Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:09 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:05 pm
Posts: 1109
Sorry to the romantics among you - but for us deep-sky imagers, the Moon, especially as it approaches full - is a pain. Really wanted to image tonight, so there's only one thing to do :D

Image

Canon 40D with a 100-400 mm zoom lens and x1.4 teleconverter.

Greg

_________________
Nexstar 11 GPS, 2 x Sky 90, M25C, MaximDL, Photshop CS3, Noel Carboni's Photoshop actions, 7 foot Pulsar fibreglass dome, Canon 40D, 100mm macro lens, 28-200mm zoom lens, 17-55mm f#2.8 zoom lens, 100-400mm zoom lens, 1.4x converter, 2x converter.
http://www.newforestobservatory.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:55 pm 
Nice one. It should be rescaled though imo. :)

Anways better than those i took with my kit lens today (First time in weeks the moon was here in the night :o). I had to go 100% to really see it


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:05 pm
Posts: 1109
Rescaled? Smaller??

Image

Greg

_________________
Nexstar 11 GPS, 2 x Sky 90, M25C, MaximDL, Photshop CS3, Noel Carboni's Photoshop actions, 7 foot Pulsar fibreglass dome, Canon 40D, 100mm macro lens, 28-200mm zoom lens, 17-55mm f#2.8 zoom lens, 100-400mm zoom lens, 1.4x converter, 2x converter.
http://www.newforestobservatory.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:23 pm 
Man i love the moon - i want to go there, for some reason

GREAT image! Really Nice one - i could honestly invest in like a 500mm and get a tele converter just to take pictures of the moon

Thanks mate!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8028
Location: UK
Seeing that made me want to have another go :D How hard can it be to get some decent detail out?

Image
Sony A350 ISO400 1/160s 1325mm f/13 resize 25% and unsharp.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:05 pm
Posts: 1109
Clearly it can be quite hard :D
Greg

_________________
Nexstar 11 GPS, 2 x Sky 90, M25C, MaximDL, Photshop CS3, Noel Carboni's Photoshop actions, 7 foot Pulsar fibreglass dome, Canon 40D, 100mm macro lens, 28-200mm zoom lens, 17-55mm f#2.8 zoom lens, 100-400mm zoom lens, 1.4x converter, 2x converter.
http://www.newforestobservatory.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:43 pm 
cybermystic wrote:
Rescaled? Smaller??

Greg


Like that yeah, much better imo :D

When i tried to shoot the moon a few days ago (First day for a lot of time with the moon visible) filled 1/6 of my LCD screen on my cam when zoomed to 100%. And it was unsharp. But i did see some detail on it though :)

Nice shot Popo. What kinda telescope were you using?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8028
Location: UK
When I was using a 300mm lens, I found the moon rather small too.

I got the Celestron Nexstar 4SE. In photo terms 1325mm f/13 MF :D I never knew air moved so much until I got it... it's going to take a bit of luck to get a really sharp shot out of it I think.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:06 am 
Well I too find that shoot down the moon on a photo is really interesting! Maybe it’s because moon photos gives a felling of looking into another world. I recently took this shot using my telelens (700mm):
Image
The shot is not super sharp (using crappy tripod – forced me to put OS on), but as desktop wallpaper it looks really great.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8028
Location: UK
Hmm... maybe this should become the moon thread? :p

Just had a quick go again. Is it me or is the moon bigger? Seems to be less shimmering, even though there's a faint haze in the sky tonight. This is sharper than I got before although I still hope to get even better still.

Image

Same settings as before except for exposure 1/125s and a bit more level processing.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:57 am 
Perhaps the trick is to use a faster exposure to reduce the effect of the shimmering air?

I'll have to go try this now!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:39 am 
Old-shaker-hand wrote:
Well I too find that shoot down the moon on a photo is really interesting! Maybe it’s because moon photos gives a felling of looking into another world. I recently took this shot using my telelens (700mm):

The shot is not super sharp (using crappy tripod – forced me to put OS on), but as desktop wallpaper it looks really great.


Did you invert it, or was it taken like this? Great shot!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8028
Location: UK
pgtips wrote:
Perhaps the trick is to use a faster exposure to reduce the effect of the shimmering air?


To an extent, but still best when not moving at all :) As bright as the moon is, you still have limits due to available light.

@0eyvind to me Old-shaker-hand's pic doesn't look inverted in any sense (dark bits are dark, orientation normal), but the contrast is set quite high.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:37 pm 
0eyvind wrote:
Old-shaker-hand wrote:
Well I too find that shoot down the moon on a photo is really interesting! Maybe it’s because moon photos gives a felling of looking into another world. I recently took this shot using my telelens (700mm):

The shot is not super sharp (using crappy tripod – forced me to put OS on), but as desktop wallpaper it looks really great.


Did you invert it, or was it taken like this? Great shot!

Thanks a lot, but no I did not invert it; I removed the colours and expanded the dynamic range. The problem about moon pictures is that the pixel representing the moon has got a low variance of brightness levels. So in a picture histogram the pixel package representing the moon occupies only a smaller part of the brightness levels. By consequence the moon looks pail/washed out. So I simply use a curve tool so that the moon fills out all the greyscale levels from black to white. So basically I have just expanded the number of used brightness levels making the details more viewable – I think it looks much better! I took myself the freedom to quickly modify popos last moon shot. Please forgive me if Im violating your copyrights popo, I just try to illustrate the difference:
Image
Note that even outside the moon the pixel representation got better. I could have used all 3 colour channels – but I was a bit lazy so I just removed the colours ;) The dynamic range expansion has got a price that you can see if you look closely into some of the darker areas: the surfaces look grainier due to the higher jumps between the brightness of the pixels (could be mistaken with noise). I made the dynamic range expansion in JPEG, so I only had 8 bits (256 levels). If I could have done the dynamic range expansion in RAW then I would have had 12 bits (4096 levels) to work with (less gains). Maybe it is possible to find a tool that can do this - in that case I would like to know about it.

popo wrote:
Hmm... maybe this should become the moon thread? :p

I wouldn’t mind ;) The moon is a great object and it is even possible to see it in the middle of the day:
http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/5830/chimneymoonbm6.jpg
Sorry but the picture is too big to be posted directly in here. Looking forward to see others moon shots :D


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:46 pm 
popo wrote:
@0eyvind to me Old-shaker-hand's pic doesn't look inverted in any sense (dark bits are dark, orientation normal), but the contrast is set quite high.

Not really, the contrast is the height and width of the whole picture histogram; I only increase the range of pixels representing the moon.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group