Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,777   Posts: 1,671,102   Online: 941
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 39 of 39
  1. #31
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,075
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Yep the moon is only covering, what, 1 degree or so? So 270 on large format will be quite a wide field of view and you can get by with quite long exposures, and the motion blur won't be evident (unless of course you enlarge tremendously).

    Night shots can indeed turn out to look like blah day shots quite easily if you don't let the contrast be represented faithfuly. By that I mean, you simply have to let shadows be shadows. The single biggest mistake with moon shots, as I see them usually, is to overexpose the moon itself (or moonlit objects), so then you wind up with a featureless, glowing white ball, but more importantly the shadows in the surrounding scenery are then lifted up too far and the result can indeed look like daylight.

    Not to go too far off topic but it is possible to turn the tables and make a daytime shot look quite a bit like a moonlit shot by building a lot of contrast into the neg and the print. I didn't fully realize this until I did this infrared shot in the woods. Letting shadows drop way down is the key to this effect, I think.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  2. #32
    Karmelo.Martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bilbao, Basque Country
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6
    I'm also trying to start with night photography.

    I think a light meter won't be very useful at night as there is very little light to be metered and it will get fooled easily. There are a few things I will try myself:

    a) Braketing. I guess this is the way to go at the beginning till I get a pattern I can follow.
    b) Experience. This comes after a lot of a) I'm afraid.
    c) The ultimate exposure computer

    I will try some of these and see how it gets...

    Karmelo

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    To get that moon shot using analog methods, you can use a multiple exposure. The landscape lit by the full moon should have a calculated (meaning not factoring in reciprocity failure) exposure of about 15 minutes at f/8, using a 100 film. The moon itself (full) should have an exposure of '125 at f/11 on a clear night. Make the moon shot first, sit around and twiddle your thumbs until it moves out of the composition, then make the shot of the landscape. You can even cheat and use a longer lens to shoot the moon and a wider lens to shoot the landscape.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  4. #34
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,245
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    Yep the moon is only covering, what, 1 degree or so?
    Close. ½ degree, on average same as the sun. (With slight variations for non circular orbits).

    2F/2F's methods will also work, but you have to watch the apparent lighting direction if you want the moon to look like the light source, and if you make the moon exposure too big with a telephoto relative to the landscape exposure it becomes very unnatural looking. That's not illegal in most states, but you should be aware of it depending on what results you want. I've seen one shot that way (I think posted here on APUG a while back) where the moon is as big as a foreground house and in front of distant mountains.

    I have read that older B&W movies created night time from daytime by using a red filter and underexposing. The contrast builds, shadows go very dark, the sky looks darker, etc.

    Lee

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    I would not use a SUPER long lens to do it...perhaps just double the magnification...and yes, consider where the thing is placed compared to where your shadows will fall. "Natural looking", though? None of it will look natural. I don't know if that is the point anyhow in a landscape lit by the full moon. In fact, I would say that the opposite is the point. Just use your judgment to make the pic you want, whether it is natural looking or not.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #36
    colrehogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    16
    Nope, not necessarily natural looking, more just natural lighting. I'm not sure I can do the changing of the focal lengths on LF. I think it might look really weird. Plus, my long focal length on this camera is only 355 vs the 270 I would use, not much difference, but an interesting thought nonetheless.
    Diane

    Halak 41

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    I'm not trying to tell anyone to do anything. I am just listing some tools that can be used. How or whether you choose to employ them to achieve your desired aesthetic values is something that I personally would not attempt to tell you, though there are many who would. I figured it was a given that I was just offering up some techniques without straying into the realm of offering aesthetic advice.

    As for the changing of focal lengths, it would look similarly weird on any format.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    To get that moon shot using analog methods, you can use a multiple exposure. The landscape lit by the full moon should have a calculated (meaning not factoring in reciprocity failure) exposure of about 15 minutes at f/8, using a 100 film. The moon itself (full) should have an exposure of '125 at f/11 on a clear night. Make the moon shot first, sit around and twiddle your thumbs until it moves out of the composition, then make the shot of the landscape. You can even cheat and use a longer lens to shoot the moon and a wider lens to shoot the landscape.
    I'd do it the other way around: shoot the landscape at dusk, then put in the moon later.

    It will always show that it is a cheat, though. The direction of the light will give it away (not just when you shoot at dusk first).

    You could also shoot the landscape, including moon, when it isn't dark yet and the moon is already out (or when the moon is still out and it's getting light again).
    But only, of course, if you can then still get the moon over the landscape where you want it to be.
    You will also need to be far north enough this time of year to have short nights.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    I'd do it the other way around: shoot the landscape at dusk, then put in the moon later.

    It will always show that it is a cheat, though. The direction of the light will give it away (not just when you shoot at dusk first).

    You could also shoot the landscape, including moon, when it isn't dark yet and the moon is already out (or when the moon is still out and it's getting light again).
    But only, of course, if you can then still get the moon over the landscape where you want it to be.
    You will also need to be far north enough this time of year to have short nights.
    Yes. I like shooting the moon and/or using multiple exposures using dusk light (or early morning light).

    It does not look the same as a landscape shot at night and illuminated by the full moon, though. This looks like a very eerie daylight as opposed to a soft dusk light.

    Here is a page that I found in a quick search: http://brokentripod.com/MOONLIGHT2/LOTMoon2.html. Unfortunately the pix are of low quality and there is not a ton of technical information, but it gives you the idea.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 08-06-2009 at 03:48 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: added link
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin