wayne_suns

Theddy,

 

If you have the lens off, and are looking at the mirror, the prism is right above the mirror. The light travels from the mirror, through the prism, and out the viewfinder for you to see what the lens sees. I'm pretty sure that's where this dust is.

The hair/dirt is probably on the prism, not the mirror. That's why it doesn't show up on pictures. Not sure of the proper way to clean the bottom of a prism (hopefully someone can give a better answer), but I just use a lens cleaning cloth and lightly stroke it across the bottom of the prism when this happens to me.

I've yet to go digital, so I haven't experienced a problem like this (well, with photos at least), but I just have to say thanks to Peter for his in-depth response (with instructions!). DOS makes a comeback...

You might try to contact Bob Krist directly. From his website:<br>

 

 

<br><table>

<strong>Bob Krist</strong><br>

10 Old Mill Road<br>

New Hope, PA 18938<br>

Phone (215) 862 4828<br>

Fax (215) 862 4831<br>

Email  <a href="mailto:BobKrist@aol.com">BobKrist@aol.com</a>

</table>

 

<br>It's worth a try!

I finally found the website. If anyone else was wondering it's

 

<a href="http://moonchaser.netfools.com/">Chasing the Moonrise</a>. Thanks for those that replied!

Thank you for any replies in advance.

 

I had a computer meltdown not too long ago causing me to lose all my

internet favorites. One of these was a website called (I believe)

Chasing the Moonrise. It detailed photographing the rising moon near,

or behind, any landmark you wanted. Given coordinates of the

landmark, it would tell you where to position yourself in order that

the landmark was between you and the rising moon. Does this ring a

bell with anyone out there?

 

I recall the main page had a nice picture of the moon rising behind

an observatory. There was also a page where you would input your

lat/long in order to figure out best places to stand to catch the

moon and that landmark.

 

I've searched and searched the web for it, but can't seem to find it

anymore. Possibly someone out there can direct me to this

website...???

Sorry, this is not an answer to the question. I just had to laugh at Phillipe's experience with the Moon/Mars shot a few weeks ago. The EXACT same thing happened to me. I wasn't using 200mm, but I ended up with a fantastic moon shot, and NO Mars to be seen anywhere...which struck me as odd since Mars was so bright. SOMETHING should have shown up...

 

To Chad,

 

You may want to peruse www.skypub.com, or www.astronomy.com. If I remember, each has some tutorials on astrophotography. Being that they are astronomy related, they may have some decent info on through the telescope photography.

What Stephen said.

 

Go out tonight and see where the moon is -- it will follow pretty much the same path tomorrow. The one thing to keep in mind is that the moon rises about 50 minutes later each evening. So, if you want to know where the moon will be tomorrow at 11:15EDT, then see where it is tonight around 10:30EDT. Here's to a cloudless night. Where I'm at we're expecting overcast skies tomorrow :(

Any thoughts from those that actually SHOOT in the rain? There was a nice lightning storm in my area last night, but I didn't try any shots since it was raining quite hard. Other than an underwater housing, how do you protect your camera as you photograph in the rain??

I find it interesting that the same issue contains an article about PHOTO OPS AT WILDLIFE REHAB CENTERS. Is this really THAT different from photo ops at preserves set up solely for wildlife photography? Don't get me wrong. Rehab centers are a fantastic concept, but you're still photographing "captive" animals...

I agree! On the one hand, how can you take a bad photo of a spectacular subject? There's a lot to be said for the "WOW" factor. People are so busy going "WOW" that they don't look at the photo from a technical standpoint. I'm definitely guilty of this. I've seen a few pictures that really impressed me, but upon a third or fourth inspection I start to see the flaws....On the other hand, a "boring" subject has to made spectacular by the photographer. And that's hard to do!

 

By the way, Alexandre, I live in Oklahoma, USA. Scenic-wise it's about as boring as you can get. I feel for you!

Quick answer:

 

If your flash can be used manually, set it at two stops lower than your ambient reading. So, if your ambient reading is f8, then your flash should be set at f4. Sure it's not -1.7 stops, but it's close enough, and real quick too.

This is not really the answer you seek, and I hope it doesn't prompt a long series of rants about MF vs AF, but I really dislike AF. The whole picture taking process seems to slow down. I'll admit I'm using third party lenses with max aperture around 3.5, but when I'm using AF the camera won't do a thing until it thinks focus has been achieved. Even when I'm taking "subject-centered" shots, if the light's a little low, or the subject is moving, I have to sit there for what seems an eternity holding the button down waiting for the camera to take its picture. At least with MF, the camera will fire right when I want it too, focus or not.

 

I shoot 90% in MF. It just seems quicker to me. Plus your batteries don't drain as quick! I see nothing at all wrong with your technique.

Within the past couple of months I obtained an old Yashica D. The first time I was using it I accidently tripped the shutter, which was set at 1 second. I was totally amazed at how steady the shot turned out. Was it razor sharp? No, but it was probably the equivalent of shooting an SLR at 1/4 - 1/8 sec (50mm lens). I've since found that if I interlock my fingers and cradle the TLR then I can get "sharp enough for me" pictures easily at 1/2 to 1 second. Just have to keep your arms still! Am I going to blow these up to 16x20 and sell them? No. I've just started developing/printing my own B&W. Try the hand cradle technique, you'll be amazed. Otherwise, of course, use a tripod.

 

Have fun!