SELENOGRAPHERS LOVE THE 20D !!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Feb 10, 2006.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Feb 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Barry L. Wallis, Feb 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Feb 10, 2006
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    >Very nice. I've started trying to get moon pictures. Any hints?

    Get closer to your subject. That may sound stupid, but I'm serious
    here.
    Find the highest mountain you can find where the air is thinner and
    there is no smog. When I drove up Haleakala at night I couldn't
    believe how many stars I could see. You can see a few of them on this
    pic:

    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/35850130

    Too bad the moon wasn't out that night.
     
    Annika1980, Feb 10, 2006
    #4
  5. Annika1980 wrote:
    >>Very nice. I've started trying to get moon pictures. Any hints?

    >
    >
    > Get closer to your subject. That may sound stupid, but I'm serious
    > here.
    > Find the highest mountain you can find where the air is thinner and
    > there is no smog. When I drove up Haleakala at night I couldn't
    > believe how many stars I could see. You can see a few of them on this
    > pic:
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/35850130
    >
    > Too bad the moon wasn't out that night.
    >


    Wow, imagine what it would look like if you didn't have the city lights
    to contend with.

    --
    - Barry
     
    Barry L. Wallis, Feb 11, 2006
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    Cynicor Guest

    Barry L. Wallis wrote:
    > Annika1980 wrote:
    >
    >>> Very nice. I've started trying to get moon pictures. Any hints?

    >>
    >> Get closer to your subject. That may sound stupid, but I'm serious
    >> here.
    >> Find the highest mountain you can find where the air is thinner and
    >> there is no smog. When I drove up Haleakala at night I couldn't
    >> believe how many stars I could see. You can see a few of them on this
    >> pic:
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/35850130
    >>
    >> Too bad the moon wasn't out that night.

    >
    > Wow, imagine what it would look like if you didn't have the city lights
    > to contend with.


    Hmm. Maybe an upside-down ND grad filter?
     
    Cynicor, Feb 11, 2006
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Eric Miller Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/55901147
    >


    OK. Nice shot. Now tell me how you managed to get a shot at f/8 with a f/5.6
    lens and stacked 2x and 1.4x teleconverters.

    Eric Miller
     
    Eric Miller, Feb 13, 2006
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    >> http://www.pbase.com/image/55901147

    >OK. Nice shot. Now tell me how you managed to get a shot at f/8 with a
    >f/5.6 lens and stacked 2x and 1.4x teleconverters.


    Ah, nice catch!
    The 20D reads the info from my Canon 1.4x and bumps the aperture up to
    f/8. It can't read the info from my Vivitar 2x so it still gives the
    shutter speed based on f/8. The camera won't let me set the aperture
    any wider than this with the 1.4x attached to that lens. So I suppose
    what you are saying is that using both TCs the exposure isn't really
    f/8. That may be true, but I don't worry too much about it.

    So in determining the manual exposure for this pic I started with 1/100
    @ f/16, which is the same as 1/400 @ f/8. Figuring the TCs will cost
    me 3 stops, I set the exposure manually to 1/50 @ f/8. Then I
    purposely underexpose by 1 stop giving the final reading of 1/25 @ f/8.
     
    Annika1980, Feb 13, 2006
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Eric Miller Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/image/55901147

    >
    >>OK. Nice shot. Now tell me how you managed to get a shot at f/8 with a
    >>f/5.6 lens and stacked 2x and 1.4x teleconverters.

    >
    > Ah, nice catch!
    > The 20D reads the info from my Canon 1.4x and bumps the aperture up to
    > f/8. It can't read the info from my Vivitar 2x so it still gives the
    > shutter speed based on f/8. The camera won't let me set the aperture
    > any wider than this with the 1.4x attached to that lens. So I suppose
    > what you are saying is that using both TCs the exposure isn't really
    > f/8. That may be true, but I don't worry too much about it.
    >
    > So in determining the manual exposure for this pic I started with 1/100
    > @ f/16, which is the same as 1/400 @ f/8. Figuring the TCs will cost
    > me 3 stops, I set the exposure manually to 1/50 @ f/8. Then I
    > purposely underexpose by 1 stop giving the final reading of 1/25 @ f/8.
    >


    What I glean from this, assuming that by "underexpose" you mean that you
    changed the shutter speed from 1/50 to 1/100 (changing to 1/25 would have
    increased exposure by one stop, not decreased), is that you shot this at
    1/100 @ f/16.

    Is that what you were trying to say? ;)

    Eric Miller
     
    Eric Miller, Feb 13, 2006
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    >What I glean from this, assuming that by "underexpose" you mean that you
    >changed the shutter speed from 1/50 to 1/100 (changing to 1/25 would have
    >increased exposure by one stop, not decreased), is that you shot this at
    >1/100 @ f/16.


    >Is that what you were trying to say? ;)


    It was my understanding that there would be no math in the course of
    these debates.
     
    Annika1980, Feb 13, 2006
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Eric Miller Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >What I glean from this, assuming that by "underexpose" you mean that you
    >>changed the shutter speed from 1/50 to 1/100 (changing to 1/25 would have
    >>increased exposure by one stop, not decreased), is that you shot this at
    >>1/100 @ f/16.

    >
    >>Is that what you were trying to say? ;)

    >
    > It was my understanding that there would be no math in the course of
    > these debates.
    >


    LOL
     
    Eric Miller, Feb 13, 2006
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    >What I glean from this, assuming that by "underexpose" you mean that you
    >changed the shutter speed from 1/50 to 1/100 (changing to 1/25 would have
    >increased exposure by one stop, not decreased), is that you shot this at
    >1/100 @ f/16.


    >Is that what you were trying to say? ;)


    Truthfully, my thought process when I took the pic was like this:
    "Let's see, 1/100 @ f/16 .... that's 1/200 @ f/8. Take 3 stops away
    (100, 50, 25), yep, that's it .... we'll go with 1/25 @ f/8."

    I forgot all about f/11 in there, but hey .... it was cold, it was
    dark, and it was late! Gimme a break!
    I have found digital to be much more "fuckup-tolerant" than film work.
     
    Annika1980, Feb 13, 2006
    #12
  13. Annika1980 wrote:
    >>>http://www.pbase.com/image/55901147

    >
    >
    >>OK. Nice shot. Now tell me how you managed to get a shot at f/8 with a
    >>f/5.6 lens and stacked 2x and 1.4x teleconverters.

    >
    >
    > Ah, nice catch!
    > The 20D reads the info from my Canon 1.4x and bumps the aperture up to
    > f/8. It can't read the info from my Vivitar 2x so it still gives the
    > shutter speed based on f/8. The camera won't let me set the aperture
    > any wider than this with the 1.4x attached to that lens. So I suppose
    > what you are saying is that using both TCs the exposure isn't really
    > f/8. That may be true, but I don't worry too much about it.
    >
    > So in determining the manual exposure for this pic I started with 1/100
    > @ f/16, which is the same as 1/400 @ f/8. Figuring the TCs will cost
    > me 3 stops, I set the exposure manually to 1/50 @ f/8. Then I
    > purposely underexpose by 1 stop giving the final reading of 1/25 @ f/8.
    >


    Ok, I'm new to all this, but you took this picture while the birds were
    in flight at 1/25? I must be missing something that is extremely obvious
    to everyone else.

    --
    - Barry
     
    Barry L. Wallis, Feb 14, 2006
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    no_name Guest

    Barry L. Wallis wrote:
    > Annika1980 wrote:
    >
    >>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/55901147

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> OK. Nice shot. Now tell me how you managed to get a shot at f/8 with a
    >>> f/5.6 lens and stacked 2x and 1.4x teleconverters.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Ah, nice catch!
    >> The 20D reads the info from my Canon 1.4x and bumps the aperture up to
    >> f/8. It can't read the info from my Vivitar 2x so it still gives the
    >> shutter speed based on f/8. The camera won't let me set the aperture
    >> any wider than this with the 1.4x attached to that lens. So I suppose
    >> what you are saying is that using both TCs the exposure isn't really
    >> f/8. That may be true, but I don't worry too much about it.
    >>
    >> So in determining the manual exposure for this pic I started with 1/100
    >> @ f/16, which is the same as 1/400 @ f/8. Figuring the TCs will cost
    >> me 3 stops, I set the exposure manually to 1/50 @ f/8. Then I
    >> purposely underexpose by 1 stop giving the final reading of 1/25 @ f/8.
    >>

    >
    > Ok, I'm new to all this, but you took this picture while the birds were
    > in flight at 1/25? I must be missing something that is extremely obvious
    > to everyone else.
    >


    Two different threads conflated. Click the link and see this one's not
    the birds; it's the moon.

    Click on the moon and it'll take you to his gallery, where you can find
    the cranes & see they were at 1/500.
     
    no_name, Feb 14, 2006
    #14
  15. no_name wrote:
    > Barry L. Wallis wrote:
    >
    >> Annika1980 wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/55901147
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> OK. Nice shot. Now tell me how you managed to get a shot at f/8 with a
    >>>> f/5.6 lens and stacked 2x and 1.4x teleconverters.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Ah, nice catch!
    >>> The 20D reads the info from my Canon 1.4x and bumps the aperture up to
    >>> f/8. It can't read the info from my Vivitar 2x so it still gives the
    >>> shutter speed based on f/8. The camera won't let me set the aperture
    >>> any wider than this with the 1.4x attached to that lens. So I suppose
    >>> what you are saying is that using both TCs the exposure isn't really
    >>> f/8. That may be true, but I don't worry too much about it.
    >>>
    >>> So in determining the manual exposure for this pic I started with 1/100
    >>> @ f/16, which is the same as 1/400 @ f/8. Figuring the TCs will cost
    >>> me 3 stops, I set the exposure manually to 1/50 @ f/8. Then I
    >>> purposely underexpose by 1 stop giving the final reading of 1/25 @ f/8.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Ok, I'm new to all this, but you took this picture while the birds
    >> were in flight at 1/25? I must be missing something that is extremely
    >> obvious to everyone else.
    >>

    >
    > Two different threads conflated. Click the link and see this one's not
    > the birds; it's the moon.
    >
    > Click on the moon and it'll take you to his gallery, where you can find
    > the cranes & see they were at 1/500.



    Of course, you're right I wasn't paying attention.

    --
    - Barry
     
    Barry L. Wallis, Feb 14, 2006
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Eric Miller Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >What I glean from this, assuming that by "underexpose" you mean that you
    >>changed the shutter speed from 1/50 to 1/100 (changing to 1/25 would have
    >>increased exposure by one stop, not decreased), is that you shot this at
    >>1/100 @ f/16.

    >
    >>Is that what you were trying to say? ;)

    >
    > Truthfully, my thought process when I took the pic was like this:
    > "Let's see, 1/100 @ f/16 .... that's 1/200 @ f/8. Take 3 stops away
    > (100, 50, 25), yep, that's it .... we'll go with 1/25 @ f/8."
    >
    > I forgot all about f/11 in there, but hey .... it was cold, it was
    > dark, and it was late! Gimme a break!
    > I have found digital to be much more "fuckup-tolerant" than film work.
    >


    Damn. I have that lens and thought you might have found a hack . . .

    Eric Miller
     
    Eric Miller, Feb 15, 2006
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Guest

    I'm fairly new to the technical aspects of photography, but doesn't
    stacking teleconverters degrade the image quality? It seems like it
    would to me. Awesome photo though.
     
    , Feb 22, 2006
    #17
  18. <> wrote:
    > I'm fairly new to the technical aspects of photography, but doesn't
    > stacking teleconverters degrade the image quality? It seems like it
    > would to me. Awesome photo though.


    My reading of Roger Clark's pages* on this is that a lens has an inherent
    ability to resolve detail that is unchanged by teleconverters. So if your
    lens outresolves your sensor (or film), you can stack TCs until the image
    from the lens is enlarged to the point that it matches the sensor's
    resolution.

    *: http://www.clarkvision.com/index.html
    (You'll have to dig through there, but there's so much good stuff there that
    it's worth digging.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 22, 2006
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    >I'm fairly new to the technical aspects of photography, but doesn't
    >stacking teleconverters degrade the image quality? It seems like it
    >would to me. Awesome photo though.


    Yes, it does degrade image quality a bit, but the alternative (getting
    a lot closer) would cost millions.
     
    Annika1980, Feb 22, 2006
    #19
    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. Annika1980

    BRIDES LOVE THE 20D !!!

    Annika1980, Oct 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    490
    mark_digital©
    Oct 19, 2004
  2. Annika1980

    HARD DRIVES LOVE THE 20D !!!

    Annika1980, Oct 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    440
  3. Annika1980

    CHIPPIES LOVE THE 20D !!!

    Annika1980, Oct 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    691
  4. Annika1980

    SELENOGRAPHERS LOVE THE 20D !!!

    Annika1980, Oct 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    308
    Michael A. Covington
    Oct 29, 2004
  5. wewa
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    743
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Nov 10, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page