5. Chris Brown

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    >
    >10D sensor is 22.5mm wide. With the 420mm lens, the horizontal field
    >of view is about atan(22.5/420)==3.1 degrees. At 3152 pixels, thats
    >9.8e-4 degrees/pixel. The Earth rotates at about 360/86164 == 4.2e-3
    >degrees/second, or about 4.2e-3/9.8e-4 == 4.3 pixels/second across the
    >width of the sensor.
    >
    >So 0.8 seconds may be a bit long, but I don't think you'll need
    >exposures that long anyways:


    Here's hoping. This was much easier last time - I only had a D30 and a 300mm
    lens ;-)

    >> and my wife would have killed me. ;-)

    >
    >"What doesn't kill me makes me stronger." -- Nietzsche said that,
    >though perhaps not in the same context...


    He never met my wife ;->
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 8, 2003
    #5
  6. Chris Brown

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    HRosita wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Here is a url to tips for photographying the lunar exclipse:
    > http://www.nyip.com/sub_idx_pgs/tipsidx/tips_idx.php
    > Rosita


    We (as in people living on the US west coast) will only
    be able to catch the final phase and from an extremely
    high angle...(not the ideal position for a photo.)

    :-(
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Nov 8, 2003
    #6
  7. Chris Brown

    PhotoMan Guest

    "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Looking around on the web, this suggests that I'll want to keep my

    exposure
    > under about 0.8 seconds if I want a sharp image, otherwise I'll get motion
    > blur (I don't have access to a tracking telescope). Could be challenging.
    > Hopefully I won't need to raise the ISO above 400.


    If you set your camera to ISO 100, the exposure should be bracketed around
    1/125 second at ƒ 16. IT IS A SUNNY DAY SCENE, and should be exposed as
    such. I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.
     
    PhotoMan, Nov 8, 2003
    #7
  8. Chris Brown

    Ina Sterk Guest

    Ina Sterk, Nov 8, 2003
    #8
  9. Chris Brown

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <he%qb.48073$>,
    PhotoMan <> wrote:
    >
    >If you set your camera to ISO 100, the exposure should be bracketed around
    >1/125 second at ƒ 16. IT IS A SUNNY DAY SCENE, and should be exposed as
    >such.


    Er, about this eclipse thing...

    >I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.


    There wasn't an eclipse last night.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 8, 2003
    #9
  10. Chris Brown

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <>, Chris Brown
    <_uce_please.com> writes:

    >Is anyone else planning to try and get a photo of tomorrow night's lunar
    >eclipse?



    I'll be doing prime focus photography of it with both digital, and film
    through a C 11 (with focal reducer, approx 1550 mm f/7)

































    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
     
    Azzz1588, Nov 8, 2003
    #10
  11. Chris Brown

    PhotoMan Guest

    "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <he%qb.48073$>,
    > PhotoMan <> wrote:
    > >
    > >If you set your camera to ISO 100, the exposure should be bracketed

    around
    > >1/125 second at ƒ 16. IT IS A SUNNY DAY SCENE, and should be exposed as
    > >such.

    >
    > Er, about this eclipse thing...
    >
    > >I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.

    >
    > There wasn't an eclipse last night.


    Perhaps I should have emphasized TEST.
     
    PhotoMan, Nov 8, 2003
    #11
  12. << If you set your camera to ISO 100, the exposure should be bracketed around
    1/125 second at Æ’ 16. IT IS A SUNNY DAY SCENE, and should be exposed as
    such. I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine. >>

    PM-

    Yes, it is a sunny day scene for the full moon. However, the moon is a gray
    rock reported to have a reflectivity about one stop less than "neutral gray".
    I'd give it an extra stop to begin with.

    Then there's the eclipse. Fortunately it lasts for a while, so we should have
    time to make several exposures until we get it right!

    Fred
     
    Fred McKenzie, Nov 8, 2003
    #12
  13. Chris Brown

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <Hr6rb.61404$>,
    PhotoMan <> wrote:
    >
    >"Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> In article <he%qb.48073$>,
    >> PhotoMan <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >If you set your camera to ISO 100, the exposure should be bracketed

    >around
    >> >1/125 second at ƒ 16. IT IS A SUNNY DAY SCENE, and should be exposed as
    >> >such.

    >>
    >> Er, about this eclipse thing...
    >>
    >> >I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.

    >>
    >> There wasn't an eclipse last night.

    >
    >Perhaps I should have emphasized TEST.


    So let me get this right - in order to determine the correct exposure for
    the Moon when it is in the Earth's shadow, you performed a test shot of the
    Moon in direct sunlight?
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 8, 2003
    #13
  14. Chris Brown

    WebKatz Guest

    "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <he%qb.48073$>,
    > PhotoMan <> wrote:
    > >
    > >If you set your camera to ISO 100, the exposure should be bracketed

    around
    > >1/125 second at f 16. IT IS A SUNNY DAY SCENE, and should be exposed as
    > >such.

    >
    > Er, about this eclipse thing...
    >
    > >I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.

    >
    > There wasn't an eclipse last night.



    It was a test eclipse.
     
    WebKatz, Nov 8, 2003
    #14
  15. Chris Brown

    PhotoMan Guest

    "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <Hr6rb.61404$>,
    > PhotoMan <> wrote:
    > >
    > >"Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> In article <he%qb.48073$>,
    > >> PhotoMan <> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >If you set your camera to ISO 100, the exposure should be bracketed

    > >around
    > >> >1/125 second at ƒ 16. IT IS A SUNNY DAY SCENE, and should be exposed

    as
    > >> >such.
    > >>
    > >> Er, about this eclipse thing...
    > >>
    > >> >I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.
    > >>
    > >> There wasn't an eclipse last night.

    > >
    > >Perhaps I should have emphasized TEST.

    >
    > So let me get this right - in order to determine the correct exposure for
    > the Moon when it is in the Earth's shadow, you performed a test shot of

    the
    > Moon in direct sunlight?


    Yes, the moon IS in direct sunlight!

    Perhaps you should reread my OP -
    > >> >I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.< << <


    Emphasis on TONIGHT. The whole point of my OP was that the moon is
    illuminated by sunlight, so requires bright sunny daylight exposure
    settings. The purpose of the test was to determine initial settings for when
    the moon was still unshaded by the penumbra. I don't know how to explain it
    more clearly for you.
     
    PhotoMan, Nov 8, 2003
    #15
  16. Chris Brown

    gr Guest

    "PhotoMan" <> wrote
    >
    > "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <he%qb.48073$>,
    > > PhotoMan <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >If you set your camera to ISO 100, the exposure should be bracketed

    > around
    > > >1/125 second at f 16. IT IS A SUNNY DAY SCENE, and should be exposed as
    > > >such.

    > >
    > > Er, about this eclipse thing...
    > >
    > > >I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.

    > >
    > > There wasn't an eclipse last night.

    >
    > Perhaps I should have emphasized TEST.


    You have absolutely no idea what a lunar eclipse is, right?
     
    gr, Nov 8, 2003
    #16
  17. Chris Brown

    PhotoMan Guest

    "gr" <> wrote in message
    news:bojhij$1e71tr$-berlin.de...
    > "PhotoMan" <> wrote
    > >
    > > "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > In article <he%qb.48073$>,
    > > > PhotoMan <> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > >If you set your camera to ISO 100, the exposure should be bracketed

    > > around
    > > > >1/125 second at f 16. IT IS A SUNNY DAY SCENE, and should be exposed

    as
    > > > >such.
    > > >
    > > > Er, about this eclipse thing...
    > > >
    > > > >I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.
    > > >
    > > > There wasn't an eclipse last night.

    > >
    > > Perhaps I should have emphasized TEST.

    >
    > You have absolutely no idea what a lunar eclipse is, right?


    I know more about celestial phenomena than you'll ever imagine.
     
    PhotoMan, Nov 8, 2003
    #17
  18. Chris Brown

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <yhcrb.49260$>,
    PhotoMan <> wrote:
    >
    >Yes, the moon IS in direct sunlight!


    Not when I want to photograph it, won't be. That's sort of the point of this
    thread.

    >Emphasis on TONIGHT. The whole point of my OP was that the moon is
    >illuminated by sunlight, so requires bright sunny daylight exposure
    >settings. The purpose of the test was to determine initial settings for when
    >the moon was still unshaded by the penumbra. I don't know how to explain it
    >more clearly for you.


    Given that my original post, which started this thread, was about minimising
    motion blue using a 420mm lens when taking a photograph of a lunar eclipse,
    perhaps you should have worked out that shouting exposing for daylight was
    inappropriate.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 8, 2003
    #18
  19. Chris Brown

    George Kerby Guest

    On 11/8/03 1:28 PM, in article yhcrb.49260$,
    "PhotoMan" <> wrote:

    >
    > "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <Hr6rb.61404$>,
    >> PhotoMan <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> In article <he%qb.48073$>,
    >>>> PhotoMan <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you set your camera to ISO 100, the exposure should be bracketed
    >>> around
    >>>>> 1/125 second at ƒ 16. IT IS A SUNNY DAY SCENE, and should be exposed

    > as
    >>>>> such.
    >>>>
    >>>> Er, about this eclipse thing...
    >>>>
    >>>>> I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.
    >>>>
    >>>> There wasn't an eclipse last night.
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps I should have emphasized TEST.

    >>
    >> So let me get this right - in order to determine the correct exposure for
    >> the Moon when it is in the Earth's shadow, you performed a test shot of

    > the
    >> Moon in direct sunlight?

    >
    > Yes, the moon IS in direct sunlight!
    >
    > Perhaps you should reread my OP -
    >>>>> I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.< << <

    >
    > Emphasis on TONIGHT. The whole point of my OP was that the moon is
    > illuminated by sunlight, so requires bright sunny daylight exposure
    > settings. The purpose of the test was to determine initial settings for when
    > the moon was still unshaded by the penumbra. I don't know how to explain it
    > more clearly for you.
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Some things just cannot be made clear to a dolt. Give up.


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Nov 8, 2003
    #19
  20. Chris Brown

    PhotoMan Guest

    "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    news:BBD2B6A2.24976%...
    > On 11/8/03 1:28 PM, in article

    yhcrb.49260$,
    > "PhotoMan" <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> In article <Hr6rb.61404$>,
    > >> PhotoMan <> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    > >>> news:...
    > >>>> In article <he%qb.48073$>,
    > >>>> PhotoMan <> wrote:
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> If you set your camera to ISO 100, the exposure should be bracketed
    > >>> around
    > >>>>> 1/125 second at f 16. IT IS A SUNNY DAY SCENE, and should be exposed

    > > as
    > >>>>> such.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Er, about this eclipse thing...
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> There wasn't an eclipse last night.
    > >>>
    > >>> Perhaps I should have emphasized TEST.
    > >>
    > >> So let me get this right - in order to determine the correct exposure

    for
    > >> the Moon when it is in the Earth's shadow, you performed a test shot of

    > > the
    > >> Moon in direct sunlight?

    > >
    > > Yes, the moon IS in direct sunlight!
    > >
    > > Perhaps you should reread my OP -
    > >>>>> I made some test shots with my dReb tonight, and they were fine.< <<

    <
    > >
    > > Emphasis on TONIGHT. The whole point of my OP was that the moon is
    > > illuminated by sunlight, so requires bright sunny daylight exposure
    > > settings. The purpose of the test was to determine initial settings for

    when
    > > the moon was still unshaded by the penumbra. I don't know how to explain

    it
    > > more clearly for you.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    > Some things just cannot be made clear to a dolt. Give up.


    Yea - a waste of a perfectly good 2 by 4.
     
    PhotoMan, Nov 8, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. M-M

    Animation of the Lunar Eclipse

    M-M, Mar 4, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    294
  2. David J Taylor

    Relive the beauty of the recent total lunar eclipse

    David J Taylor, Mar 20, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    316
    David J Taylor
    Mar 23, 2007
  3. RichA

    Lunar eclipse to shoot around 3am EST

    RichA, Aug 28, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    524
  4. DONOTREPLY

    lunar eclipse, double rainbow, clouds, sky....

    DONOTREPLY, Sep 27, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    287
    GlenC
    Sep 27, 2007
  5. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    347
Loading...

Share This Page