Moonset Over Zion

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 7/23/10 3:26 PM, in article ,
"me" wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette sharp. The
blurry outline ruins it for me.


How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette both be
sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.?

Careful planning.

Two separate exposures. One focused on moon, other on rocks/trees. Combine
two in photoshop - masks, layers, combine layers. Voila.

"Tim Conway" wrote in message
...

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 7/23/10 3:26 PM, in article
,
"me" wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette sharp. The
blurry outline ruins it for me.


How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette both be
sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.?

Careful planning.

Two separate exposures. One focused on moon, other on rocks/trees.
Combine two in photoshop - masks, layers, combine layers. Voila.



But the question was how to do it in a single shot.
I would be happy to learn that myself.
--
Peter

In article ,
"Tim Conway" wrote:

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 7/23/10 3:26 PM, in article ,
"me" wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette sharp. The
blurry outline ruins it for me.


How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette both be
sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.?

Careful planning.

Two separate exposures. One focused on moon, other on rocks/trees. Combine
two in photoshop - masks, layers, combine layers. Voila.

Bingo!

m-m
www.mhmyers.com

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:20:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"me" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:25:09 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"me" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette sharp. The
blurry outline ruins it for me.


How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette both be
sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.?


The same way you take a picture of a hummingbird, with its wings frozen,
with a 28mm f5.6 lens, without strobe.

I'm sorry, I must be dense. Can you please be more explicit?



think impossible shot

You mean like this "impossible" available-light-only hummingbird shot at
1/10,000 second shutter speed using a P&S camera?

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4822194301_20db930412_b.jpg
(High JPG compression used, to entertain the thieves and trolls, even
though the image is not mine but I have permission to repost it.)


I guess that none of you happy-snapper crapshooting armchair X-spurts have
ever heard of "hyperfocal" settings either. Getting the moon and
cliff/trees in focus in that very poorly composed shot would have been
easy. Well, easy to anyone that knows how to use a camera, that is.

****ing useless morons, each and every one of you.

In article ,
"Peter" wrote:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/DSC_23928w.jpg

But the question was how to do it in a single shot.
I would be happy to learn that myself.

You can get them both in focus if the trees are far enough away and both
are at infinity and your lens is powerful enough focal-length-wise. I
would like to get a shot of the full-frame moon rising behind a city
skyline. You have to be many miles away from the city.

I have been able to get a jet plane crossing the moon with both in focus:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/DSC_11664w.jpg

The issue with this photo however is not the focus but the exposure. It
is an impossible photo to achieve in a single exposure. The background
took a 2 sec exposure, the moon only needed 1/125.

The photo of the moon indeed had the rocks and trees in front of it but
the background was completely black. So I took an exposure of the rocks
and trees before the moon set behind it and combined the two.

Kudos to Tim Conway (my favorite comedian btw) for realizing this. I
thought the big clue would be the EXIF says 2 sec and there is no way
the moon would stay sharp with that long of an exposure because (a) the
earth is rotating and the moon consequently moves across the frame and
(b) 2 sec would completely overexpose such a bright object.

--
m-m
www.mhmyers.com

"me" wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette sharp. The
blurry outline ruins it for me.


How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette both be
sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.?

It's unlike to be f/1.0: that lens would require a 1000mm diameter front
element. F/5.6 or f/8 is more likely.

The pixel count in that jpg is rather low, so it shouldn't be too hard at
all. You might want to take two shots, though. At 1000mm and f/5.6, the 12MP
FF hyperfocal distance is 7,000 meters, so you aren't going to get the
silhouette and the moon both in critical focus. An image with both equally
blurred would downsample to a nice sharp screen-sized jpg, but you'd want
the moon in focus for a 12x18" print.

Still, the moon's pretty bright, so f/8, or even f/11 might be possible. (Of
course, at 1000mm, even playing careful hyperfocal games at f/11 only gets
your near focus to 1800 meters. That DoF goes down with the square of the
focal length really hurts.)

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:03:37 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"me" wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette sharp. The
blurry outline ruins it for me.


How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette both be
sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.?

It's unlike to be f/1.0: that lens would require a 1000mm diameter front
element. F/5.6 or f/8 is more likely.

The pixel count in that jpg is rather low, so it shouldn't be too hard at
all. You might want to take two shots, though. At 1000mm and f/5.6, the 12MP
FF hyperfocal distance is 7,000 meters, so you aren't going to get the
silhouette and the moon both in critical focus. An image with both equally
blurred would downsample to a nice sharp screen-sized jpg, but you'd want
the moon in focus for a 12x18" print.

Still, the moon's pretty bright, so f/8, or even f/11 might be possible. (Of
course, at 1000mm, even playing careful hyperfocal games at f/11 only gets
your near focus to 1800 meters. That DoF goes down with the square of the
focal length really hurts.)

Read the EXIF, he was using f/13. The lit moon is the same brightness as
light pavement on earth in daylight. Why anyone wasted their time playing
the cutting and paste game and taking two photos to create such a simple to
accomplish one-shot photograph I'll never know. This is the very same
reason so many of you depend on RAW too. You can't do it right the first
time, so see if you can save your talentless disasters in editing. What
amazes me even more is why shoot such a dismal silhouette to patch with the
moon if that's what you were going to do? (As he claimed.) He was in no way
limited to taking the foreground from the same place the moon was going to
set. This image is a royal-****up from beginning to end. Camera skills
suck, reasoning skills suck, composition skills suck, editing skills suck.

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:03:37 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"me" wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette sharp. The
blurry outline ruins it for me.


How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette both be
sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.?

It's unlike to be f/1.0: that lens would require a 1000mm diameter front
element. F/5.6 or f/8 is more likely.

The pixel count in that jpg is rather low, so it shouldn't be too hard at
all. You might want to take two shots, though. At 1000mm and f/5.6, the 12MP
FF hyperfocal distance is 7,000 meters, so you aren't going to get the
silhouette and the moon both in critical focus. An image with both equally
blurred would downsample to a nice sharp screen-sized jpg, but you'd want
the moon in focus for a 12x18" print.

Still, the moon's pretty bright, so f/8, or even f/11 might be possible. (Of
course, at 1000mm, even playing careful hyperfocal games at f/11 only gets
your near focus to 1800 meters. That DoF goes down with the square of the
focal length really hurts.)

Read the EXIF, he was using f/13. The lit moon is the same brightness as
light pavement on earth in daylight. Why anyone wasted their time playing
the cutting and paste game and taking two photos to create such a simple to
accomplish one-shot photograph I'll never know. This is the very same
reason so many of you depend on RAW too. You can't do it right the first
time, so see if you can save your talentless disasters in editing. What
amazes me even more is why shoot such a dismal silhouette to patch with the
moon if that's what you were going to do? (As he claimed.) He was in no way
limited to taking the foreground from the same place the moon was going to
set. This image is a royal-****up from beginning to end. Camera skills
suck, reasoning skills suck, composition skills suck, editing skills suck.


I forgot to mention. All of you who fail to realize any of this also suck
just as bad, if not worse.

M-M wrote:
In article ,
"Tim Conway" wrote:

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



On 7/23/10 3:26 PM, in article
, "me"
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:


Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette
sharp. The blurry outline ruins it for me.


How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette
both be sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.?

Careful planning.

Two separate exposures. One focused on moon, other on
rocks/trees. Combine two in photoshop - masks, layers, combine
layers. Voila.

Bingo!

m-m
www.mhmyers.com

Voila!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/43...7f5945dc_o.jpg

In article ,
"Frank ess" wrote:


Careful planning.

Two separate exposures. One focused on moon, other on
rocks/trees. Combine two in photoshop - masks, layers, combine
layers. Voila.

Bingo!

m-m
www.mhmyers.com

Voila!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/43...7f5945dc_o.jpg


This one is a single exposure. No photoshop at all. Full frame but
reduced to 25% of original:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/DSC_23907w.jpg


--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com