The Night Sky is Blue !!!
Old Man
Moon rising just above the horizon with his hp 945 camera.
The result was spectacular (instant gratification via computer
USB read-out of the 5 mega-pixel image).
With 14 second exposure time (on tripod), the image showed
the sharp silhouette of trees in the foreground against a
background of Moon (over-exposed with reddish halo) , high
clouds, stars, and a pale blue sky !!! Great physics, a true
masterpiece !!!
[Old Man]
Will
Will
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:wsmdnSMUV-m...@prairiewave.com...
Old Man
news:10h60k2...@corp.supernews.com...
> Any chance you could post the pic somewhere?
>
> Will
931 KByte jpeg at
http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/hp945_030%20001.jpg
[Old Man]
Old Man
Old Man
>
> Will
931 KByte jpeg at
http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/hp945_030%20001.jpg
Here's another (616 KByte jpeg)
http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/hp945_029%20002.jpg
[Old Man]
mitch perkins
>
> 931 KByte jpeg at
>
> http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/hp945_030%20001.jpg
>
> [Old Man]
>
>
> > "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> > news:wsmdnSMUV-m...@prairiewave.com...
> > > Last night, Old man got the notion to take a picture of the
> > > Moon rising just above the horizon with his hp 945 camera.
> > > The result was spectacular (instant gratification via computer
> > > USB read-out of the 5 mega-pixel image).
> > >
> > > With 14 second exposure time (on tripod), the image showed
> > > the sharp silhouette of trees in the foreground against a
> > > background of Moon (over-exposed with reddish halo) , high
> > > clouds, stars, and a pale blue sky !!! Great physics, a true
> > > masterpiece !!!
> > >
> > > [Old Man]
You're the man, Old Man! Could you see the halo with un-aided eye?
Is it a lens flare, or was it there? It would be interesting if a
flare invisible in the viewfinder revealed itself via time exposure.
Did Old Man know that placing any double convex element in front of
camera lens can make possible *extreme* close-up photography? Said
element can be rescued from discarded photo gear, (no $$$), and
mounted in threaded filter holders. Enlarger lenses also contain
double concave, 'wide angle' elements to play with.
Great pic!
Mitch
Old Man
"mitch perkins" <mitchs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.04080...@posting.google.com...
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<1pWdnaCYq4P...@prairiewave.com>...
> >
> > 931 KByte jpeg at
> >
> > http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/hp945_030%20001.jpg
> >
> > [Old Man]
> >
> >
> > > "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> > > news:wsmdnSMUV-m...@prairiewave.com...
> > > > Last night, Old man got the notion to take a picture of the
> > > > Moon rising just above the horizon with his hp 945 camera.
> > > > The result was spectacular (instant gratification via computer
> > > > USB read-out of the 5 mega-pixel image).
> > > >
> > > > With 14 second exposure time (on tripod), the image showed
> > > > the sharp silhouette of trees in the foreground against a
> > > > background of Moon (over-exposed with reddish halo) , high
> > > > clouds, stars, and a pale blue sky !!! Great physics, a true
> > > > masterpiece !!!
> > > >
> > > > [Old Man]
>
> You're the man, Old Man! Could you see the halo with un-aided eye?
> Is it a lens flare, or was it there? It would be interesting if a
> flare invisible in the viewfinder revealed itself via time exposure.
The halo is a lens effect, not seen with unaided eye or in the
camera view finder or LCD. Note that the halo appears in
the fore-ground of the cedar tree silhouette to the right of the
Moon. The Moon's image is vastly over-exposed.
By shooting pictures close to the Sun, Old man has obtained
pictures wherein snow geese appear to be flying into a rainbow
(not with the hp 945 camera though). Here's the link:
http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/IMG_0023.JPG
> Did Old Man know that placing any double convex element in front of
> camera lens can make possible *extreme* close-up photography?
The hp 945 has an 8x optical zoom. Old Man took pictures
of the Moon at that magnification the same night. At an
exposure time of 1 / 250 second, the image is sharp without
distortion or halo. Stars aren't visible, and the sky is black.
Mundanely correct.
[Old Man]
Sam Wormley
The night sky often appears blue because of charged particles
from the sun. Other times it is ink black. It was really a bright
blue on 7 Sep 2002--I had telescopes set up... couldn't figure
out why the sky was so blue.... until I realize there was a lot
of auroral activity... the blue emission was uniform over the whole
sky, and not directly a part of the aurora to the north.
-Sam
Gregory L. Hansen
I got a cloudy night sky that was dinstinctly red. I don't know if it was
the city lights, or maybe reciprocity failing slower in the red than for
the other dyes.
--
"We don't grow up hearing stories around the camp fire anymore about
cultural figures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the
characters that today provide us a common language are corporate
creatures" -- Rebecca Tushnet
mitch perkins
> "mitch perkins" <mitchs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:64dddc3d.04080...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Is it a lens flare, or was it there? It would be interesting if a
> > flare invisible in the viewfinder revealed itself via time exposure.
>
> The halo is a lens effect, not seen with unaided eye or in the
> camera view finder or LCD. Note that the halo appears in
> the fore-ground of the cedar tree silhouette to the right of the
> Moon.
Note that I am an *idiot*.
> The Moon's image is vastly over-exposed.
>
> By shooting pictures close to the Sun, Old man has obtained
> pictures wherein snow geese appear to be flying into a rainbow
> (not with the hp 945 camera though). Here's the link:
>
> http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/IMG_0023.JPG
Amazing, and done in-camera. Nice. Which camera?
> > Did Old Man know that placing any double convex element in front of
> > camera lens can make possible *extreme* close-up photography?
>
> The hp 945 has an 8x optical zoom.
Zoom is good for making far-away big in the frame.
XCU, depending how 'fat' the double convex, how many used, and
distance from camera front lens element, can fill the frame with
1/37th of your baby finger nail, or less. Step-down rings & empty
filter rings hold (not-too-heavy), over-size elements on the camera,
in effect, creating a new lens.
> Old Man took pictures
> of the Moon at that magnification the same night. At an
> exposure time of 1 / 250 second, the image is sharp without
> distortion or halo. Stars aren't visible, and the sky is black.
If all spectra are not represented by 'white', is 'black' missing
something too? What the hell did I just write?
> Mundanely correct.
I have a Super8 camera with no shutter and part of the body cut away
to enable slowing/stopping of the motor via finger-pressure on the
cog. Light points streak vertically through the frame (no shutter).
Guess what adding a horizontal pan looks like? Link to come. Motion
picture, but very short.
Mitch
Old Man
"mitch perkins" <mitchs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64dddc3d.04080...@posting.google.com...
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:<pL2dnTlwwb5...@prairiewave.com>...
> > "mitch perkins" <mitchs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:64dddc3d.04080...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > You're the man, Old Man! Could you see the halo with un-aided eye?
> > > Is it a lens flare, or was it there? It would be interesting if a
> > > flare invisible in the viewfinder revealed itself via time exposure.
> >
> > The halo is a lens effect, not seen with unaided eye or in the
> > camera view finder or LCD. Note that the halo appears in
> > the fore-ground of the cedar tree silhouette to the right of the
> > Moon.
>
> Note that I am an *idiot*.
>
> > The Moon's image is vastly over-exposed.
> >
> > By shooting pictures close to the Sun, Old man has obtained
> > pictures wherein snow geese appear to be flying into a rainbow
> > (not with the hp 945 camera though). Here's the link:
> >
> > http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/IMG_0023.JPG
>
> Amazing, and done in-camera. Nice. Which camera?
Simons 8X binocular / camera combo. 2 Mega-pixel
CCD. As a view finder, the binocular part is excellent.
The camera focus isn't adjustable and is fixed at infinity.
Note that the power line running along the bottom of
the image isn't in focus. The "rainbow" appears in the
foreground of the power line.
The camera's color fidelity is poor which was an asset
for that particular photo (snow geese are white, not brown).
> > > Did Old Man know that placing any double convex element in front of
> > > camera lens can make possible *extreme* close-up photography?
> >
> > The hp 945 has an 8x optical zoom.
>
> Zoom is good for making far-away big in the frame.
> XCU, depending how 'fat' the double convex, how many used, and
> distance from camera front lens element, can fill the frame with
> 1/37th of your baby finger nail, or less. Step-down rings & empty
> filter rings hold (not-too-heavy), over-size elements on the camera,
> in effect, creating a new lens.
>
> > Old Man took pictures
> > of the Moon at that magnification the same night. At an
> > exposure time of 1 / 250 second, the image is sharp without
> > distortion or halo. Stars aren't visible, and the sky is black.
>
> If all spectra are not represented by 'white', is 'black' missing
> something too? What the hell did I just write?
>
> > Mundanely correct.
>
> I have a Super8 camera with no shutter and part of the body cut away
> to enable slowing/stopping of the motor via finger-pressure on the
> cog. Light points streak vertically through the frame (no shutter).
> Guess what adding a horizontal pan looks like? Link to come. Motion
> picture, but very short.
>
> Mitch
[Old Man]
Jim Deutch
wrote:
25 years ago, I was up in the Rocky Mts and took a 4 or 5 hour
exposure centered on Polaris. Nice star trails, a couple of good
meteor streaks, and a dark red-brown sky. No moon. I used slide
film, probably Fuji. Reciprocity effect definitely coming into play.
Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)
--
Barad-dūr MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or Frodo has
triumphed. -- Flame of the West
mitch perkins
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 22:29:04 -0500, "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Last night, Old man got the notion to take a picture of the
> >Moon rising just above the horizon with his hp 945 camera.
> >The result was spectacular (instant gratification via computer
> >USB read-out of the 5 mega-pixel image).
> >
> >With 14 second exposure time (on tripod), the image showed
> >the sharp silhouette of trees in the foreground against a
> >background of Moon (over-exposed with reddish halo) , high
> >clouds, stars, and a pale blue sky !!! Great physics, a true
> >masterpiece !!!
>
> 25 years ago, I was up in the Rocky Mts and took a 4 or 5 hour
> exposure centered on Polaris. Nice star trails, a couple of good
> meteor streaks, and a dark red-brown sky. No moon. I used slide
> film, probably Fuji.
Recently seen Fujifilm transit-ad tagline:
"When was the last time your photo album crashed?"
Market research in action. Random scatter may yet triumph over
binary grid. I wonder if anyone's working on a ccd that 'fires'
randomly (motion picture). Since this idea may be worth millions,
please don't refer to it outside of this international open forum.
> Reciprocity effect definitely coming into play.
Googled that, found this:
<http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e31/e31.jhtml>
Gotta love that Kodak.
Mitch
mitch perkins
> "mitch perkins" <mitchs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:64dddc3d.04080...@posting.google.com...
> > "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:<pL2dnTlwwb5...@prairiewave.com>...
> > >
> > > pictures wherein snow geese appear to be flying into a rainbow
> > > (not with the hp 945 camera though). Here's the link:
> > >
> > > http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/IMG_0023.JPG
> >
> > Amazing, and done in-camera. Nice. Which camera?
>
> Simons 8X binocular / camera combo. 2 Mega-pixel
> CCD. As a view finder, the binocular part is excellent.
> The camera focus isn't adjustable and is fixed at infinity.
You could throw some glass in front of that thing!
> Note that the power line running along the bottom of
> the image isn't in focus. The "rainbow" appears in the
> foreground of the power line.
Not sure I've seen a flare 'presented' as a rainbow before. Hmmm,
since I wouldn't have known had you not told me in *this* case...
> The camera's color fidelity is poor which was an asset
> for that particular photo (snow geese are white, not brown).
The geese were named before the advent of brown snow.
Does Old Man fool with any dgital colour correction?
Still working on those links.
Mitch
Old Man
The "color-cast" in Adobe Photo Elements is pretty neat:
just tag a pixel that's desired to be color neutral, and
it modifies the entire image accordingly. "Gamma-adjust"
and "soften" are useful, but "crop" is Old Man's most
favorite tool whenever the reduced resolution isn't
apparent. Digital zoom in a camera is just plain stupid.
Adobe's "lasso" allows one to counterfeit the background.
Old Man once seamlessly replaced a dirty overcast sky on
a rough horizon with a convincing pure blue sky. Replaced
a plywood sheet background of a confined snowy owl with
pure blue sky. Drew in a phony perch. Could have used a
plain black background, but that uses a lot of printer ink on
8.5 x 11" photo paper and never seems to dry.
before:
http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/snowowl001.jpg
after:
http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/0C_SnowOwl.jpg
Old Man would like to know how one takes or fakes a full
frame photo of an owl or bat in flight whereof they only fly
at night.
Generally, the best photographic technique is to take lots and
lots of photos of the same thing under varying settings and
conditions. Select and show only the very best, maybe only
1 in 20.
[Old Man]
mitch perkins
> In article <wsmdnSMUV-m...@prairiewave.com>,
> Old Man <nom...@nomail.net> wrote:
> >Last night, Old man got the notion to take a picture of the
> >Moon rising just above the horizon with his hp 945 camera.
> >The result was spectacular (instant gratification via computer
> >USB read-out of the 5 mega-pixel image).
> >
> >With 14 second exposure time (on tripod), the image showed
> >the sharp silhouette of trees in the foreground against a
> >background of Moon (over-exposed with reddish halo) , high
> >clouds, stars, and a pale blue sky !!! Great physics, a true
> >masterpiece !!!
>
> I got a cloudy night sky that was dinstinctly red. I don't know if it was
> the city lights, or maybe reciprocity failing slower in the red than for
> the other dyes.
Both? The night sky in the suburb where I grew up (?) is 'bruise'
red - major highway close by. Hmmm, but it's not *always* that
colour...perhaps less cloud cover = less red.
Mitch
mitch perkins
>
> The "color-cast" in Adobe Photo Elements is pretty neat:
> just tag a pixel that's desired to be color neutral, and
> it modifies the entire image accordingly. "Gamma-adjust"
> and "soften" are useful, but "crop" is Old Man's most
> favorite tool whenever the reduced resolution isn't
> apparent.
Reduced resolution results from cropped image being subsequently
enlarged to 'fill the same area' (same dpi)? I think Adobe Photoshop
solves this problem somehow. Note, however, that I am *far* from an
expert.
> Digital zoom in a camera is just plain stupid.
Analogue distortion can be beautiful - digital distortion is a bunch
of squares! No user serviceable parts inside.
> Adobe's "lasso" allows one to counterfeit the background.
> Old Man once seamlessly replaced a dirty overcast sky on
> a rough horizon with a convincing pure blue sky. Replaced
> a plywood sheet background of a confined snowy owl with
> pure blue sky. Drew in a phony perch. Could have used a
> plain black background, but that uses a lot of printer ink on
> 8.5 x 11" photo paper and never seems to dry.
>
> before:
> http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/snowowl001.jpg
>
> after:
> http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/0C_SnowOwl.jpg
A definite improvement. Can Old Man replace original background with
a 'plate' of a real sky? (Or a decadent Hollywood hillside mansion
party?)
>
> Old Man would like to know how one takes or fakes a full
> frame photo of an owl or bat in flight whereof they only fly
> at night.
Surprising them with a blinding flash would not be very nature
loving. Gradually getting them used to a well-lit home base might be
possible, though time-consuming. *Fast* film, f1.4, and the slowest
practical shutter speed. There are cameras which record images only of
moving objects. Used in aerial photography. One assumes the film
travels while being exposed. Film travel speed must approximate object
travel speed. Seems to me this would make possible short
time-exposures, but then the flapping wings would blur. Interesting
problem. Just spent 10 min. Googling without seeing a single night
shot of an owl in fight.
<http://www.batcon.org/discover/photobat.html>
> Generally, the best photographic technique is to take lots and
> lots of photos of the same thing under varying settings and
> conditions. Select and show only the very best, maybe only
> 1 in 20.
In aforementioned Googling, I came across the following ratio - 1 in
600! But that's a 'real' photographer.
Mitch