Night Landscapes

Discussion in 'Landscape' started by davidtriplett, Dec 2, 2016.

  1. Gup

    Gup Gup

    I have a great headlamp with the red light function. It works well. My problem now is I need glasses to read the LCD screen on top of my D800E and my other glasses to see the stars! Petzl Tikka RXP. It's rechargeable, too.
     
  2. Gup, there's a new technology you should investigate. They call them bifocals. (giggle, giggle...)
    Really, I have the same problem. For photography I've found my contact lenses and reading glasses don't cut it. I have to switch to my granny glasses so I can see both the camera screen and my subject. Bummer!
     
  3. Larry - The composite nightscape photo was taken on a very clear night from the foothills of Idaho Falls, Idaho. I set up the tripod at dusk and took the foreground image at 0.8s, ISO 800, f:8.0 using my Rokinon 24mm f:1.4 on my Canon 5D II. I then waited more than an hour for the sky to darken and obtained a series of five exposures at 20s, ISO 1,600, f:1.4, with the same lens and camera as before. The five images of the Milky Way were blended using Starry Night Landscape Stacker, which Ed Ingold mentions above. The resulting image was then composited with the foreground image in Photoshop. The most knowledgeable source of information about nightscape photography that I have found is by Roger Clark at http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/nightscapes/ .
     
  4. I found another "tool" for spending hours outside on cold nights - tactical gloves. Technically, they're sold as shooting gloves, and come in several weights and styles. They are thin in the fingers and very flexible, and warmer than bare skin. I can pick up a dime wearing them. Some are fingerless, like bicycling gloves, but without the heavy padding. That preserves maximum tactile flexibility, but are notoriously hard to take off. In really cold weather I wear ordinary gloves or mittens, taking them off as needed. But for an old guy with poor circulation, a 60 degree night might as well be freezing after a while.
     
  5. Gup

    Gup Gup

    David, I did try a pair years ago when this ageing thing first raised its ugly head. I wore them for 5 minutes, stumbled to the parking lot, then returned to the optometrist and told him to take them back. They were the gradual type and I was completely discombobulated. I don't wear glasses except when driving in the dark or watching TV usually but I should have given those a better chance, I guess. They were certainly more convenient than trucking two pairs everywhere I go.
     
  6. Regular bifocals work better than the blended kind. If properly ground, the top of the reading section come to the bottom of your iris (the colored part). I have a pair entirely the reading formula for sitting at the computer, and sunglasses ground strictly for far vision for driving. Bifocals work for everything else, including photography.

    I find I can't see the entire viewfinder in a Leica or Sony A7 while wearing glasses. My Nikon DSLRs (and SLRs) have a high eye point, and I can see the entire field with or without glasses. For a Leica, I have to use an eyepiece diopter, and sometimes a magnifier (for focusing a 90 mm or 135 mm lens).
     
  7. Gup

    Gup Gup

    Ed, I once had a pair of bifocal sunglasses, always Wayfarers. I had them made for motorcycling so I could see the road ahead and also glance down to read a road map that was fastened to my gas tank. The problem I encountered was, I was then unable to read any of my gauges. They weren't in focus to either lens and that proved enough of a problem to give up the glasses while riding. I now have prescription sunglasses for boating and all other outside activities except reading - and forget viewing any LCD screen, GPS, car stereo, watch, cellphone, etc. through the polarized glass. 1st World problems, and all that. ;)
     

Share This Page