Gorgeous Moon Shot

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by George Preddy, May 13, 2004.

  1. George Preddy, May 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. George Preddy

    Dave Guest

    Dave, May 13, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Martin Francis, May 13, 2004
    #3
  4. Charles Schuler, May 13, 2004
    #4
  5. George Preddy

    ~ Darrell ~ Guest

    ~ Darrell ~, May 14, 2004
    #5
  6. George Preddy

    Skip M Guest

    Awful lot of noise in the sky, and the moon looks pretty jagged i profile.
    Are you going to tell me that the 300-800 f5.6 has such great resolving
    power that it is picking up the mountains of the moon?
     
    Skip M, May 14, 2004
    #6
  7. We all know he doesn't even own a camera. When he's asked for simple
    workflow details, he gets them wrong.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, May 14, 2004
    #7
  8. George Preddy

    NightStar Guest

    Daft question (Coming from someone seriously inexperienced) - What
    size lens would this have been taken from?

    I take it this was taken with a shutter-delay? (Please correct my
    jargon)

    Tony
     
    NightStar, May 14, 2004
    #8
  9. George Preddy

    E. Magnuson Guest

    The gallery is labeled as test images taken with the
    Sigma 300-800 zoom. No EXIF information, but it was probably taken
    at 800mm on a camera with a 1.7 FOV crop (i.e. FOV equiv to 1360mm.)
    Since the shutter speed was only 1/80th, I think it's also safe to
    assume that the lens was mounted to a sturdy tripod and the mirror
    lockup feature was used with either the self-timer or a remote
    release to minimize vibrations.
     
    E. Magnuson, May 14, 2004
    #9
  10. George Preddy

    eawckyegcy Guest

    No surprise: the preddy can't tell a good picture of the Moon from a
    bad one. In this case, exposure is tailored for the terminator --
    just about everywhere else, the Moon is over-exposed.

    Much better lunar imagery is found at: http://www.lpod.org
     
    eawckyegcy, May 14, 2004
    #10
  11. George Preddy

    Mike Guest

    I suppose it depends on whether you prefer the sterile clinical shot or a
    beautiful picture.
     
    Mike, May 14, 2004
    #11
  12. George Preddy

    dylan Guest

    Which is the pbase one , clinical or beautiful ?. I can't see it's either.
     
    dylan, May 14, 2004
    #12
  13. Absolutely.
     
    George Preddy, May 15, 2004
    #13
  14. George Preddy

    NightStar Guest

    Erik - Cheers for that - Just copying it down to use when I get a
    chance! I've got a lot to learn about photography!

    Tony.
     
    NightStar, May 15, 2004
    #14
  15. George Preddy

    Skip M Guest

    Thanks, George, I set 'em up, you knock 'em down.
    I think you just proved a point...
     
    Skip M, May 15, 2004
    #15
  16. Fake detail, aka aliasing. It only resembles the real thing because you
    don't know what the real thing looks like. We do know the moon doesn't have
    a 2 pixel wide black rim around it, yet the image makes you believe it does.
    As an artistical impression it may look interesting, blue (!) sky and all,
    but it is wrong.

    Besides, at an approx. magnification factor of 1:500000000, each sensor
    represents 20.8 square Km (8 square Statute Miles) by a single average
    Luminance value. That's a whole lot of mountain per pixel, hardly what one
    would call resolved. And that is of course without the detrimental influence
    of lens, atmosphere, and motion blur. No, if it looks sharp, we are looking
    at aliasing artifacts.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, May 15, 2004
    #16
  17. It's a daytime shot.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, May 16, 2004
    #17
  18. It is jagged in profile.
    It doesn't take much. It's not that great a feat. Most any reasonably
    priced lens should be capable of such.

    Using a tripod mount and a 300 mm lens (and good seeing conditions)
    you should be able to enlarge the image and get as good a results as
    he did with 800.

    However, I have normally used an ASA of 400 with 1400 mm at f 6.4 and
    1/125. The only example I have handy was using 2500 mm at f-10.
    http://www.rogerhalstead.com/Sunspots.htm


    A half moon is difficult to shoot as in his image you will note the
    highlights are washed out but reasonably good shadow detail. Had he
    waited till dark, much of the haze that obscures detail would have
    been gone and the image could have been sharper with a black
    background.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com.
     
    Roger Halstead, May 16, 2004
    #18
  19. True, but he's using a mosaic and who knows how many exposures. OTOH
    it is an excellent example of skill.

    I use a 10 inch (f-10) Schmidt Cassegrain which with tripod weighs
    close to 140#. I've never managed to get that kind of detail... yet,
    but I keep trying.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, May 16, 2004
    #19
  20. The blue sky is normal in the day time.
    http://www.rogerhalstead.com/Sunspots.htm and moon as well.

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, May 16, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.