Eclipse

"R.Schenck" wrote in message ...
I'm planning on taking some pics of the eclipse thats occuring tonight. I
have a tripod and a pentax k1000 with a 50mm 1:2 lens. I 've never taken a
photo of the sky at night at all. I think I will be able to get some
decent pics of it. I have 800 spd kodak film in my camera right now, I was
thinking of getting some 100 speed kodak film too prior to doing this,
however I've heard that positive film is good for night sky photos too,
anyone think it'd be worth the effort of picking it up instead or color
negative film? I think that I've seen something called 'superchrome' or
something like that, never shot with any postive film before. I guess I'll
only be getting slides from that tho, no light table maybe there's an old
projector around here somewhere, so maybe thats not really worth it.


I hope you were able to get something good. Unfortunately, it doesn't
look like anybody responded before the eclipse.

The lens would probably be your biggest frustration since it would
mean serious enlarging to get a nice image. If you went for some nice
foreground/context shots; that would be really nice. In my location,
that was impossible. We were looking over a valley, so nothing
anywhere near the moon.

I shot with both print and slide film. Also my digital point and
shoot. Next eclipse is 2007, so I figured i would try everything I
could

I can't wait to get my film back. My digital photos are pretty cool,
though with a shorter lens (380mm vs 1120mm and 1400mm with my long
lenses and teleconverters). It did help to see the results via the
digital camera and see what worked best. I also had a chart from a
website mentioned here that gave setting suggestions for the various
stages of the eclipse.


I don't have a 'remote trigger' or whatever for my camera either.

So this might prove interesting, anyone can think of a particular tip? I'm
planning on dropping the shutter speed down pretty low and, as i've heard,
'bracketing the hell out of it'. Whats the deal with the 'B' setting tho?

The remote/cable release is the easiest way. I did some longer shutter
speeds during the totality phase, between 30 seconds and a minute. My
digital could only go up to 30 seconds with no bulb feature, so I
couldn't do it longer with that camera.

Bracketing is a great idea. I bracketed each time I did photos.
Usually 5 or 6 photos in the series. One, to make sure I got something
good, but also to get different effects. When I was shooting with the
digital, I could change the settings and get completely different
results. A faster shutter speed resulted in the moon crescent that was
bright, while a slower shutter speed showed the rest of the moon as
well, in shadow, and with the orange and red colors.

B is the bulb setting that allows you to do whatever time you want.
You really need a cable or remote release for that one since you need
to start and stop the exposure, and you really don't want to bump the
camera. Most releases will have a lock that allows you to let go until
you want to stop it. Much easier than standing there holding it. Most
cameras do not have programmed times longer than 30 seconds, so if you
want to do a setting longer than your camera has on the dial, then you
will need a release. And really, if you plan to do anything longer
1/30, you really should be using a cable release. It will help you
press the shutter without producing camera motion. Even a tiny bump
can cause a blurry image.

In article ,
R.Schenck wrote:
Just got back from shooting it.I used part of an 800 spd and a roll of 400
spd kodak, I jumped around with the times from 125 down to 1 and all around
inbetween with different apetures throughout. Maybe not the most
systematic way to go about it, but I figure that way I'll at least get some
decent shots.

As the Moon is illuminated by sunlight, one stop under Sunny f/16 is a good
rule of thumb for exposing the (uneclipsed) Moon.

Near totality, you'll need a longer exposure if you want to cature the deep
red part. This will blow the white part out, however. This suggests that,
for detail in the white area, you'd ideally want to bracket around 1/1500,
f/8 with 800 ISO film.

S Lee wrote:

rob choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell out:

We've got solid cloud cover here, can't see anything

Same where I am. Maybe the back half will be better though.

We had clear skies in Pittsburgh. I got this shot around 11:15
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/red_moon.jpg

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

(Mark=A0Roberts) wrote:
We had clear skies in Pittsburgh. I got this shot around 11:15
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/red_moon.jpg
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Nice shot. What lens did you use? Film or digital?



Cody,

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

Jerry L. wrote:

Why waste your film? A 50mm lens will give you a 'dot' for the
moon...if you had something in the range of 1000mm reflex (mirror)

You can take telephot shots or a series of shots (multiple exposure) during
different phases to capture the sequence. A 50mm is appropriate to such an
exposure.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message
...
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/...ex.html#041027

I also took film pictures. The digital camera made a fine exposre meter
for the film one!

Great moon pics. All cloudy/foggy in NC, I couldn't even tell there was a
moon out.

Do you have any additional info on CASPR? You can unmunge my email address
by removing nospam. Thanks.

Jim Kramer

Ehhhhhhhh!


30 seconds and longer? If you had a telescope mount that rotates
along with the Earth, you will have a nice streak in the sky (when
your film returns....)


The moon is reflected sunlight: most exposures on a tripod longer
than 1/15th of a second generally make for a moving moon.
= = =
SNIP
I shot with both print and slide film. Also my digital point and
shoot. Next eclipse is 2007, so I figured i would try everything I
could

I can't wait to get my film back. My digital photos are pretty cool,
though with a shorter lens (380mm vs 1120mm and 1400mm with my long
lenses and teleconverters). It did help to see the results via the
digital camera and see what worked best. I also had a chart from a
website mentioned here that gave setting suggestions for the various
stages of the eclipse.


I don't have a 'remote trigger' or whatever for my camera either.

So this might prove interesting, anyone can think of a particular tip? I'm
planning on dropping the shutter speed down pretty low and, as i've heard,
'bracketing the hell out of it'. Whats the deal with the 'B' setting tho?

The remote/cable release is the easiest way. I did some longer shutter
speeds during the totality phase, between 30 seconds and a minute. My
digital could only go up to 30 seconds with no bulb feature, so I
couldn't do it longer with that camera.

Bracketing is a great idea. I bracketed each time I did photos.
Usually 5 or 6 photos in the series. One, to make sure I got something
good, but also to get different effects. When I was shooting with the
digital, I could change the settings and get completely different
results. A faster shutter speed resulted in the moon crescent that was
bright, while a slower shutter speed showed the rest of the moon as
well, in shadow, and with the orange and red colors.

B is the bulb setting that allows you to do whatever time you want.
You really need a cable or remote release for that one since you need
to start and stop the exposure, and you really don't want to bump the
camera. Most releases will have a lock that allows you to let go until
you want to stop it. Much easier than standing there holding it. Most
cameras do not have programmed times longer than 30 seconds, so if you
want to do a setting longer than your camera has on the dial, then you
will need a release. And really, if you plan to do anything longer
1/30, you really should be using a cable release. It will help you
press the shutter without producing camera motion. Even a tiny bump
can cause a blurry image.

(Jerry L.) wrote in message om...
Ehhhhhhhh!


30 seconds and longer? If you had a telescope mount that rotates
along with the Earth, you will have a nice streak in the sky (when
your film returns....)


The moon is reflected sunlight: most exposures on a tripod longer
than 1/15th of a second generally make for a moving moon.


Yes, I am aware of the reflected sunlight, and the vast majority of my
shoot was at much faster speeds, but for detail in the totality stage,
it does call for slower speeds, and ther light is filtered, not
directly reflected. So, for 800 speed film and f/16 (the best I could
do with 1400mm) and an L-2 for totality, the chart suggested 30
seconds. For L-1, it suggested 2 min. My view of the moon ranged
between these two levels at totality. In fact, it was so dark grey at
one point that it took me several minutes to find the moon in my
viewer again. I don't have a finder scope, and it was just too dark to
see easily.


I saw some very cool shots taken with the star trail method, though
most of those were done over more than an hour.

I had a few shots where a plane flew by. In one case, the plane flew
across the center of the moon. I'm hoping it makes a nice streak
across the orange moon.

Personally, I would rather experiment and have a variety of shots,
even some that may not be so great. Better to play around and get some
interesting images than wait til March of 2007, wishing I had tried
more.

I did a lot of variety. I also took shots with 1/500 at the same time
in the eclipse, and in between. But I really don't know what would
work best. My digital pics were pretty interesting. It was much harder
to shoot since my digital couldn't find the moon at all in the
viewfinder (way too dark). So I had to aim in the general direction
and take the shot, then wait to see if the moon was actually within
that field of view. At complete totality, it was impossible to get
anything with less than 2 seconds. Obviously, my film camera would do
better since I was usig 800 speed film, but for the digital, that was
the best I could do. I did get a cool shot with it at 16 seconds. Not
sharp, but a bright orange glow. My favorite digital shots were at
1/250 at about 1/4 coverage, 1/2 second at about half coverage, and 1
second at almost 0 coverage at the end (I got a really glowing moon
with a reflection).

Anyway, I had a great time, loved my digital results, and I'm looking
forward to getting my film back. If half it is garbage, I really don't
care. I'd rather "waste" some film than sit around wishing I had tried
more.

(Jerry L.) wrote in message om...
Why waste your film? A 50mm lens will give you a 'dot' for the
moon...if you had something in the range of 1000mm reflex (mirror)
lens, you might get one or two good frames.

Why so negative?

A 50mm lens can do a nice context image with the right scenic
backdrop. Or a lovely multiple exposure. I saw several on a website
that were obviously done with shorter lenses, and they were very cool.

Also, you don't have to have a 1000mm lens to get something decent.
Yes, it does take more enlarging to fill the frame, but you don't have
to fill the frame, and it certainly isn't the end of the world.

My digital maxed out at 420mm, and I got some nice photos. I expect
better with my film cameras. I used a 400mm, an 1100mm combo, and a
1400mm combo. The two combos were 400mm and 500mm lenses used with 2x
and 1.4x teleconverters (canon brand, not the cheapos).

While we want to use the longest lenses we can, it certainly isn't the
only method. it's not wasting film, and more than a few good images
can be taken with 1000mm or less. I have over 40 digital pics that I
am really happy with, and while they may not fill the frame, they will
certainly work well together as a multiple exposure, once edited
together. And I have all the individual pics as well.

"Meghan Noecker" wrote in message
om...
(Jerry L.) wrote in message
om...
Why waste your film? A 50mm lens will give you a 'dot' for the
moon...if you had something in the range of 1000mm reflex (mirror)
lens, you might get one or two good frames.

Why so negative?

A 50mm lens can do a nice context image with the right scenic
backdrop. Or a lovely multiple exposure. I saw several on a website
that were obviously done with shorter lenses, and they were very cool.

Also, you don't have to have a 1000mm lens to get something decent.
Yes, it does take more enlarging to fill the frame, but you don't have
to fill the frame, and it certainly isn't the end of the world.

My digital maxed out at 420mm, and I got some nice photos. I expect
better with my film cameras. I used a 400mm, an 1100mm combo, and a
1400mm combo. The two combos were 400mm and 500mm lenses used with 2x
and 1.4x teleconverters (canon brand, not the cheapos).

While we want to use the longest lenses we can, it certainly isn't the
only method. it's not wasting film, and more than a few good images
can be taken with 1000mm or less. I have over 40 digital pics that I
am really happy with, and while they may not fill the frame, they will
certainly work well together as a multiple exposure, once edited
together. And I have all the individual pics as well.

All of which illustrates the fact that photography means different things to
different people. If you are using the eclipse as an interesting addition to
some other scene, then of course, you should use whatever focal length lens
you need to get that scene. Not everyone is trying to get a scientific
record of the eclipse itself. In fact, that will be photographed by so many
people using very long telescopes that it is kind of a waste of time for an
amateur (non astronomer) to take it. I use my camera mainly to record scenes
for others to see, perhaps over a hundred years from now. Others use their
cameras to take, "artsy" photographs, and would laugh at my commonplace
scenes. But I know that in several hundred years, the pictures I take will
be of more interest to people than the artsy ones, because people will be
interested in the way people dressed, and the cars they drove, and how they
lived, back in, "those days". So the commoner and less remarkable my scenes
are, the better to me........