Lunar eclipse to shoot around 3am EST

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:48:49 +1000, Pete D wrote:

Not so fast, "Frank Arthur". Since when is the moon considered to
be a point of light? The moon is also fairly bright, so you
wouldn't want to use a wide aperture. Maybe f/2.8 if you're more
interested in capturing the penumbra. The TCs will also help if
they're decent quality.

Once the moon is eclipsed it is very dull, not bright at all.

Yes, and also for a total eclipse, if you're shooting in the right
location. But you seem to be flip-flopping, since it was you after
all that earlier said this and this alone :

Expose for sun lit. Moony 8 rule. Manual WB to daylight.

Which is it? Dull, not bright, eclipsed surface, or brightly lit?

Did you also miss the point that with no previous mention of stars
(only of the moon), "Frank Arthur" was speaking of points of light?
Maybe he had been listening to old G.H.W. Bush tapes. I also
mentioned the penumbra, which some people try to expose for. Does
FA have any idea what that is? Prior to looking it up of course.

Pete D wrote:

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:05:46 -0400, Frank "Paper Man" Arthur wrote:


Plus I understand using lenses at 1 or 2 stops down from their
max aperture gives sharper images - sweet spots etc. I haven't
personally tested this, but others have.

Fair enough "Troy". If you have a good quality 70-200f2.8 lens you
should get good sharp images at f2.8 Since you will only be shooting
at points of light you might gain by sticking with f2.8 and take
advantage of the faster shutter speed. The 1.4x or 2x converters may
not gain anything if you loose resolution while doing it.

Not so fast, "Frank Arthur". Since when is the moon considered to
be a point of light? The moon is also fairly bright, so you
wouldn't want to use a wide aperture. Maybe f/2.8 if you're more
interested in capturing the penumbra. The TCs will also help if
they're decent quality.



Once the moon is eclipsed it is very dull, not bright at all.

Yes, I had to shoot wide open with high ISO to avoid motion blur from
the earth rotating.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com

"Peter D" a écrit dans le message de news:
...

Only if there is no bloody cloud cover mate! No good in Perth for most of
it


In article , "cmyk"

wrote:
You can do it at a much more civilized 7:00-9:00pm in Australia, mate.


I got it in Eastern N.A.:
http://baron.phpnet.us/50-500/index....xif=Y&page=all

But low on the horizon, there was much diffraction/perturbation through the
atmosphere.
EXIFs included.

mb

On Aug 28, 4:48 pm, "Pete D" wrote:
"ASAAR" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:05:46 -0400, Frank "Paper Man" Arthur wrote:

Plus I understand using lenses at 1 or 2 stops down from their
max aperture gives sharper images - sweet spots etc. I haven't
personally tested this, but others have.

Fair enough "Troy". If you have a good quality 70-200f2.8 lens you
should get good sharp images at f2.8 Since you will only be shooting
at points of light you might gain by sticking with f2.8 and take
advantage of the faster shutter speed. The 1.4x or 2x converters may
not gain anything if you loose resolution while doing it.

Not so fast, "Frank Arthur". Since when is the moon considered to
be a point of light? The moon is also fairly bright, so you
wouldn't want to use a wide aperture. Maybe f/2.8 if you're more
interested in capturing the penumbra. The TCs will also help if
they're decent quality.

Once the moon is eclipsed it is very dull, not bright at all.

Some eclipses are darker than others. This one was dim to me because
it was close to the horizon at totality and some atmospheric
extinction from less than clear summer skies added to the dimness.

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
et...

Making money is the smallest part of my job...
:-|
I'm working on changing that though...

You do seem to have a real talent for making pictures look like art.
If more money is what you want to make while taking pictures.
Ide say that the only way that wont happen is if you do not try hard enough.
Perhaps like the actor that has to have many try outs before getting a
chance.
I wish you luck.

JSM

On Aug 28, 8:25 pm, Paul Furman wrote:
Pete D wrote:
"ASAAR" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 09:05:46 -0400, Frank "Paper Man" Arthur wrote:

Plus I understand using lenses at 1 or 2 stops down from their
max aperture gives sharper images - sweet spots etc. I haven't
personally tested this, but others have.

Fair enough "Troy". If you have a good quality 70-200f2.8 lens you
should get good sharp images at f2.8 Since you will only be shooting
at points of light you might gain by sticking with f2.8 and take
advantage of the faster shutter speed. The 1.4x or 2x converters may
not gain anything if you loose resolution while doing it.

Not so fast, "Frank Arthur". Since when is the moon considered to
be a point of light? The moon is also fairly bright, so you
wouldn't want to use a wide aperture. Maybe f/2.8 if you're more
interested in capturing the penumbra. The TCs will also help if
they're decent quality.

Once the moon is eclipsed it is very dull, not bright at all.

Yes, I had to shoot wide open with high ISO to avoid motion blur from
the earth rotating.

--
Paul Furman Photographyhttp://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nurseryhttp://www.baynatives.com

Yes, like the charts say, to avoid blurring due to Earth's rotation,
1 second max at 500mm, 1/2 second at 1000mm...
That's with 35mm film. It's even less time with a cropped sensor,
depending on how much blurring you can tolerate.

On Aug 28, 8:27 pm, "Saguenay" wrote:
"Peter D" a écrit dans le message de news:
...



Only if there is no bloody cloud cover mate! No good in Perth for most of
it


In article , "cmyk"

wrote:
You can do it at a much more civilized 7:00-9:00pm in Australia, mate.

I got it in Eastern N.A.:http://baron.phpnet.us/50-500/index....xif=Y&page=all

But low on the horizon, there was much diffraction/perturbation through the
atmosphere.
EXIFs included.

mb

A somewhat grittier image...
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/84629285

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
* RichA is quoted & my replies are inline below :
Info:

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips...2007Aug28.html

How to shoot:

http://www.mreclipse.com/LEphoto/LEphoto.html

Undriven mounts (tripods) mean exposures over 1 second at 500mm
equivalent will blur due to the motion of the Earth.

Anyone got any tips for shooting this tonight with a tripod,
70-200 f/2.8, 1.4x and 2x extenders? I read stop down to f/11 or
so. Anything else to look out for?



With a DSLR, it hardly matters. You can figure it out in a few shots, and
shoot a hundred or more of essentially the same thing before it's over!
(And I think f11 is overkill--at those distances, f 5.6 to f8 would be fine,
and maximize your lens's potential in most cases.)

--
www.mattclara.com

* Matt Clara is quoted & my replies are inline below :
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
* RichA is quoted & my replies are inline below :
Info:

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips...2007Aug28.html

How to shoot:

http://www.mreclipse.com/LEphoto/LEphoto.html

Undriven mounts (tripods) mean exposures over 1 second at 500mm
equivalent will blur due to the motion of the Earth.

Anyone got any tips for shooting this tonight with a tripod,
70-200 f/2.8, 1.4x and 2x extenders? I read stop down to f/11 or
so. Anything else to look out for?

With a DSLR, it hardly matters. You can figure it out in a few shots, and
shoot a hundred or more of essentially the same thing before it's over!
(And I think f11 is overkill--at those distances, f 5.6 to f8 would be fine,
and maximize your lens's potential in most cases.)

Thanks Matt. I did end up doing something like that. The advice
I was quoting was for "normal" moon/full moon shots IMO. Last
night it was way too dark to apply. Had to manually play with
exposures.

--
Troy Piggins

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:48:49 +1000, Pete D wrote:

Not so fast, "Frank Arthur". Since when is the moon considered to
be a point of light? The moon is also fairly bright, so you
wouldn't want to use a wide aperture. Maybe f/2.8 if you're more
interested in capturing the penumbra. The TCs will also help if
they're decent quality.

Once the moon is eclipsed it is very dull, not bright at all.

Yes, and also for a total eclipse, if you're shooting in the right
location. But you seem to be flip-flopping, since it was you after
all that earlier said this and this alone :

Expose for sun lit. Moony 8 rule. Manual WB to daylight.

Which is it? Dull, not bright, eclipsed surface, or brightly lit?

Did you also miss the point that with no previous mention of stars
(only of the moon), "Frank Arthur" was speaking of points of light?
Maybe he had been listening to old G.H.W. Bush tapes. I also
mentioned the penumbra, which some people try to expose for. Does
FA have any idea what that is? Prior to looking it up of course.


Sorry mate I forget stuff sometimes but I try and be as humble as I can when
I grovel back. Good, glad thats over. ;-)

Here is a couple I did get, missed the first bit because of an activity I
was running for some kids.

From my back veranda.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1423/...99a8788c_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1262/...a2ce2d83_o.jpg