August 2017 solar eclipse preparation

Don't know as I'll do this -- except as a "can I?" exercise, just doesn't seem like fun for me. What amuses me is it dredged up a memory I might research and try -- in a simpler era there was a way to view a solar eclipse by basically making a large pinhole "camera" and viewing the projection from the "lens". I'll post here If I find something.

Don't know as I'll do this -- except as a "can I?" exercise, just doesn't seem like fun for me. What amuses me is it dredged up a memory I might research and try -- in a simpler era there was a way to view a solar eclipse by basically making a large pinhole "camera" and viewing the projection from the "lens". I'll post here If I find something.

 

Viewing and recording are two different things.

 

I want to record and plan to chimp. I only bracket when I plan to merge into an HDR, which is almost never. Chimping works great.

No critical intention in my remark -- just added a thought that bubbled up as I followed the thread. I'm a great believer in Chimping, when it doesn't slow me down too much.

For me this is indeed about "can I?" AND "I hope I can!" I thought a lot about chimping, as I know a lot of exposures will get wasted with bracketing. But I just don't think there is enough time and have decided to take a unique strategy (for myself, anyway) and bracket like crazy. I think I'll get more useful images that way. When I did the giant red moon lunar eclipse a couple of years ago, I found that my chimping methodology probably cost me some good exposures and that had a much wider time window than the solar eclipse will. Anyway, it's a totally new strategy for me, but I might try it and at least see if I learn something.

Pinhole viewing authoritative source, I think.

How to Make a Pinhole Camera Project | NASA/JPL Edu

I learned a new term: chimping!

 

any small opening will project the image of the partially eclipsed sun, a piece of cardboad, or a small hole made with your fingers, they all work. But, at totality there's be no need.

 

I plan on having a setup that I can chimp if I feel the need, but, two things:

1) I will likely be shooting toward the zenith of the sky, so I will have a right angle attachment for the viewfinder

2) because the LCD will be pointing downward, I will try to set up a shaving mirror, hung somehow so that I can easily view that I got a picture--that's all I want to know at that moment.

 

I will NOT examine the just taken picture real time---time is way too precious to do that, and I want to just watch it, ie, have enough time AFTER the pix are taken to just stare at it, and catch Diamond Ring at 3rd contact.

 

I have a question though.

I will be on shutter priority and will bracket, probably 3 exposures 1 or 2 stop(s) apart. Maybe play with HDR after?? Yes, there will be "doubles" of many exposures.

I am using a mirror lens about 1000mm and f8 (or 10?). Because this lens/telescope has a "fixed" aperture, is there any setting in the camera (D810) I need to address? being on shutter priority, I'd think it really wouldn't matter...the f stop is what it is, but I don't know that for a fact. Insight appreciated. and TIA

...

 

I have a question though.

I will be on shutter priority and will bracket, probably 3 exposures 1 or 2 stop(s) apart. Maybe play with HDR after?? Yes, there will be "doubles" of many exposures.

I am using a mirror lens about 1000mm and f8 (or 10?). Because this lens/telescope has a "fixed" aperture, is there any setting in the camera (D810) I need to address? being on shutter priority, I'd think it really wouldn't matter...the f stop is what it is, but I don't know that for a fact. Insight appreciated. and TIA

 

Shoot manual. With fixed f-stop, you only have ISO and SS to be concerned with. The difference between totality and partial will be HUGE. We're talking many stops. You may need to take your solar filter off in the middle of totality and then put it back on as totality recedes. Your images will reveal much more than your eyes will see, so don't screw that up by not chimping. (It only takes a second. That's a small investment to assure that you're getting useful results. There's no shame in chimping, just don't do so much that you miss the action).

So my next question relates to bracketing. I'll forego the partial phase as I think I have a strategy for that. My questions relate to the just before and after totality (Diamond Ring & Bailey's Beads) and during totality (prominences/corona). If I use f8/iso100 as an example, it appears that Bailey's Beads would be about 1/4000 and the Diamond Ring about 1/60 and the corona 1/2-1. That would be a total span of up to 13 stops, which would be a bracketing challenge.

 

Rod, consult mreclipse.com for recommended exposure values, get your filter on, and zero in on your desired partial phase exposure. in the last seconds before totality, the Bailey's beads and diamond ring effect are the last of the solar disk (ie. bright) shining through valleys in the moon. This lasts for only a few seconds. Remove the solar filter at the last moment. During partial phases, your exposure for the solar disk is likely zone 7. The diamond ring should be zone 8+ WITHOUT THE FILTER, so you have to adjust exposure accordingly and bracket since you won't have time to chimp. Once totality has started, you have a couple of minutes to set the longer exposures for the corona and chimp.

 

In summary, partial phases can be practiced days before the event to get the exposure with your kit dialed in. Once you are satisfied, there is little need for bracketing in the partial phases.

 

The last 5 minutes before totality will be very busy with pinhole crescents, wavy lines, weird light, etc. to experience and photograph. A half minute ahead of totality, you need to have your long lens aimed correctly and take the last partial crescent shots, and reset (in near darkness) your camera set for bracketing around the recommended Bailey's beads and diamond ring settings. Remove the filter at the last moments and shoot brackets until totality begins.

 

Once in totality, adjust exposure and bracket for the corona. Chimp and reset as necessary. As the end of totality nears, prep your camera for Bailey's beads and diamond ring. Get the filter on as soon as the diamond ring is over.

Edited July 21, 2017 by john_harper|9

Shoot manual. With fixed f-stop, you only have ISO and SS to be concerned with

Yes, senior moment. I know manual, which with a fixed aperture, would be similar in shutter priority. It will be manual. ISO should not change. SS will be the only variable.

The difference between totality and partial will be HUGE. We're talking many stops. You may need to take your solar filter off in the middle of totality and then put it back on as totality recedes

Won't be that huge using the solar filter, which is removed just as John Harper says above, ie, not at mid totality.

 

so don't screw that up by not chimping

I guess all 'chimping" is not created equally. If it can be called "chimping" to quickly look at the image to be sure focus is good, then I am going to do that for the first image or so, quickly. So, I guess that could be called "chimping."

After that, knowing focus is achieved, there is little reason to chimp. IMO it is far more worthwhile to get the exposures done rather than looking at the LCD after most/all snaps.

Another thing to consider is that for most of the USA the sun is going to be pretty much overhead. That means the LCD will be pointed groundward. That means, if you want to chimp every shot, you are going to be on the ground looking up into your LCD, with the eclipsed sun-which will be in your field of view, distracting you. The one thing you do not have is time, and I think, anything more than token chimping is stealing you away from the eclipse. Crouching under a tripod is not the way to spend the eclipse. Things should be set up to the extent that nothing will need changing other than SS.

Of course, if your LCD articulates, that would make chimping tempting, but mine does not, hence rigging a shaving mirror to see the LCD for the first shots. Remember, you only have about 150 seconds.

In truth, there should be nothing to adjust other than the shutter speed, and where the camera is pointing, if you're using a long lens. So, chimping should be unnecessary

There's no shame in chimping, just don't do so much that you miss the action).

agree, I think we're talking about a matter of degree. This is my fifth total, the "action" is what draws me there. I will not chimp to the extent it jeopardizes the experience. I will get my shots quickly to have some eclipse to just watch. These questions arise because this is my first with digital rather than film...dottin' i_s and crossin' t_s.

 

It should be remembered that eclipse images are pretty forgiving during totality. Under expose and get more prominences, over expose and get more corona.

 

John Harper, what do you plan for your spread of bracketing during totality? I'm thinking either one of two stops??? Three pictures in each bracket? 5? The downside of more pics is that they take more time to take. 5 exposures would take a minimum 2.5 seconds. The upside is more image. When bracketing there will be lots of overlapping exposures, so maybe fewer would work fine, and could be increased in post by using neighboring shots?

 

Remember to illume your display.

 

Clear skies, all!

Edited July 22, 2017 by John Di Leo

a useful piece of kit is a good sized piece of cardboard. This can be used to shield the camera after you've removed the solar filter and before you're shooting bailey's beads and Diamond ring, and after third contact before you re-attach the filter.

 

Also, don't necessarily go for the longest lens. The tighter your image, the less corona you'll catch.

I'll likely use the 600mm lens on my D500, probably with the 1.4x converter, so I'm figuring about a 1300mm equivalent.

 

Personal preference I suppose, but I think I'd go for the 600 and not use the converter. 1300 will be pretty tight and will cut off corona. The corona can easily extend a couple of solar diameters (or more) 360 degrees around the sun. I am using a 1000 and I would not want to go longer.

John De Leo, immediately at the start of totality I'll be exposing for chromosphere and prominences, then lengthening the exposure for the corona. Depending on the extent of the corona, my bracket is likely 5 stops. I'll be setting the shutter wheel to 1 stop increments so I can easily count steps in exposure changes by feel.

 

I'll probably be a docent at an eclipse party so photography plans may get adjusted by other duties and I'll do a lot of shots of the folks at the party.. There's always the APOD site for the astronomical images.

I'll probably be a docent at an eclipse party so photography plans may get adjusted by other duties and I'll do a lot of shots of the folks at the party.. There's always the APOD site for the astronomical images.

 

Chances are with the hooping and hollering and the excitement of the moment you might not have to do much "docenting" during totality, so you can enjoy the spectacle! Docenting during partial will be easy, until you start with the shadow bands, that's when my adrenalin really starts flowing. I will be traveling with a couple of people who are total novices at this, but they are not interested in taking pictures; they just want the experience, and I can educate them what to look for on our ride to the eclipse.

 

my bracket is likely 5 stops. I'll be setting the shutter wheel to 1 stop increments so I can easily count steps in exposure changes by feel.

 

I am going to illuminate my display, but I will plot out the exposures so I am not overlapping as much as I would with 1 stop brackets. E.g., If I bracket centering on 1/500 and then on 1/250 and then on 1/125, etc there will be a lot of overlapping same exposures that, if in post stacking/hdr is desired, will be redundant--I think.

It may be better, and more time effective, to plot out exposures so that less overlap will occur. So, shooting at 1/500, with 5 exposures 1 stop apart, for the next exposure bracket, rather than going to 1/250, I would go to 1/125, then to 1/30, then to 1/8, skipping stops in between because I will be getting the intervening exposures because of the bracketing. On the way back up with the exposures, I'll catch the exposures I skipped on the way down, IOW 1/15, then 1/60, then 1/250 etc. There will be same exposures globally, but the time of exposure will be different, so there will not be redundancy of images.

This would mean a bit of a closer observation of the camera display screen, or rotating two clicks instead of one, but it would also mean that the shots would take less time to accomplish, granting more time to simply observe. Obviously still a work in progress, but the digital environment offers far more possibilities over film.

 

I like your idea of shooting continuously during 2nd and third contact rather than trying to "catch" the exact moment.

 

Haven't decided on ISO yet. The Mr Eclipse site is a good source of info though. And as long as you have focus and a steady mount, eclipse photography is forgiving.

 

Timing myself, bracketing 1 stop, 5 exposures, using a 2 second delay on shutter, going from 1/500, 1/125, 1/30, 1/8, 1/2, 1/4, 1/15, 1/60, 1/250 takes about 75-80 seconds on first try just sitting in front of the computer. Going to work that down as much as possible. There will be a need to check alignment along the way, but only once, I think. And the fixed mounting of a tripod will help decrease times.

Thanks for the tips and will follow this discussion until time to leave.

It will also be worthwhile as eclipse time approaches for members to offer insights on weather at particular sites, for best skies. This far out predictions are worthless except for historical trends--there is a historical cloud cover map out there that generally says midwest is better than southeast, but that can obviously change

Ok, seeking advice here. From various places I've read, looks like for a DX sensor, somewhere around 400-500mm will get a decent size solar disc and still leave some rattle room around the edges for corona at totality. So, given a painfully limited budget, a D7000, and either an 18-200 or a 70-200 (the 18-200 is starting to show mechanical problems, so I'll likely go with the old-faithful 70-200 F4), would the collective wisdom of the group suggest a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter, or try one of those "everybody sells 'em" Samyang (sp?) 500mm 6.3 reflex lenses? Keep in mind the painfully limited budget. :)

My 2 cents, just as a quick response,

first: have you witnessed a total solar eclipse before--ie, NOT partial ?

if no, I would say spend more time watching it and less time trying to photograph it. If you are a novice at both the eclipse and taking pictures of the sun/moon, my opinion is that it is far more worthy to watch the spectacle, and getting a couple of token snaps than fiddling with the camera and losing viz time. At best you have 2.5 minutes. Time economy is essential.

---you have another chance in the USA about 7 years from now, after that it will be necessary to chase them to the ends of the earth---

If yes, (someone correct my math if necessary) a 200 on a Dx is like a 300 on a full frame. A 2x converter (of good quality) would produce the eq of a 600 and I think that would be fine. Even a 1.4 would produce a very useful image. There are many shots out there with a normal lens, just depends on your composition desired. They all work.

But, you can judge for yourself...take a picture of the moon with your setup with different configurations--the 200 by itself, with a 1.4, with a 2x. That is how big the sun's eclipsed disc will appear--the moon and the sun are the same apparent size otherwise the eclipse would not look like it does. So, the moon can serve as a proxy to test your rigging.

I have thought for full frame a 600-700 to maybe 1000mm ish lens would be best, but that is just my opinion. There are people who will shoot this with 2000mm +plus lenses/telescopes. Aside: the equipment that comes out for total solars is breath-taking stuff. The longer you go, the more likely you are to see prominences, but there will be less corona. I think 600-1000 balances that nicely.

 

Re: the mirror lens. Do your research. A 600 6.3 sounds tempting, but that assumes the IQ is good. The net is full of reports of crappy copies of the cheap mirror lenses. I will be using a cheap mirror reflex lens myself, a Bausch and Lomb 4000, 1200mm f10, I think. It, too, has checkered reports.

Astromart Reviews - B&L Criterion 4000 - a scope with Junk Bond Status

 

Mine has quality enough for me, I think I got a good one, but there's a lot of junk out there.

In your situation I think the converter on a good lens would be better than taking a chance on a new lens at this stage. The eclipse is less than a month away. You have one more full moon to check your setup. Getting close.

This link has some helpful stuff

 

Canon DLC: Article: A Total Guide to Totality: Solar Eclipse Photography

My 2 cents, just as a quick response,

first: have you witnessed a total solar eclipse before--ie, NOT partial ?

if no, I would say spend more time watching it and less time trying to photograph it. If you are a novice at both the eclipse and taking pictures of the sun/moon, my opinion is that it is far more worthy to watch the spectacle, and getting a couple of token snaps than fiddling with the camera and losing viz time. At best you have 2.5 minutes. Time economy is essential.

 

I've gotten several semi-good lunar eclipse shots before, but this is my first stab at a solar eclipse. I'm not looking to do much fancy, just a couple of corona/photosphere brackets, and maybe a try at a diamond ring. We'll be in Clemson, SC; according to the charts I've seen we should have just a hair over two minutes of totality.

 

---you have another chance in the USA about 7 years from now, after that it will be necessary to chase them to the ends of the earth---

 

I saw a track for the 2024 ecipse; looked like just a short stretch in the southwest somewhere; have to look at that in more detail.

 

If yes, (someone correct my math if necessary) a 200 on a Dx is like a 300 on a full frame. A 2x converter (of good quality) would produce the eq of a 600 and I think that would be fine. Even a 1.4 would produce a very useful image. There are many shots out there with a normal lens, just depends on your composition desired. They all work.

But, you can judge for yourself...take a picture of the moon with your setup with different configurations--the 200 by itself, with a 1.4, with a 2x. That is how big the sun's eclipsed disc will appear--the moon and the sun are the same apparent size otherwise the eclipse would not look like it does. So, the moon can serve as a proxy to test your rigging.

That's a terrific idea! Moon would have to be the same apparent size as the sun for an eclipse to work, wouldn't it? :cool: Thanks for the suggestion.

 

I have thought for full frame a 600-700 to maybe 1000mm ish lens would be best, but that is just my opinion. There are people who will shoot this with 2000mm +plus lenses/telescopes. Aside: the equipment that comes out for total solars is breath-taking stuff. The longer you go, the more likely you are to see prominences, but there will be less corona. I think 600-1000 balances that nicely.

 

I'd toyed with the idea of loading some b&w into the F2, but if I'm having sensor-coverage concerns on DX, then I definitely don't have the optical resources for 35mm! My father in law's got a fairly large, quite good telescope. Maybe in 2024 I can talk him into an eclipse hunting expedition.

 

Re: the mirror lens. Do your research. A 600 6.3 sounds tempting, but that assumes the IQ is good. The net is full of reports of crappy copies of the cheap mirror lenses. I will be using a cheap mirror reflex lens myself, a Bausch and Lomb 4000, 1200mm f10, I think. It, too, has checkered reports.

Astromart Reviews - B&L Criterion 4000 - a scope with Junk Bond Status

 

Mine has quality enough for me, I think I got a good one, but there's a lot of junk out there.

In your situation I think the converter on a good lens would be better than taking a chance on a new lens at this stage. The eclipse is less than a month away. You have one more full moon to check your setup. Getting close.

 

The reviews I've read of that "everyone relabels it" Samyang are all over the map. Apparently there's lots of sample variation. That's making me nervous, and looking much harder at the teleconverter approach (despite everyone's favorite nay-saying iconoclast Rockwell's disparagement of teleconverters as a genre :p (though in his defense, I have found his lens reviews to be pretty spot-on - I got that 70-210F4 on his recommendation, and it's a terrific lens for how little it set me back!)).

I was practicing with my solar filter on, hand held and on the tripod. Taking the shots was easy enough, perhaps because I'm primarily a bird-in-flight shooter and have years of experience hitting a target, first try, with my 1,000mm rig. The shots were straight forward enough, but I thought I'd mine the black area to see if there was any low level information there. I raised Shadows as far as I could in DxO Optics Pro and put global Contrast at 100%. In the first image I looked at, I thought that I was seeing corona, but then this shot made me think that I was seeing something else:

 

Sun At 1,000mm with Solar Filter by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

I think that it might be sensor ghosting. I'm using a 5D MkIV. Here, at f/8, ISO 400 and 1/125-sec. Any ideas?

David,

Interesting.

I'm assuming this was hand held, thus explaining the asymmetrical right lower corner. ??

Could this just be lens flare?

It seems a little weird for either flare or ghosting with such symmetrical and seemingly well focused rings around the sun. But maybe that is to be expected when the big light source is the object being imaged instead of entering the lens at something other than a 90 degree angle. Maybe it is light bouncing between lens elements. Just free associating a little. :-)

My plan was to play around with the sun tomorrow. I'll see if I get any similar results, although I plan to use a tripod. Don't have your handholding skills.

David,

Interesting.

I'm assuming this was hand held, thus explaining the asymmetrical right lower corner. ??

Could this just be lens flare?

It seems a little weird for either flare or ghosting with such symmetrical and seemingly well focused rings around the sun. But maybe that is to be expected when the big light source is the object being imaged instead of entering the lens at something other than a 90 degree angle. Maybe it is light bouncing between lens elements. Just free associating a little. :)

My plan was to play around with the sun tomorrow. I'll see if I get any similar results, although I plan to use a tripod. Don't have your handholding skills.

 

This was on a very sturdy tripod; however, I'd previously taken some hand held shots.

 

You will not see this effect initially in your RAW file. You need to raise Shadows a bunch.

 

That circle at the lower right is not the same size as the primary solar image, so I'm thinking that it's not sensor ghosting, but maybe flare on an internal lens element. Here's a later image that doesn't exhibit the same ghost:

 

Sun At 1,000mm with Solar Filter by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

BTW, it seems clear that there's some element of corona in these pix and, at 1000mm, it goes past the edges of the frame. I'll try 700mm (full-frame) next time. Shooting with a crop-sensor, then 500mm may be the limit, maybe even 400mm, if including all corona is an objective.

 

Please let us know how your testing goes.

 

To view a larger size, click on the image to go to Flickr, then hit the Expand arrows and the F11 to go full-screen. Those outer waves are very interesting and look "natural" to me, instead of being sensor distortion.

Edited July 28, 2017 by dcstep

With respect...

you're not going to see corona without the disc occluded, the disc need to be blocked to see corona. There are special devices to do this--but these are not something you can get from Amazon. The best time to observe corona is during a total solar eclipse. Upping the shadows in Lightroom is not going to do it.

Those are artifacts in the exposure above, not the corona.

 

You need a tripod for totality, if, for nothing more than efficiency. I, too, went out the other day and shot some test shots. Aside: exposures and iso are very forgiving if you have stability. No disrespect intended, but no matter how good you are at catching birds in flight, the sun is not that subject. During partial phases, handheld can work mostly because you have all the time in the world to get it right/do over. Totality is different. You are shooting at far slower shutter speeds, as well as some faster speeds, to get different things, ie prominences, corona are far different exposures. Think about what you're trying to do (in at most 2.5 minutes).

You have to Find the sun in your viewfinder---this is not easy at all. You are using a very narrow angle lens, the viewfinder is BLACK because of your sun filter--like looking through with the lens cap on; your eclipse glasses are off, to see anything in the viewfinder. That means your other eye is open or winked, but pointing directly at the sun. If you can do it, now try to find the sun at the zenith---that's where the sun will be for most of the USA, or nearly so. It is not a suitable test to try at any time of the day; you must try it at the time of the eclipse. You neck is 90 degrees to your body and you are "holding" a biga$$ piece of equipment that weighs a few pounds. And trying to keep steady. Good luck with that. I suppose you could try laying on the ground, but to avoid a tripod?

 

One thing to point out and the above exposure shows it.

Usually I can check exposure of the sun by focusing on sunspots. They are often pretty apparent, though not above.

My shots showed the same, a blank disc. I looked at the sun's limb for sharpness, and as above, it looked sharp, but no sunspots. There are two reasons that could be:

The focus distance from the closest part of the sun's surface to the Earth is different from the distance to the limb-to the tune of OVER 430,000miles, the radius of the sun. Depending on the lens/telescope you're using this may mean a slightly different focus setting. So, if you are focused on the limb--as the above image is, and as mine were, any sunspots might be out of focus and not show up well--at least the potential for that is present. I have seen images where focus was on a sunspot and the limb is not 100% sharp--BTW a very cool shot is of the moon's limb advancing on a sunspot.

The other reason you don't see sunspots is maybe none are there on this "face."

That turned out to be the case. The sunspot number is way low- it was zero- and on the astro/solar sites with live views of the sun, I saw a blank disk, like above.

Now, that said, the moon's distance is about 240,000 miles. To put that into perspective, the radius of the sun is nearly double the Earth-moon distance. So, should one focus on the moon's limb for Baileys beads and Diamond ring, then refocus on the sun's limb for prominences...advice sought on that, but the main point is: Do you really want to handhold that, keeping the sun centered (no easy task), and changing shutter speeds?

 

Yesterday, I went in the other direction completely. As I mentioned earlier, I am using an old Bausch and Lomb 1200 f/12 telescope. For my test, I had it on a manfrotto tripod with a swiss arca ball head, D810 with a Nikon DR-3 right angle on the viewfinder. I tested at about 130pm. It was very hard to find the sun in the viewfinder at that time of day. I gave up and, since I was just testing my setup, I waited until later when I wasn't shooting at zenith, or nearly so. I also re-aligned the whimpy finder scope--which has NO solar filter at this time. Tested the setup, looked ok, but I was concerned that this was a lot of weight for the ball head. I dug out the case for the B&L and got the mount for it. With only one trip to Lowes, I adapted it to the tripod and equatorial wedge I had for an old Celestron C8.

 

Brought it outside last night to check on collimation. That is Jupiter next to the moon--played with the collimation, which was pretty good, looked at the crescent moon, and saved the focus setting.

 

the advantage of a real mount is the ease with which you can "slew" the scope and lock it's position; there are knobs. And it is sturdy out the wazoo. So that's what I am going to bring.

But all of that to say, to think you are going to handhold a total solar eclipse, could be wishful thinking. Or you could be terrific at it. I know I am not.

 

PS That is a cool shot even with the banding

 

Personal preference I suppose, but I think I'd go for the 600 and not use the converter. 1300 will be pretty tight and will cut off corona. The corona can easily extend a couple of solar diameters (or more) 360 degrees around the sun. I am using a 1000 and I would not want to go longer.

 

I did a little testing yesterday, with my solar filter on a 1,000mm, full-frame rig. I think 700mm is going to be a better bet, to not cut off corona. You can't see until you process, but 1,000mm was cutting off data at the edges of the frame. I'll test 500mm and 700mm this weekend and report back. Unfortunately, the signal levels are so low that you can't see what's happening in the field. You have to wait until you get on your computer and then raise levels extremely, to see how far out the signals go. On a Canon crop-sensor, I think that 400mm will do the trick.

With respect...

you're not going to see corona without the disc occluded, the disc need to be blocked to see corona. There are special devices to do this--but these are not something you can get from Amazon. The best time to observe corona is during a total solar eclipse. Upping the shadows in Lightroom is not going to do it.

Those are artifacts in the exposure above, not the corona.

 

You need a tripod for totality, if, for nothing more than efficiency. I, too, went out the other day and shot some test shots. Aside: exposures and iso are very forgiving if you have stability. No disrespect intended, but no matter how good you are at catching birds in flight, the sun is not that subject. During partial phases, handheld can work mostly because you have all the time in the world to get it right/do over. Totality is different. You are shooting at far slower shutter speeds, as well as some faster speeds, to get different things, ie prominences, corona are far different exposures. Think about what you're trying to do (in at most 2.5 minutes).

You have to Find the sun in your viewfinder---this is not easy at all. You are using a very narrow angle lens, the viewfinder is BLACK because of your sun filter--like looking through with the lens cap on; your eclipse glasses are off, to see anything in the viewfinder. That means your other eye is open or winked, but pointing directly at the sun. If you can do it, now try to find the sun at the zenith---that's where the sun will be for most of the USA, or nearly so. It is not a suitable test to try at any time of the day; you must try it at the time of the eclipse. You neck is 90 degrees to your body and you are "holding" a biga$$ piece of equipment that weighs a few pounds. And trying to keep steady. Good luck with that. I suppose you could try laying on the ground, but to avoid a tripod?

 

One thing to point out and the above exposure shows it.

Usually I can check exposure of the sun by focusing on sunspots. They are often pretty apparent, though not above.

My shots showed the same, a blank disc. I looked at the sun's limb for sharpness, and as above, it looked sharp, but no sunspots. There are two reasons that could be:

The focus distance from the closest part of the sun's surface to the Earth is different from the distance to the limb-to the tune of OVER 430,000miles, the radius of the sun. Depending on the lens/telescope you're using this may mean a slightly different focus setting. So, if you are focused on the limb--as the above image is, and as mine were, any sunspots might be out of focus and not show up well--at least the potential for that is present. I have seen images where focus was on a sunspot and the limb is not 100% sharp--BTW a very cool shot is of the moon's limb advancing on a sunspot.

The other reason you don't see sunspots is maybe none are there on this "face."

That turned out to be the case. The sunspot number is way low- it was zero- and on the astro/solar sites with live views of the sun, I saw a blank disk, like above.

Now, that said, the moon's distance is about 240,000 miles. To put that into perspective, the radius of the sun is nearly double the Earth-moon distance. So, should one focus on the moon's limb for Baileys beads and Diamond ring, then refocus on the sun's limb for prominences...advice sought on that, but the main point is: Do you really want to handhold that, keeping the sun centered (no easy task), and changing shutter speeds?

 

Yesterday, I went in the other direction completely. As I mentioned earlier, I am using an old Bausch and Lomb 1200 f/12 telescope. For my test, I had it on a manfrotto tripod with a swiss arca ball head, D810 with a Nikon DR-3 right angle on the viewfinder. I tested at about 130pm. It was very hard to find the sun in the viewfinder at that time of day. I gave up and, since I was just testing my setup, I waited until later when I wasn't shooting at zenith, or nearly so. I also re-aligned the whimpy finder scope--which has NO solar filter at this time. Tested the setup, looked ok, but I was concerned that this was a lot of weight for the ball head. I dug out the case for the B&L and got the mount for it. With only one trip to Lowes, I adapted it to the tripod and equatorial wedge I had for an old Celestron C8.

 

Brought it outside last night to check on collimation. That is Jupiter next to the moon--played with the collimation, which was pretty good, looked at the crescent moon, and saved the focus setting.

 

the advantage of a real mount is the ease with which you can "slew" the scope and lock it's position; there are knobs. And it is sturdy out the wazoo. So that's what I am going to bring.

But all of that to say, to think you are going to handhold a total solar eclipse, could be wishful thinking. Or you could be terrific at it. I know I am not.

 

PS That is a cool shot even with the banding

 

Thanks.

 

Thanks for the information about there being no spots yesterday. I was wondering why I wasn't seeing them. I'll try manual focus, mixed in with AF.

 

For that shot, I did use my tripod and Live View to focus. It's very easy for me to find the sun hand held, but that's because I shoot thousands of fast moving objects every month, for several years. I can see it, raise my camera and hit it, most of the time. Make sure you've got your focus limiting on the lens set for long range and pre-set focus out at infinity. The OOF sun, with a solar filter, may not show at all in the viewfinder. You need to start, preset at infinity, so you'll be able to see something to find. For me, hitting the sun with the tripod is harder than hand held. Another trick, that I read about last night, but haven't tried yet, is to look at the shadow of your lens. Ignoring the tripod, when the shadow is a circle, you've lined up on the sun. We'll see....if it works, that'll be very helpful.

 

My filter is a glass solar filter from Spectrum Telescope.

 

I don't want to understate how hard it will be for many to grab focus on the sun if they haven't practiced. I can't imagine being a newbie to 400-1000mm lenses (say, your rent one) and trying to find the sun in a pitch-black VF. I've taken hundreds of thousands of handheld shots at 500mm, 700mm and 1,000mm setups on full-frame and crop-sensor bodies. Modern focus rings on Canon super-telephoto lenses DO NOT have infinity markings. The focus ring is free-floating and starts where it was set the last time the AF was released. Practice. You don't have enough time during totality to figure out what you're doing.

Another trick, that I read about last night, but haven't tried yet, is to look at the shadow of your lens. Ignoring the tripod, when the shadow is a circle, you've lined up on the sun.

Yes, but to put that another way, when the shadow of your rig is the smallest on the ground, you're close, if not there. It will not be a "circle" because the camera body is there casting its own rectangular shadow.

I use a mod of that to align. If you are using a small telescope, as I am, there is a finder scope on it. To use this technique, the finder scope must be aligned with the big tube of the scope: Do this well in advance, easiest to align on a terrestrial object, I used a chimney of a house a block or so away. With an aligned finder scope (or nearly so, but closer the better) slew the rig so that the sun's image is projected through the finder scope, I use my hand as a "screen."

The sun will be in or very close to your VF.

A very useful accessory is a right angle finder. For Nikon they come in two sizes 19 and 22. The older ones are 19, and cheaper, and stepup up rings are avaulable.

 

I don't know if such an accessory exists, but a small finder scope that fits into the hot shoe of flash, would be useful, but again, does that exist?

 

Re making your own rigging for the filter, make 1000000% sure it is secure from being bumped or wind or whatever! Even a few milliseconds of sunlight through magnification will permanently damage your retina. There is NO recovery..

Also, all filters must be between the sun and your equipment...not behind

Sun---------Filter----------lens-------camera---------eye.......not any other arrangement

 

there are filters made to go into eyepieces( and maybe viewfinders???)--AVOID! Any imaged sun, esp magnified, has the ability/likelihood of burning through the filter and then permanently damaging your eye.

 

There are many vendors of solar filters in various sizes. I cannot remember where I bought mine, but it has a blue ring on it, and slips over the end of the small scope I am using. It fits well, but I reinforced it with velcro as an added safety measure.

 

Orion Telescopes: Search Results on 'solar filter'

 

and

Products – Thousand Oaks Optical

 

I was testing the setup the other day on my driveway. It was in the 90s and very hot. Since we are all looking for clear skies and the money shots will happen when the sun is overhead, and it's mid-August, I am going to bring a large umbrella for some shade during the run up to totality. Seems like a useful piece of equipment.

If you have not bought the new Total Eclipse U.S. postage stamp you are missing some fun. Just press your thumb on the stamp and all will be revealed!

Yes, but to put that another way, when the shadow of your rig is the smallest on the ground, you're close, if not there. It will not be a "circle" because the camera body is there casting its own rectangular shadow.

I...

 

there are filters made to go into eyepieces( and maybe viewfinders???)--AVOID! Any imaged sun, esp magnified, has the ability/likelihood of burning through the filter and then permanently damaging your eye.

 

There are many vendors of solar filters in various sizes. I cannot remember where I bought mine, but it has a blue ring on it, and slips over the end of the small scope I am using. It fits well, but I reinforced it with velcro as an added safety measure.

 

Orion Telescopes: Search Results on 'solar filter'

 

and

Products – Thousand Oaks Optical

 

I was testing the setup the other day on my driveway. It was in the 90s and very hot. Since we are all looking for clear skies and the money shots will happen when the sun is overhead, and it's mid-August, I am going to bring a large umbrella for some shade during the run up to totality. Seems like a useful piece of equipment.

 

Good stuff.

 

I bought a glass, solar filter for my Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II from Spectrum Telescope – Solar Eclipse Filters for Any Optical Device They had clear instructions about picking the correct size, easy check-out and fast delivery.