A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Warning do not use Lee solar filters



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 18th 17, 07:01 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default Warning do not use Lee solar filters

Savageduck:
At this point I would defer any advice on this matter to our resident
stargazer, Davoud.


Davoud:
OMG, the pressure is on! I have bought many pairs of safe solar glasses
from https://www.rainbowsymphony.com. It might be a bit late to get
them, however. I haven't shopped locally, but it must be possible to
buy them from Target or CVS or the like. Try to look for made in USA. I
bought 200 pair about six months ago; donated 100 pair to the local
community college for their public event, distributed another 50 pair
to various people, and I'm taking 50 pair with me to our observing site
in Tennessee for those who might arrive unprepared.


Savageduck:
What I am waiting for are the reports on phone cameras damaged when taking
solar selfies.


Tony Cooper:
There will surely be some claims that iPhones are less subject to
damage photographing eclipse than Android phones.


Either would be suitable. I have successfully photographed the Sun with
my iPhone without a filter on a number of occasions, most recently
about 10 minutes ago for this post
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/36257163480.

Based on that I would think that a smartphone would be well suited to
photographing from a few seconds before totality to a few seconds
afterward.

I do *NOT* recommend this, but it is possible and safe to photograph
the Sun with an unfiltered camera. With a DSLR I position the camera on
a tripod with a piece of aluminum foil over the lens, remove the foil,
snap the shutter, and replace the foil. I've been doing this with film
and digital SLRs since the late 60's; I haven't *yet* burned a hole in
the back of a camera. Requires low ISO, smallish aperture,
pre-focusing, and fast shutter speed. I seem to recall this was called
the "hat trick."

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #22  
Old August 18th 17, 08:47 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
newshound
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 458
Default Warning do not use Lee solar filters

On 8/18/2017 6:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 18, 2017, newshound wrote
(in articlemOqdnWB0B5ASgQrEnZ2dnUU78UHNnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk):

On 8/18/2017 2:32 AM, PeterN wrote:
Amazon is giving refunds to all purchasers of Lee Solar filters. Under
this recall you do not have to return the filters. While there is some
confusion about this, I think it best not to use the Lee filter, unless
you want to risk damaging your eyes, and/or your sensor.



https://petapixel.com/2017/08/14/ama...clipse-filter-
buyers-warning-use/

I recall going to school in 1959 with a piece of fogged 120 negative.


So how is that macular degeneration working out for you?

No sign yet. Dare I say it, I think people were more sensible in those
days. There were warnings on the radio and TV, and people would heed
them. I didn't have a telescope or a camera, but I knew how to project,
if I had had a telescope. The eye has a pretty good "avert" reflex. If
you close your eyes and then open them carefully behind a sufficiently
dense negative, there isn't really any risk. And of course, no-one would
think of sueing over bad advice.
  #23  
Old August 18th 17, 09:27 PM posted to alt.photography, rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Warning do not use Lee solar filters

On Aug 18, 2017, newshound wrote
(in articleKNOdnZmEOcve2QrEnZ2dnUU78SfNnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk):

On 8/18/2017 6:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 18, 2017, newshound wrote
(in articlemOqdnWB0B5ASgQrEnZ2dnUU78UHNnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk):

On 8/18/2017 2:32 AM, PeterN wrote:
Amazon is giving refunds to all purchasers of Lee Solar filters. Under
this recall you do not have to return the filters. While there is some
confusion about this, I think it best not to use the Lee filter, unless
you want to risk damaging your eyes, and/or your sensor.



https://petapixel.com/2017/08/14/ama...-eclipse-filte
r-
buyers-warning-use/
I recall going to school in 1959 with a piece of fogged 120 negative.


So how is that macular degeneration working out for you?

No sign yet. Dare I say it, I think people were more sensible in those
days. There were warnings on the radio and TV, and people would heed
them. I didn't have a telescope or a camera, but I knew how to project,
if I had had a telescope. The eye has a pretty good "avert" reflex. If
you close your eyes and then open them carefully behind a sufficiently
dense negative, there isn't really any risk. And of course, no-one would
think of sueing over bad advice.


In my school days (50’s & 60’s) we used the pinhole projection method.
We had a class explaining both solar and lunar eclipses. We were warned about
potential vision damage, and we still experienced all the eclipses total, and
partial we were exposed to back then, without looking at the Sun.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #24  
Old August 18th 17, 11:07 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Warning do not use Lee solar filters

On 08/18/2017 11:56 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/18/2017 10:42 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 18, 2017, Davoud wrote
(in article ):

Savageduck:
At this point I would defer any advice on this matter to our resident
stargazer, Davoud.

OMG, the pressure is on! I have bought many pairs of safe solar glasses
from https://www.rainbowsymphony.com. It might be a bit late to get
them, however. I haven't shopped locally, but it must be possible to
buy them from Target or CVS or the like. Try to look for made in USA. I
bought 200 pair about six months ago; donated 100 pair to the local
community college for their public event, distributed another 50 pair
to various people, and I'm taking 50 pair with me to our observing site
in Tennessee for those who might arrive unprepared.


What I am waiting for are the reports on phone cameras damaged when
taking
solar selfies.


I will bet that many will use the flash

I would think you would need more than one flash. Remember, the light
diminishes as the square of the distance, so in order to illuminate an
object 238,900 miles away (the moon, that is), you would need at least
three or four strobes. Powered by a flux-capacitor from a DeLorean.


--
Ken Hart

  #25  
Old August 18th 17, 11:29 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default Warning do not use Lee solar filters

Ken Hart:
I would think you would need more than one flash. Remember, the light
diminishes as the square of the distance...


Right. But you won't need a flash at all to photograph details on the
near side. The geometry will be such that the near side will be fully
illuminated by reflected earthlight. My imaging partner plans to
photograph the Moon in that fashion, no doubt overexposing the solar
corona by a certain amount. Should be a beautiful photo.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #26  
Old August 18th 17, 11:30 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Warning do not use Lee solar filters

On 8/18/2017 4:27 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 18, 2017, newshound wrote
(in articleKNOdnZmEOcve2QrEnZ2dnUU78SfNnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk):

On 8/18/2017 6:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 18, 2017, newshound wrote
(in articlemOqdnWB0B5ASgQrEnZ2dnUU78UHNnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk):

On 8/18/2017 2:32 AM, PeterN wrote:
Amazon is giving refunds to all purchasers of Lee Solar filters. Under
this recall you do not have to return the filters. While there is some
confusion about this, I think it best not to use the Lee filter, unless
you want to risk damaging your eyes, and/or your sensor.



https://petapixel.com/2017/08/14/ama...-eclipse-filte
r-
buyers-warning-use/
I recall going to school in 1959 with a piece of fogged 120 negative.

So how is that macular degeneration working out for you?

No sign yet. Dare I say it, I think people were more sensible in those
days. There were warnings on the radio and TV, and people would heed
them. I didn't have a telescope or a camera, but I knew how to project,
if I had had a telescope. The eye has a pretty good "avert" reflex. If
you close your eyes and then open them carefully behind a sufficiently
dense negative, there isn't really any risk. And of course, no-one would
think of sueing over bad advice.


In my school days (50’s & 60’s) we used the pinhole projection method.
We had a class explaining both solar and lunar eclipses. We were warned about
potential vision damage, and we still experienced all the eclipses total, and
partial we were exposed to back then, without looking at the Sun.



I have a DIY pinhole lens?. Just drilled a small hole in a body cap.



--
PeterN
  #27  
Old August 18th 17, 11:40 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Warning do not use Lee solar filters

On 8/18/2017 6:29 PM, Davoud wrote:
Ken Hart:
I would think you would need more than one flash. Remember, the light
diminishes as the square of the distance...


Right. But you won't need a flash at all to photograph details on the
near side. The geometry will be such that the near side will be fully
illuminated by reflected earthlight. My imaging partner plans to
photograph the Moon in that fashion, no doubt overexposing the solar
corona by a certain amount. Should be a beautiful photo.


Indeed. The concept sounds neat. Depending on the length of the
exposure, HDR might work.
For long exposures of sunsets,or sunrises, I have placed my hand, or
other opaque object, near the top of the lens to hold back exposure in
that area. Your shooting partner might want to try cutting a hold in the
cardboard. It works something like a graduated filter, but I don't have
the drawback of an extra surface.

--
PeterN
  #28  
Old August 18th 17, 11:47 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default Warning do not use Lee solar filters

newshound:
I recall going to school in 1959 with a piece of fogged 120 negative.


OK, but it has to be more than "fogged." It has to be saturated black.
And it must have a silver emulsion, not some new-fangled compound.

Savageduck:
So how is that macular degeneration working out for you?


As one who has macular degeneration and who is well briefed on the
subject, I can tell you that the disease is not caused by looking at
the Sun.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about when one can look without
filters during the eclipse. The problem isn't during most of the
partial phase; nobody can look at the Sun long enough to damage there
eyes. The danger arises when the eclipse is near totality, but not
quite there. At that point it might be possible to feel comfortable
looking at the Sun for a bit. But the infrared radiation is nearly
certain to cause eye damage.

The smart thing to do, I think, is to consult this NASA map
https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/d...tive_map/index.
html?zoom=1. Zoom in and click on your location and get the
parameters. Have a watch set to the correct time and don't remove your
filter or glasses until a few seconds into totality. Replace a few
seconds before totality ends. If you're off by a second or two there
will be no harm done if you look away immediately when you see a bright
spot appear on the Moon's limb.

Of course, if you are not in the totality zone then you must not remove
your filter or glasses at any time.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #29  
Old August 18th 17, 11:54 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default Warning do not use Lee solar filters

Davoud:
Right. But you won't need a flash at all to photograph details on the
near side. The geometry will be such that the near side will be fully
illuminated by reflected earthlight. My imaging partner plans to
photograph the Moon in that fashion, no doubt overexposing the solar
corona by a certain amount. Should be a beautiful photo.


PeterN:
Indeed. The concept sounds neat. Depending on the length of the
exposure, HDR might work.
For long exposures of sunsets,or sunrises, I have placed my hand, or
other opaque object, near the top of the lens to hold back exposure in
that area. Your shooting partner might want to try cutting a hold in the
cardboard. It works something like a graduated filter, but I don't have
the drawback of an extra surface.


Believe me when I tell you that with ~2-1/2 minutes of totality there
will not be time to experiment with cardboard. Doesn't matter; a nicely
exposed corona, if desired, can be added in post, when there will be
time to play.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #30  
Old August 19th 17, 12:08 AM posted to alt.photography, rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Warning do not use Lee solar filters

On Aug 18, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/18/2017 4:27 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 18, 2017, newshound wrote
(in articleKNOdnZmEOcve2QrEnZ2dnUU78SfNnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk):

On 8/18/2017 6:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 18, 2017, newshound wrote
(in articlemOqdnWB0B5ASgQrEnZ2dnUU78UHNnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk):

On 8/18/2017 2:32 AM, PeterN wrote:
Amazon is giving refunds to all purchasers of Lee Solar filters. Under
this recall you do not have to return the filters. While there is some
confusion about this, I think it best not to use the Lee filter, unless
you want to risk damaging your eyes, and/or your sensor.



https://petapixel.com/2017/08/14/ama...ar-eclipse-fil
te
r-
buyers-warning-use/
I recall going to school in 1959 with a piece of fogged 120 negative.

So how is that macular degeneration working out for you?
No sign yet. Dare I say it, I think people were more sensible in those
days. There were warnings on the radio and TV, and people would heed
them. I didn't have a telescope or a camera, but I knew how to project,
if I had had a telescope. The eye has a pretty good "avert" reflex. If
you close your eyes and then open them carefully behind a sufficiently
dense negative, there isn't really any risk. And of course, no-one would
think of sueing over bad advice.


In my school days (50’s & 60’s) we used the pinhole projection method.
We had a class explaining both solar and lunar eclipses. We were warned
about
potential vision damage, and we still experienced all the eclipses total,
and
partial we were exposed to back then, without looking at the Sun.


I have a DIY pinhole lens?. Just drilled a small hole in a body cap.


Naah! Just take a piece of card, or paper, prick a hole with a needle, pin,
awl or other appropriate tool.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My first solar eclipse mianileng Digital Photography 9 July 29th 09 11:45 PM
An image of the solar eclipse Mike Henley Digital Photography 3 April 1st 06 12:02 AM
20D GOES SOLAR !!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 19 November 19th 04 04:52 PM
20D GOES SOLAR !!! Annika1980 35mm Photo Equipment 9 November 6th 04 10:54 AM
Canon G5 + solar Charger joe bloggs Digital Photography 4 July 28th 04 04:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.