It's made of cheese!
supersonic
Posts: 82,708
Unfortunately the aurora didn't come out to play, but was a low slender moon, and managed to get this:
0
Comments
-
-
The Northern Monkey wrote:
I remember seeing that documentary, can anyone remember if they said that there was a mature cheddar area on the surface? Wouldn't mind going there myself, though i'm not really into skiing so would be purely for the cheese.0 -
great pic - keep meaning to get my lazy arse outside to do some moon & star trial shots0
-
supersonic wrote:Unfortunately the aurora didn't come out to play, but was a low slender moon, and managed to get this:
Just out of interest supersonic what was your set up for shooting that?"I have a plan, a plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a fox." (from the Blackadder TV series)0 -
A very basic one to be honest! Just used my Fuji S1500 on max optical zoom ie 12x. Exposure was 1/8th, F/5, ISO-100. Then slightly tweaked the contrast in PS.0
-
Ahh alright. Here I was thinking you had telescopes and all sorts out..."I have a plan, a plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a fox." (from the Blackadder TV series)0
-
That's a massive amount of zoom, did you crop it in PS or anything afterwards?supersonic wrote:A very basic one to be honest! Just used my Fuji S1500 on max optical zoom ie 12x. Exposure was 1/8th, F/5, ISO-100. Then slightly tweaked the contrast in PS.
I'm trying to figure out what size lens I'd need for my SLR to get that close to the moon. My largest right now is a 210mm (which works out as 315mm on most DSLRs).
Unfortunately, that only produces a tiny image of the moon!
I'm really taken in by a 500mm lens, with a x2 converter, which should work well, but at an enormous cost!
Even with my old Fuji S5700, which had some bonkers zoom ratio, I could still never get a moon shot that close wihtout severe cropping.
This is one of my favourite moon shots, from Kev Lewis, using a 600mm lens, but i have no idea if even this is cropped.
0 -
Yep, was cropped. I'll see if I can find the original un edited pic. I took a series at different exposures.
The half moon is a good time to get shots as the craters cast nice shadows.0 -
Here we go:
Is cut out of the original, but that is 100%. Was low down so quite redish.0 -
eh? EXIF says 71mm? :shock:
That can't be right!0 -
The zoom lens on the cam says 5.9-71mm. Is only a little thing.0
-
AH!
That makes sense!
Doesn't help me figuring out what size lens I need then :?0 -
I would guess the crop factor on my camera is about 5 or 6 times, giving a 35mm equivalent of about 350mm ie 70x50
-
Feckin clouds.0
-
Aye, can;t see a thing here. It's all rainy and cloudy. hmm.
0 -
Always same when I stay in and am board. Wanted to try and get a shot of the Andromeda spiral, since the moon is nearly new, less sky glare. Again, just the camera,no scopes or owt. Seeing how flexible this is.0
-
Tripod and remote shutter, or self timer is handy though.0
-
Remote shutter would be great, but that is what I am doing at the minute, mini tripod and self timer.0
-
Gorillapod? Those things are ace!0
-
I got it off ebay, made by Kunig or someone, but is a brilliant little thing! Really well made too.
I think next year the DSLR will be in order - the bigget sensor and better optics will give me less glare, crisper pics and less noise. But loving this little Fuji.0 -
I had a lot of fun with my Fuji. Fantastic camera.
SLRs are an expensive habit, probably right up there with a coke problem 0 -
Lol.
Need to try and hook it upto my my telescope at some point. Got a pretty big reflector sat in the con(obs)servatory.0 -
It dawned on me the other day that I have the right adapter to fit a mate's giant telescope to my camrea, Wish I'd realised sooner before he went away for a week's holiday.0
-
Oh, and for what it's worth, I'd highly recommend the Sony DSLRs. They use the exact same Minolta A-mount which has been around since 1985, so there is an insane selection of lenses to choose from on ebay, for next to no money.
If SLRs are like crack, then the Sony alpha system is like some cheap cut coke that can be had anywhere. 0 -
supersonic wrote:Here we go:
Is cut out of the original, but that is 100%. Was low down so quite redish.
That's a great photo!
The red/yellow cast at the bottom of the photo could be caused by lens/sensor errors rather than the moon being low in the sky. If you've shot that in raw, you can correct that in PS raw.0 -
I remember in Afghanistan seeing a huge looking low moon on a dark clear night. Looked like an amazing shot over the antennas of the HQ. Immediately grabbed the digi camera to get a shot.
Only problem was the shot looks rubbish compared to how it actually looked.
Don't understand why cameras never do the moon justice...0 -
Auto exposure gets properly confused with moon pictures. The trouble is, the moon is so very very bright compared to the sky around it. So, when the camera takes an average, it overexposes the moon.
Auto white balance can get really confused as well, meaning when you shoot a nice cool blue, or crisp red moon, it will come out kind of murky grey on some cameras.0 -
Yeah, you got to set a much lower exposure than normal if you can. This is where compact point and shoot cams lose out.
Mine was just 1/8th of a second.
I dunno about RAW!0 -
I think you can use RAW format on your fuji, Sonic. I know you can on some.
It basically just captures ALL the data from the sensor, which usually includes far more dynamic range (highlights and shadows) than when it's been rendered into a JPG.
In PS you can manage this extra dynamic range and change other things such as whitebalance (which you cannot do so easily in JPG) BEFORE you render it into an "image" file.
Rather than letting the camera just cut off what's above and below the range representable by a JPG, you can sort of "squidge" it to fit more detail in.
I'm not sure how effective it is on a bridge camera like the fuji, but on SLRs it can be astonishing.
With my Alpha 500, for example, you can usually reduce the exposure in RAW software by 2EV or more, and get more and more detail in the highlights, which would have been immediately lost/discarded if I'd been shooting in JPG.0 -
AH, shall have a look! Cheers for the tips.0
