Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,224   Posts: 1,532,600   Online: 895
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
  1. #31
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    2F/2F I think Michael refers to your suggestions of using two lenses of different focal length. If that is meant to have the moon appear bigger than natural in the scene, the final result might appear fake to somebody (me amongst them).

    What is fake in photography is hard to tell. A lot of effort is devoted in trying to render a scene not how it was, but how our mind records it.
    The light in open shade actually is bluish and this can be noticed by an attentive eye. We see the sides of a building actually converge in reality as we cannot escape laws of perspective, but sometimes the converging vertical looks unnatural and the parallel sides in picture look more natural at first glance.

    The moon is only 1° in the sky, when we look at the moon, lost in the black sky, it seems much bigger. I tend to immediately notice the "unnatural" effect of a larger than natural moon, or of a building taken with a "perspective control" in which the sides have been made parallel, but for some other people a little moon, or converging verticals, might appear different from what they would expect.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,609
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    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.
    I was referring more to the option of using different focal lengths. Sorry about that I should have been clearer. Perhaps "line in the sand" was too strong since I am considering the double exposure, which as you point out, clearly violates my "what's in front of me" position. I would say however that although I am considering doing two exposures, it is not something I'm keen on, because it does cross that line in the sand. So I agree there is not much difference between sandwiching images in enlarger and making multiple exposures on film. It bothers me. So the more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion I would simply have to use a faster film to try and keep the single exposure down to 3-4 seconds. As I said before the contrast range is not too big a deal, with the moon being exposed on zone X (average value). Not a problem to bring that down.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    USA, Pac/NW
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    368
    Go to the Interactive site of Paul Neave, at Neave.com; go to Planetarium.
    Locate your position on the globe, (where you live, or where you will be taking pictures from). You are able to plug-in any date and time.
    From this site you can easily see when the moon will rise and set each day, on any day, past, present, or future. Great tool for planning the perfect days and times for shooting the sky. You can also move the time, or day, or month, and watch how objects in the sky will move over a given amount of time. And, the price is right...Free!

  4. #34
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,243
    Images
    60
    Every time I see this thread title, somehow I think of the following:

    "When the moon hits you eye like a big pizza pie
    That's amore
    When the world seems to shine like you've had too much wine
    That's amore"
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  5. #35
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    723
    Here's a calculation I used for a recent moon shot:

    The moon moves across the sky its own diameter in two minutes.
    The moon's image diameter on film is 1/100 of the focal length of the lens.
    The 300mm lens on my 8x10 camera delivers a 3mm moon image.
    The maximum out of focus blur for depth of field calculations (300mm on 8x10) is 0.2mm so I'll make the maximum acceptable motion blur the same 0.2mm.

    Question; how long does it take for the 3mm moon image to move 0.2 mm? Simple arithmetic says 1/15 of 2 minutes or 8 seconds near enough.

    That's the longest shutter speed I can tolerate before the moon image gets blurry and slightly oval.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dunedin,New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    269
    FWIW - I recall reading somewhere that 1/60 sec is the minimum exposure time to prevent motion blur.

  7. #37
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,190
    Images
    12
    Smudger: that is a rule-of-thumb for slow-moving people, at portrait kinds of magnification. Not applicable to anything else.

    If you want to figure out motion blur, you need to know subject velocity and subject magnification. 1/60 is way too conservative for the moon (see all previous posts), but you won't get a flying bird frozen until at least 1/250, sometimes 1/1000.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,032
    Two furlongs per fortnight at any give ISO except for the blue moon when it's one half furlong.
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  9. #39
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    My recollection is that I needed 1/320 sec for a full frame shot taken on a 35mm camera. If I remember correctly, the focal length for that shot was something like 2000mm.

    For a wider shot, you can get by with longer exposures. E.g. St. Ansel's famous Moonrise was much longer. But for a tight crop, you'll need 1/320 at least.

    The usual astrophotography technique is to do a series of short exposures at high ISO and then use a stacking program e.g. registax to register them and thereby get better signal to noise.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,609
    The moon would be pretty small in my photograph, similar to Ansel's Moonrise. His exposure was about 1 second, but he was working with more light (the sun had still not gone below the horizon).

Page 4 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