Setting moon
mianileng
to glance out the window and noticed the color of the setting moon. I
grabbed my camera but was too tired and sleepy to set up a tripod or try out
various manual exposure settings. So I shot handheld with spot-metering
at -1 EV.
I lost the EXIF data while cropping and making slight adjustments to
contrast and brightness in bitmap with Irfanview (no noise reduction). Here
they are:
Pana FZ30
Spot focus, Spot metering (-1EV)
ISO80
f/4.0, 1/80sec
420mm equiv.
Shooting handheld half-asleep at 1/80 sec at 420mm, in low light with a
noisy P&S through thick hazy atmosphere close to the horizon is a recipe for
disaster, and the result is no better than could be expected. But at least
the hue was captured quite faithfully. Just wanted to share:
http://tinyurl.com/59e2jq
Steve
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:01:45 +0530, "mianileng"
<mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[...]
>Pana FZ30
>Spot focus, Spot metering (-1EV)
>ISO80
>f/4.0, 1/80sec
>420mm equiv.
>
>Shooting handheld half-asleep at 1/80 sec at 420mm, in low light with a
>noisy P&S through thick hazy atmosphere close to the horizon is a recipe for
I would hope that an FZ30 isn't noisy at ISO80. I don't think it is.
With 1/80 sec and 420mm equiv fl, looks like the "MEGA OIS Image
Stabilization" did it's job.
One thing though, for point of discussion, I'd classify an FZ30 as
more of a bridge camera than a P&S. It's about the same size and
weight as a small DSLR.
But nice picture.
Steve
mianileng
"Steve" <st...@example.com> wrote in message
news:kn1uh4d1maccskco6...@4ax.com...
>
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:01:45 +0530, "mianileng"
> <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>Pana FZ30
>>Spot focus, Spot metering (-1EV)
>>ISO80
>>f/4.0, 1/80sec
>>420mm equiv.
>>
>>Shooting handheld half-asleep at 1/80 sec at 420mm, in low light with a
>>noisy P&S through thick hazy atmosphere close to the horizon is a recipe
>>for
>
> I would hope that an FZ30 isn't noisy at ISO80. I don't think it is.
>
ISO400. Though I love the FZ30 for a lot of things, the infamous Panasonic
noise is terrible in low light.
> With 1/80 sec and 420mm equiv fl, looks like the "MEGA OIS Image
> Stabilization" did it's job.
>
It helps a lot. But I wouldn't have been surprised if it came out with
significantly more blur at that speed and f.l. as I wasn't even braced
against the window frame. Perhaps I happened to click at just the right
moment.
> One thing though, for point of discussion, I'd classify an FZ30 as
> more of a bridge camera than a P&S. It's about the same size and
> weight as a small DSLR.
>
Of course. I called it a P&S because those tiresome DSLR elitist would
probably lump it with all other non-DSLRs. Don't get me wrong - I'm not
anti-DSLR, just anti-DSLR-elitist-trolls.
> But nice picture.
>
Thanks.
> Steve
Steve
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:42:40 +0530, "mianileng"
<mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>"Steve" <st...@example.com> wrote in message
>news:kn1uh4d1maccskco6...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:01:45 +0530, "mianileng"
>> <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>>Pana FZ30
>>>Spot focus, Spot metering (-1EV)
>>>ISO80
>>>f/4.0, 1/80sec
>>>420mm equiv.
>>>
>>>Shooting handheld half-asleep at 1/80 sec at 420mm, in low light with a
>>>noisy P&S through thick hazy atmosphere close to the horizon is a recipe
>>>for
>>
>> I would hope that an FZ30 isn't noisy at ISO80. I don't think it is.
>>
>Not as noisy as at ISO200, but it's still not as clean as a DSLR at, say
>ISO400. Though I love the FZ30 for a lot of things, the infamous Panasonic
>noise is terrible in low light.
Yeah, but exposing for a full moon, even when it's setting, isn't
exactly what I'd consider low light. Just the fact that you're at
f/4, 1/80sec and ISO80 should be evidence of that. If you were at
f/4, 1/30, and ISO1600, now we're starting to talk low light. lol
I don't pay much attention to those bridge cameras but thanks for the
warning about the infamous Panasonic noise.
Steve
Ray Fischer
>A few days ago, when I was getting ready for bed around 4:00 am, I happened
>to glance out the window and noticed the color of the setting moon. I
>grabbed my camera but was too tired and sleepy to set up a tripod or try out
>various manual exposure settings. So I shot handheld with spot-metering
>at -1 EV.
Not that it's a bad photo, but the same result could be achieved
anytime by simply adjusting the color of any photo of the moon in your
favorite editor.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Steve
To me, that's not the same thing. There's a different type of
satisfaction in faithfully capturing a difficult image vs.
artistically creating something that didn't exist. They're both valid
things to do and be proud of when the results are nice. But one is
not the same as the other.
Steve
rwalker
<mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
All things considered, that's a pretty nice shot.
mianileng
imperfections, was worth sharing.
I've made dozens of moon shots, some of them technically better than this
one, but the circumstances made this shot a difficult one. I've also seen
shots made by others with skills and equipment far superior to mine. But
many of those come out making the moon look like a dull dead rock which, of
course it is, but it doesn't *look* like a dead rock from our world. I
usually try to capture it as it appears to us - a beautiful shining globe in
the sky.
mianileng
Ray Fischer
It would be a better photo if you can capture the moon's color and
contrast it with other parts of the scene so that the effect stands
out. With just the moon you have an off-colored moon. With the moon
setting behind trees/houses/hills you see the contrast in color and
the effect stands out.
IMO. YMMV. Etc.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
mianileng
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:492068af$0$33591$742e...@news.sonic.net...
photographing a nighttime landscape at ISO80, f/4.0 at 1/80 sec or
thereabouts. Of course, pasting the moon on another scene taken with
completely different exposure values could produce the desired composite
image, but it wouldn't be the same as trying to capture the scene as
naturally as possible. It would be an artificially created scene.
A few nights before I shot that picture, I did have the idea of taking a
shot of the moon setting behind a hill with some trees. But I forgot about
it until the moon had set completely. In any case, an exposure low enough to
show details of the moon's surface would show only parts of the tree
silhouetted directly in front of the moon and nothing else.
A shot taken at dawn when the phase of the moon is such that it is also near
the horizon should do the trick, but I'm a nightbird and I don't want to get
up that early just on the off-chance that the setting moon will be of some
unusual hue that particular morning. :-)
Ray Fischer
It's feasible, but it's not easy and may require "cheating" a bit.
> I mean
>photographing a nighttime landscape at ISO80, f/4.0 at 1/80 sec or
>thereabouts. Of course, pasting the moon on another scene taken with
>completely different exposure values could produce the desired composite
>image, but it wouldn't be the same as trying to capture the scene as
>naturally as possible. It would be an artificially created scene.
Shrug. All photos are artificial. The question is: Are you trying to
represent reality or are you trying to represent a complete fiction?
>A few nights before I shot that picture, I did have the idea of taking a
>shot of the moon setting behind a hill with some trees. But I forgot about
>it until the moon had set completely. In any case, an exposure low enough to
>show details of the moon's surface would show only parts of the tree
>silhouetted directly in front of the moon and nothing else.
Photos with moon and landscape have to be done shortly after the sun
sets while the landscape is still light enough. The alternative is to
take multiple photos and either combine them into a single
high-dynamic-range photo or take two shots and do copy & paste.
Ansel Adam's prints never looked much like his negatives. A lot of
dodging and burning went into producing the prints.
>A shot taken at dawn when the phase of the moon is such that it is also near
>the horizon should do the trick, but I'm a nightbird and I don't want to get
>up that early just on the off-chance that the setting moon will be of some
>unusual hue that particular morning. :-)
Moonrise is easier. From about 2 days before full to full moon.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
mianileng
before a photo ceases to be a photo. I've had fun altering photos, but what
I'm talking about *here* is trying to capture a natural scene with as little
post-exposure enhancement as possible.
In any case, I was not trying to show off my skills with proof of how
natural the color of the moon was. I was simply sharing what I thought was a
nice and not-too-common snapshot.
>>A few nights before I shot that picture, I did have the idea of taking a
>>shot of the moon setting behind a hill with some trees. But I forgot about
>>it until the moon had set completely. In any case, an exposure low enough
>>to
>>show details of the moon's surface would show only parts of the tree
>>silhouetted directly in front of the moon and nothing else.
>
> Photos with moon and landscape have to be done shortly after the sun
> sets while the landscape is still light enough. The alternative is to
> take multiple photos and either combine them into a single
> high-dynamic-range photo or take two shots and do copy & paste.
>
> Ansel Adam's prints never looked much like his negatives. A lot of
> dodging and burning went into producing the prints.
>
AA created art with a camera and associated processes. I have nothing
against that, but it has little to do with what I thought I did fairly well
with that shot, given the circumstances - which is capturing what the moon
looked like at that moment.
>>A shot taken at dawn when the phase of the moon is such that it is also
>>near
>>the horizon should do the trick, but I'm a nightbird and I don't want to
>>get
>>up that early just on the off-chance that the setting moon will be of some
>>unusual hue that particular morning. :-)
>
> Moonrise is easier. From about 2 days before full to full moon.
>
Agreed. Except for these: 1) That period won't come around again for the
next several weeks. 2) I live on the western side of a steep hill and the
moon is not visible until it's quite high in the sky. 3) I repeat: I was
just sharing an interesting snapshot, not trying to prove that the moon
looked like that at that particular time.
Cynicor
>>> contrast it with other parts of the scene so that the effect stands
>>> out. With just the moon you have an off-colored moon. With the moon
>>> setting behind trees/houses/hills you see the contrast in color and
>>> the effect stands out.
>>>
>>> IMO. YMMV. Etc.
>>>
>> I agree with the concept, but I wonder if it's at all feasible.
> It's feasible, but it's not easy and may require "cheating" a bit.
I kinda got the effect I wanted with this shot, although I could paste
in a darker moon.
http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/6250835_GqRDk#395393007_LmshJ
Ray Fischer
Then my question is: Why? If you're trying for scientific
measurement then your equipment is woefully uncalibrated.
If you're trying for a pleasing photo then why not be more flexible?
>In any case, I was not trying to show off my skills with proof of how
>natural the color of the moon was. I was simply sharing what I thought was a
>nice and not-too-common snapshot.
And, ulitmately, it's just a photo of the moon. Be more ... artistic.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Cynicor
Doesn't add scale?
Well, since I believe that you have to get it right IN CAMERA, what I
can do is go back out to Boulder and knock the tower over, and then
reshoot. :D
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Cynicor <truu...@opt.i.m.um.net> wrote:
>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> It would be a better photo if you can capture the moon's color and
>>>>>> contrast it with other parts of the scene so that the effect stands
>>>>>> out. With just the moon you have an off-colored moon. With the moon
>>>>>> setting behind trees/houses/hills you see the contrast in color and
>>>>>> the effect stands out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO. YMMV. Etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with the concept, but I wonder if it's at all feasible.
>>>> It's feasible, but it's not easy and may require "cheating" a bit.
>>> I kinda got the effect I wanted with this shot, although I could paste
>>> in a darker moon.
>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/6250835_GqRDk#395393007_LmshJ
>>
>> Nice, but I'd have edited out that tower next to the moon.
>
>Doesn't add scale?
Shrug. Maybe. Chalk that up to artistic differences.
>Well, since I believe that you have to get it right IN CAMERA, what I
>can do is go back out to Boulder and knock the tower over, and then
>reshoot. :D
And if you could do it closer to the winter solstice then the moon
might line up better with that arroyo.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
LarryConstance
wrote:
I agree with that it's a nice shot and shows the subtle shading and coloration
of the moon near the horizon. Something that is difficult to do properly in
editing with any degree of credibility (try it sometime, it's not as easy as
others claim). I too am an available-light fanatic, and trying to capture
in-camera the final results without further editing.
However, having said all that, you have to admit that images of the moon alone
leave much to be desired as an image worth of framing. If you want
high-resolution you can always download any number of images of the moon. The
moon has been seen by everyone long before recorded history. Even your primate
ancestors marveled at the sight of the moon to some degree. Therefore, it being
such a common object, known by all, you have to take efforts to present it in a
way that's not been seen before. (I know that wasn't your goal here, I'm only
posing these comment for future reference in your pursuit of becoming a better
photographer.)
As once explained to me, and a concept with which I wholly agree, "The purpose
of the artist is to take the mundane (the moon for example) and present it in a
way that will make people think or feel in new ways."
(Aside: this is why Ansel Adams fails as an artist, by any stretch of the
imagination. All he tried to do was not ruin an already interesting subject. The
sum-total of his works being no more than a snapshot that even a 3 year-old
could have taken with a Brownie Box camera if they were in the same place at the
same time. That's not artistic-talent, I assure you.)
While the following image is by no means something that I feel would be worthy
of printing for sale (standard stock-photography fare, make no mistake about
that), it gives you an idea of how to present a moon photo in a different
manner. This is a moon-set taken in an expansive remote area devoted to
non-motorized travelers (now considered one of this century's "Wonders of the
World"):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/3036916580_30ef4b00b2_o.jpg
The most difficult part when including a moon in a scene, to convey a mood, is
trying to not make it look like a sunset or sunrise. It's a careful balancing
act of light and hue. If printed properly this photo would convey "moon", but
due to everyone's own individual monitor adjustments, they might mistakenly
first think "sunset". However, sunlight, with the sun as high as the moon is in
this image, could not allow for the overall exposure of the silhouetted subjects
in this photo, if they really thought about it or had any experience with such
scenes in real life. Nor, as in the original high-resolution image reveals, all
the stars in the sky. Invisible in this downsized/compressed image, except for
one brighter star that outlasted those editing manipulations.
Anyway, just some ideas to throw around in your head. The moon is common and
ordinary (to everyone on earth), try to present it in a way that nobody's ever
seen before, to make them feel and think new things, if you can. Artists have
been trying this for centuries, it's not as easy as most think at first.
Paul Furman
> Cynicor <truu...@opt.i.m.um.net> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Cynicor <truu...@opt.i.m.um.net> wrote:
>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> It would be a better photo if you can capture the moon's color and
>>>>>>> contrast it with other parts of the scene so that the effect stands
>>>>>>> out. With just the moon you have an off-colored moon. With the moon
>>>>>>> setting behind trees/houses/hills you see the contrast in color and
>>>>>>> the effect stands out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO. YMMV. Etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with the concept, but I wonder if it's at all feasible.
>>>>> It's feasible, but it's not easy and may require "cheating" a bit.
>>>> I kinda got the effect I wanted with this shot, although I could paste
>>>> in a darker moon.
>>>> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/6250835_GqRDk#395393007_LmshJ
I like it :-) the tower works for me.
>>> Nice, but I'd have edited out that tower next to the moon.
>> Doesn't add scale?
>
> Shrug. Maybe. Chalk that up to artistic differences.
>
>> Well, since I believe that you have to get it right IN CAMERA, what I
>> can do is go back out to Boulder and knock the tower over, and then
>> reshoot. :D
Here's another real scene with some photoshop fakery to make it work
technically: http://edgehill.net/Misc/moon
-stitched together from two different shots of the same scene focused at
different distances.
> And if you could do it closer to the winter solstice then the moon
> might line up better with that arroyo.
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam