moonlight technique question
John H. E. Fiskio-Lasseter
wondering about something. It's a shot of the Ruth Gorge in Denali
Park, under the light of a full moon, which includes the moon itself.
Both moon and mountains are perfectly exposed: the light on the
snow-covered mountains is exactly the blue that I see in real life, with
a great deal of detail apparent in the photo. Morever, there is a lot
of detail in the moon's face itself.
This shot seems impossible to me. The exposure necessary to get the
details of the mountains should have rendered the moon as a fuzzy white
blob. Yet Rowell is a fairly outspoken opponent of digital altering of
pictures, so I'm assuming that the picture must be genuine.
Has anyone here ever successfully shot a picture like this? Any idea how
such a picture could be done? How big would you guess the exposure
range to be here (judging from the composition, he *might* have used a
split-ND filter, if one exists with this much range)? Actually, I
couldn't even begin to guess at the exposure necessary for such a shot.
For argument's sake, let's say we use 100-speed transparency film with
aperture at f/22. What do you think exposure should be?
Thanks,
-- John
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wit, an' it be thy will, put me into good fooling. Those wits
who think they have thee do very oft prove fools, while I, who
am sure I lack thee, may yet pass for a wise man. For what
says Quinapalus -- "Better a witty fool than a foolish wit".
_Twelfth Night_
--------------------------------------------------------------
Logan McMinn
the day, either just after sunset or possibly before, while the sun was
obscured by clouds. Still plenty of light from the sun to illuminate the
gorge, but not so dark the moon burned out. I really doubt that the moon
was the principal source of illumination. The shadows, or lack thereof,
should provide a clue.
In article <379628...@cs.uoregon.edu>, "John H. E. Fiskio-Lasseter"
Paul Skelcher
>>> Both moon and mountains are perfectly exposed: the light on the
>>> snow-covered mountains is exactly the blue that I see in real life, with
>>> a great deal of detail apparent in the photo. Morever, there is a lot
>>> of detail in the moon's face itself.
>Double exposure?
Matrix metering and fill flash?
Ken Smith
wrote:
Capt. Ahab
hard-line- neutral density filters. He may have set the shot up so that the
moon was obscured by a corner of a ND filter or something similar.
Just a thought.
You can check out his signature ND's at his website - www.mountainlight.com
Erich
John H. E. Fiskio-Lasseter wrote in message
<379628...@cs.uoregon.edu>...
>I saw a picture by Galen Rowell yesterday that really got me to
>wondering about something. >
>This shot seems impossible to me.
> Yet Rowell is a fairly outspoken opponent of digital altering of
>pictures, so I'm assuming that the picture must be genuine.
David Meiland
the mountains before the moon comes up, leave the camera in place, and
then get a much shorter exposure of the full moon when it's in the
spot you want.
"John H. E. Fiskio-Lasseter" <joh...@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>I saw a picture by Galen Rowell yesterday that really got me to
>wondering about something. It's a shot of the Ruth Gorge in Denali
>Park, under the light of a full moon, which includes the moon itself.
>Both moon and mountains are perfectly exposed: the light on the
>snow-covered mountains is exactly the blue that I see in real life, with
>a great deal of detail apparent in the photo. Morever, there is a lot
>of detail in the moon's face itself.
>
>This shot seems impossible to me. The exposure necessary to get the
>details of the mountains should have rendered the moon as a fuzzy white
>blob. Yet Rowell is a fairly outspoken opponent of digital altering of
>pictures, so I'm assuming that the picture must be genuine.
>
>Has anyone here ever successfully shot a picture like this? Any idea how
>such a picture could be done? How big would you guess the exposure
>range to be here (judging from the composition, he *might* have used a
>split-ND filter, if one exists with this much range)? Actually, I
>couldn't even begin to guess at the exposure necessary for such a shot.
>For argument's sake, let's say we use 100-speed transparency film with
>aperture at f/22. What do you think exposure should be?
>
>Thanks,
>-- John
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Wit, an' it be thy will, put me into good fooling. Those wits
>who think they have thee do very oft prove fools, while I, who
>am sure I lack thee, may yet pass for a wise man. For what
>says Quinapalus -- "Better a witty fool than a foolish wit".
> _Twelfth Night_
>--------------------------------------------------------------
---
David Meiland
Oakland, CA
**Check the reply address before sending mail
KevinONeil
the sunset and moonrise coincide. There are charts and computer programs that
will tell you this info (and I commonly use them for this reason).
I know Rowell has mentioned this several times in his writings and books that
he has purposely "set-up" those situations when shooting.
I don't know which image you are referring to. If it is on-line can you give
us a URL?
The use of a split-ND in this exact situation (i.e., moonrise and sunset
coincide) probably would help. However, in other mountain/moon situations, the
difference in the range of light or contrast would be more than the 2 or three
stops the split-ND was meant to handle.
I agree a multiple exposure is another wy to get this shoot.
Kevin...@AOL.Com
Nature Images and Articles on Techniques at:
http://members.aol.com/kevinoneil
Michael DeKelver
to your landscape lens and keep the moon in the sky where you exposed it
previously. You get that "wow is that moon ever big" effect.
KevinONeil wrote in message
<19990722060035...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
Logan McMinn
"Canada" gallery, there is a photo labeled "AA012, Vermilion Lakes,
Canadian Rockies," which similar to the one you describe. It looks to me
like a pretty straightforward, single-exposure photo, in which he waited
for a great combination of light, clouds and time of day and then made his
exposure. There doesn't seem to be anything mysterious about the shot,
except for "How does he find these great scenes?" Is it comparable to the
one you saw?
In article <379628...@cs.uoregon.edu>, "John H. E. Fiskio-Lasseter"
John H. E. Fiskio-Lasseter
>
> With careful planning and research, you can determine those situations where
> the sunset and moonrise coincide. There are charts and computer programs that
> will tell you this info (and I commonly use them for this reason).
>
> I know Rowell has mentioned this several times in his writings and books that
> he has purposely "set-up" those situations when shooting.
That's a good thought, but I guess I don't see how this could be it.
The shadows are too strong, and the lighted areas are too blue. What's
more the angle of the moon looks about right relative to the angle of
the shadows. To be honest, though, I don't really know much about this
kind of light.
> I don't know which image you are referring to. If it is on-line can you give
> us a URL?
I wish I knew of one. I found the image in a Sunset magazine coffee
table book on the western national parks, published some time in the
late 80's. His web site lists a work with the title "Evening over the
Ruth Gorge, Denali Park" (AA #202), which might be it, but it doesn't
look like he has an image available on the net.
I actually sent a mail message to Galen Rowell himself. If I hear from
him, I'll be sure to share the answer (as long as he's okay with that,
of course).
> The use of a split-ND in this exact situation (i.e., moonrise and sunset
> coincide) probably would help. However, in other mountain/moon situations, the
> difference in the range of light or contrast would be more than the 2 or three
> stops the split-ND was meant to handle.
I agree. There must have been about 5 stops of lighting difference
between moon and mountains (I really wish I could point y'all to the
picture!), yet the moon has plenty of detail. Is it possible to stack
ND filters?
> I agree a multiple exposure is another wy to get this shoot.
I think I was inclined to rule this out, though, because Rowell seems to
be rather purist about manipulating pictures. I don't know him, of
course, so maybe my prejudice here is unfounded.
One other thing about the picture that I did notice: there are no stars
visible anywhere in the sky. Under ordinary night lighting, the
exposure time necessary to get the mountains (I'm guessing a minute or
three) should have rendered some star trails in the picture. This
supports both the heavy-filter and sunset/moonrise hypotheses.
I know absolutely nothing about double exposure technique, but I'm
guessing that he couldn't have eliminated the stars in this way.
John H. E. Fiskio-Lasseter
>
> I went to Galen Rowell's site at http.www.mountainlight.com, and in his
> "Canada" gallery, there is a photo labeled "AA012, Vermilion Lakes,
> Canadian Rockies," which similar to the one you describe. It looks to me
> like a pretty straightforward, single-exposure photo, in which he waited
> for a great combination of light, clouds and time of day and then made his
> exposure. There doesn't seem to be anything mysterious about the shot,
> except for "How does he find these great scenes?" Is it comparable to the
> one you saw?
Well, it does have the included moon in common, but the color is
completely different. The Vermillion Lakes picture is colored by a
lovely pastel dawn-light orange, and it appears that there was a bit
more ambient light. The Ruth Gorge shot is entirely in moonlightish
shades of blue, with very deep shadows.
Is it possible that I'm way overestimating the exposure time you'd need
to get full moonlight on snow?
Tweek
technique?
John H. E. Fiskio-Lasseter <joh...@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote in message
news:379751...@cs.uoregon.edu...
Bill Welch
I recently attended one of Galen's seminars in his studio, and I can assure
you that a double exposure would violate his personal ethics. In fact, he
spent some time on one slide of a moonrise (don't know if it's the one
you're talking about) pointing out how he was particular about getting a
part of the mountain in front of the moon so that no one would think that
particular photograph was a double exposure.
He will digitally change an image to do things like defocus grain or
digitally repair a damaged spot on the film, but his personal ethics require
that the print of an image faithfully represent the image as it appeared on
film or in real life. A double exposure or digital manipulation that
accomplished the same thing would be out of the question.
> One other thing about the picture that I did notice: there are no stars
> visible anywhere in the sky. Under ordinary night lighting, the
> exposure time necessary to get the mountains (I'm guessing a minute or
> three) should have rendered some star trails in the picture. This
> supports both the heavy-filter and sunset/moonrise hypotheses.
>
> I know absolutely nothing about double exposure technique, but I'm
> guessing that he couldn't have eliminated the stars in this way.
>
> -- John
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Wit, an' it be thy will, put me into good fooling. Those wits
> who think they have thee do very oft prove fools, while I, who
> am sure I lack thee, may yet pass for a wise man. For what
> says Quinapalus -- "Better a witty fool than a foolish wit".
> _Twelfth Night_
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Welch
Bill Rea
:
: Is it possible that I'm way overestimating the exposure time you'd need
: to get full moonlight on snow?
If you are seeing detail in the moon, then it must have been a
relatively fast shutter speed. The moon moves quite quickly.
A full moon is about half a degree wide. It moves at approximately
one degree per four minutes, so it moves its own diameter in two
minutes.
I've seen photographs by other photographers of a similar nature,
but the moon was clearly burnt out. The full moon is an excellent
18% grey card, so you can apply the "sunny f16 rule". Being
low in the atmosphere will cause it to be dimmer than overhead.
>For argument's sake, let's say we use 100-speed transparency film with
>aperture at f/22. What do you think exposure should be?
For an overhead moon under these conditions you'd probably want 1/60
second. On the horizon I would try 1/8, 1/15 and 1/30 (i.e. bracket).
This isn't going to give you much moonlight on the mountains.
>Both moon and mountains are perfectly exposed: the light on the
>snow-covered mountains is exactly the blue that I see in real life, with
>a great deal of detail apparent in the photo. Morever, there is a lot
>of detail in the moon's face itself.
Don't trust your eyes to tell you that the blue is what you see in real
life. No film has the spectral sensitivity of the human eye.
Now I must say that I've never been to Alaska (I think that's where
Denali NP is, correct me if I'm wrong) but my Dad said that when he lived
up in Fairbanks in the 1940's that in the summer the sun only went below
the horizon for 15 minutes on the longest day. That means it never
even got close to being dark. So a lot of that blue light may be from
the sky. Do you know what time of year he took this photograph?
-
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail b dot rea at its dot canterbury dot ac dot nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'