Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,856   Posts: 1,582,998   Online: 1113
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,755
    Images
    40
    Ah, thanks...I did not think about trying to photograph a "stationary" moon (using some sort of tracking mount for the camera) against a moving background of stars -- that sounds interesting!

    One would need very slow film, very small aperture, in order not to blow out the moon.
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    This is why you need to shoot at dusk, in that twilight zone, effectively depending on the exposure for the rest of the scene you can make the image appear to have been taken at night, or in daylight, anyway if the ambient lights too low the moon will be very over exposed anyway.

    It's easier to do than explain. Think of the famous AA shot that's twilight.

    Ian
    True, but printing Moonrise required a lot of work, particularly to bring the sky down. My situation would indeed involve an unavoidably overexposed moon, falling on Zone X, but plenty of detail would be recorded and I can bring it down with development and printing controls. I've had to deal with significantly higher contrast scenarios so this is not a very difficult luminance range to handle. It's really only the movement of the moon that troubles me.

    As Diapositivo suggested above, perhaps a "manual" double exposure, keeping the shutter open for hours and blocking the lens etc. But my shutter is not mechanical. Another variation on this occured to me. I could do a double exposure using the multiple exposure lever on the camera, and if I do the moon exposure low enough, say zone V-VI, everything else in the scene will receive essentially zero exposure, so even if the film moves slightly out of register between exposures it won't matter. This wouldn't work if there are clouds around though. Anyhow, always challenging out there.

  3. #23
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,272
    Images
    67
    I shot a series of the lunar eclipse last winter using a fixed tripod. Once it got into total shadow and I was trying to bring up the red appearance, shots through a 210 mm lens at twenty seconds showed substantial motion, stuff in the 2 to 3 second range wasn't bad (relative to all the other things that were dubious! )

  4. #24
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,784
    600 divided by focal length = max shutter speed on stationary mount to avoid apparent celestial movement. So in your case 600/85 gives you about a seven second exposure before things start to smear. Sharpness is, of course, subjective, but this is a good rule of thumb that yields satisfactory results by most persons standards, the aforementioned 250 divided by focal length being about twice as conservative. IMO the wider you are the sharper things look. Print size and viewing distance are of course factors as well. The 600/fl formula was taught to me by Wally Pacholka (one helluva nice guy), and he knows his shinola. You will notice he tends to shoot wide to give himself more exposure time, and also time to "paint" terrestrial objects in his compositions with a light. You can see his stuff here:http://astropics.com/ What will be satisfactory to you will depend mostly your own subjectivity.

    Moon and stars in the same exposure would be very difficult. Compared to stars the moon is very very bright.

    The mount to follow celestial movement is called an equatorial mount. It wouldn't help you shoot the moon against moving stars, however, because the moon's apparent movement is in sync with the stars. It is you that is moving, relative to the moon and stars. Of course it, and they, and everything else are moving too, but the mechanics lend the POV movement of the observer as the perceptible factor for rude observation, such as ours.

    The only time I have made an observation that yielded a movement of the moon against the stars was when the moon occulted a star, and I was out with my scope looking for it to happen. It took a long time, relatively speaking, but things like that blow my skirt up.
    Last edited by JBrunner; 06-16-2011 at 05:29 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    I'd do two exposures and stack the negs. Try different lenses for the moon shot, so you can pick the one that is the size you want when you go to print. If there are any other lights that show up on the neg when you take the moon shots, you can bleach them out and refix to eliminate them.
    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. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,083
    Thanks everyone. Seems like in this particular case I'll be stuck simply using a faster film. I wanted to go wider on the lens but a good vantage point for the overall composition was impossible (and the moon is only part of the picture I was going to make anyway). I guess we'll just have to see how this comes out. I've never liked 400 speed films in 35mm, but TMY2 is extremely fine grained so maybe it will work.

    2F/2F, I have an aversion (rightly or wrongly) to that kind of "fakery" - although in the end one could probably argue everything in photography is fake. But for me making an image out of two separate images is the proverbial line in the sand. I have no problem with that kind of thing in abstract work, but I can't accept it in the straight representational photography I do. The same goes for exposing a roll of moons and then reloading the film to reshoot landscapes. I can only work with what's in front of me when I make the exposure. One of my many faults I suppose!

  7. #27
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,334
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    That's interesting Ian. On TMX I will need 20 seconds (including reciprocity adjustment) at f5.6 (can't open up wider or won't have sufficient depth of field). And that's really the minimum exposure I can get away with, since that will place most of the picture area and subject matter on zones III-IV.

    Ideally I'd be able to do the whole thing at twilight but in this case I cannot. It's one of those scenes that strikes you out of nowhere as you drive by. I noticed it by accident but the moon has to be in just the right place within the picture, and in fact the moon is hidden behind other subject matter until it rises to just that spot. All this currently occurs at around 10:30pm, well after dark.

    Anyhow I wonder if 20 seconds will cause blur, or if I should just go with a faster film. With TMY2 I could probably get it down to 4-5 seconds.
    The moon tracks across the sky by its own diameter in approximately 90 seconds. So from that, you can figure out the max allowable exposure duration from whatever print size / sharpness criterion you have. Personally, I would go no more than 3-5 seconds even with a small-appearing moon. And with an exposure that long, the moon is going to be hugely (like 7+ stops) over-exposed because...

    The moon (with no clouds obscuring it) is in full sunlight and therefore requires about Sunny-11 exposure, e.g. f/11 1/100s for EI100. So if your total exposure for the foreground needs 20-30s at 22:00, I would highly recommend you do a double exposure:
    - take a 20s exposure or whatever you require BEFORE the moon is up, then
    - take a very short lunar exposure once the moon is where you want it.

    The second exposure is hundreds of times less than the first one, so nothing in the scenery will even show up at all. If you wanted to really push your luck, change to your longest lens between the exposures so you get a huge moon; just be careful where in the frame you put it so that it doesn't overlap some scenery.

    To give you an example of this (no lens-changing though):

    That was shot on Acros at f/11. One 4s exposure for the buildings (and the very-bright moon on the tower) then a sequence of 1/125 exposures at 3 minute intervals for all the properly-exposed moons. If you took that approach but did the first exposure without the moon visible, obviously you'd not get that one huge bloomed moon.

    Edit: IMHO double exposures are fair game to balance light levels, especially if you don't move the camera between them. Multiple negs in a print or reloading rolls after shooting many moons, not so much.
    Last edited by polyglot; 06-16-2011 at 10:54 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #28
    resummerfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Alaska
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,298
    4 seconds. From my personal experience, 4 seconds is my maximum exposure for sharp images of the moon.
    —Eric

  9. #29
    M.A.Longmore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New York
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,857
    Images
    15
    .
    If you had a Minolta XE-7, multiple exposures would be effortless !

    Ron
    .

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Thanks everyone. Seems like in this particular case I'll be stuck simply using a faster film. I wanted to go wider on the lens but a good vantage point for the overall composition was impossible (and the moon is only part of the picture I was going to make anyway). I guess we'll just have to see how this comes out. I've never liked 400 speed films in 35mm, but TMY2 is extremely fine grained so maybe it will work.

    2F/2F, I have an aversion (rightly or wrongly) to that kind of "fakery" - although in the end one could probably argue everything in photography is fake. But for me making an image out of two separate images is the proverbial line in the sand. I have no problem with that kind of thing in abstract work, but I can't accept it in the straight representational photography I do. The same goes for exposing a roll of moons and then reloading the film to reshoot landscapes. I can only work with what's in front of me when I make the exposure. One of my many faults I suppose!
    I feel the same way about most of the subject matter that I shoot. But for this subject, I don't understand your line in the sand, especially because you mentioned in the OP that you would make multiple exposures in the camera, but for some reason it is difficult with your camera to do them reliably. So the line seems to rest not with something conceptual, such as only representing what is in front of you, and not what is not. It seems to rest with something as vapid as the physical location of the subjects within the roll of film. It sounds like you are saying that is OK with you to stack the exposures in the camera, but not in the enlarger. Multiple exposures are OK as long as they are on the same frame, but stacking two negs in the enlarger is not? That makes no sense to me; with the concept you explained, neither one of these methods would be acceptable to you.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 06-16-2011 at 11:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    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 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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