15sunrises

<p>Meteor showers always seem to be the best time for the clouds to move in! It's clear here this weekend, there might be some leftovers.</p>

<p>Any specific examples? I find that when I have problems with the colors not matching reality, I can usually get it a bit better with some post processing, while shooting with RAW.</p>

<p>1) What kind of equipment are you using?</p>

<p>2) How far out of the city are you willing to go?</p>

<p>What about the Tokina 11-16? This one also somewhat works on full frame.</p>

<p>I connected a 9V battery to a computer fan to try and help with this problem. There isn't nearly enough wind to have an effect on the exposure, and it works OK as long as it isn't too cold. Preventing frost is a lot tougher than preventing dew I think from experience. The computer fan +9V solution is lightweight and pretty easy to carry around, but it's tough to set up properly without something nearby.</p>

<p>This is a problem that has plagued night photographers for a long time and I still don't think that there's a 100% solution, beyond an electric heater, which nobody wants to carry around. Good luck!</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 10-20 right now, and am definitely very happy with it. The only thing that would make me change would be the edge sharpness at 10mm. The color, contrast, etc., are all really great and the center sharpness is good throughout the zoom and aperture range.</p>

<p>If I changed, I definitely wouldn't go to the Canon which only offers a minimal improvement for a lot more cost. I'd suggest looking into the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 as an option, which is what I'm currently looking at to possibly 'upgrade' from my 10-20.</p>

<p>Victor, for landscapes, a tripod will be worth more to you than a fast lens. You're going to be stopped down to the f/8 - f/11 range most of the time anyways, so in dim lighting situations, a slower shutter speed will be necessary, which is where a tripod will come in. </p>

<p>Also, the 17-50 tamron lens is great as well.</p>

<p>With the extremely limited field of view of longer telephotos, I'd say that some kind of tracking mount would also be nice for most viewing/observing. At 500mm, celestial objects will move out of the frame of view fairly quickly, the moon even moreso. Also, handholding for observing at 500mm is going to be quite a challenge if you want to see many details.</p>

<p>I'd personally just bite the bullet and get a dedicated scope w/ mount, or even just a good pair of binoculars. It's probably a step that you'll end up taking in the future anyways if you are serious about astronomical viewing.</p>

<p>What are you primarily going to be using this lens for? If you're shooting something like landscapes, where f/8 or smaller is going to be used most of the time, I think you'd still be fine with the Sigma.</p>

<p>Another option with similar range is the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Unfortunately, you lose even more zoom, but it's a great, sharp lens and has f/2.8 throughout the range. You could supplement it with a ~80mm prime which I think is a great alternative.</p>

<p>I agree 100%. Leave the shots of the actual totality to the astrophotographers. Use the opportunity to maybe get some landscape type shots during totality, which are also incredible. It's a great event to observe even when not looking through a viewfinder!</p>

<p>Also, not that I'm not impressed by the shots that astrophotographers take of solar eclipses, but they are shots that are all over the place. If it were me, I'd be using the opporunity for a really unique lighting situation.</p>

<p>Maybe some more information about it's acual day to day usage would help. How many hours a day do you plan on using it? The current crop of netbooks, in my mind, would be pretty much ideal. They have a screen, and long battery life, which is what I would need for longer nature trips. <br>

I don't think there is going to be a "perfect" field laptop. Since you're posting this in the nature forum, I'm assuming that you'll be using this a lot outdoors, which means hiking, which means weight restrictions, which means sacrificing processing power. In the field, in nature, I don't know how necessary RAW editing in Lightroom would be to be honest, that kind of thing can wait until home in most cases, so maybe just something to view the jpgs in a larger size? I still recommend a netbook then.</p>

<p>Personally, I still need somebody to explain the purpose of a notebook in the nature to me, but if I were to take something, it would definitely be as small/light as possible, with the longest possible battery life. So, as I said above, one of the many netbooks!</p>

<p>Great shots there Gary. You also did a great job of demonstrating the different kinds of moon shots that are possible. My post focused on shots where you would want the moon to be big, with some kind of foreground. In this case, because of the really small viewing angle, the moon is going to have to be relatively "close" to your subject, while both of them also need to be within the range of focus. So this means that usually shooting the moon near the horizon, or looking 'up' at a mountain would be some of your best options.</p>

<p>The great Joshua Tree example shows how even a tiny moon can really add a lot to a picture as well. These kinds of shots are actually much easier to plan because you have a lot more 'space' to work with. The moon can be in a number of different positions to get a dusk/dawn/daytime-ish shot with a foreground thanks to wider angle shots.</p>

<p>I still disagree with sandwiching/combining shots personally. One of my favorite parts of photographing the moon in landscape scenarios is the planning, preparation, etc. that goes behind putting together the perfect shot. There are really only a few times a year to get certain moon shots, and the amount of work and study that goes into finding the perfect location for this shouldn't be swept aside just because it can be done by combining other shots.</p>

<p>Like Jeff said, the only way to get a bigger moon in the shot is to get a longer lens and plan the angle of your shot differently. I find that more often than not, images where the moon is superimposed, are fairly obvious. </p>

<p>Also, what's the point of trying to get the perfect shot, which in the case of the moon, happens only a few times a month, when you can just paste it in there. It doesn't really seem fair.</p>

<p>Here you get a fairly good idea of the size of the moon on film:</p>

<p><a href="http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/howtophoto/">http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/howtophoto/</a></p>

<p>It's a fairly complicated process, you need to keep in mind that the moon is also moving (relative to the horizon), so the longer the focal length, the faster the shutter speed needs to be to keep it from blurring. Also, in a lot of cases the moon is going to be too bright in comparison to the landscape, so you'll end up with a blown out moon and black foreground. Because of that, there's really only a few times a month (I find) where you can get the moon, with some kind of a nice foreground, without it blowing out completely. Usually the day after a full moon is great for moonrise shots, crescent moons that set about 1-1.5 hours after the sun give some good opportunities, etc.</p>

<p>This is one of the things where I think that digital really helps. You've got a very bright object near a usually, much darker foreground. It's a difficult lighting situation where trying to keep them both in check is really helped via histogram/lcd viewing.</p>

<p>Here's an example. 2 days after full moon, sun had set about 45mins to an hour beforehand. Had to underexpose in order to keep the details of the moon in check a little bit. Shot with a 200mm lens on a 30D (about 320mm equivalent). 2.5 second exposure, so you can even see a little bit of blurriness around the moon.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8823142-lg.jpg" alt="" width="482" height="720" /></p>

 

<p>I have to put my vote back in for the 17-50. This lens (my copy) is very sharp, even wide open and has great color rendition. While the 17-85 isn't bad, I'd definitely say that the tamron is an upgrade, and also has 2.8 all the way through. Also, 50mm is 80mm equivalent at the long end. I'd personally get this one, then get a prime in the 80mm range.</p>

<p>Hmm, interesting choice. One thing that you have to look at is that you already seem to have 28-75 covered, so these lenses would only give you 17-28 (and 75-85 on the canon) on top of that. Personally, I don't mind changing, so I would definitely go for the 17-50 2.8, which I own, and love. I have no problems with it.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I'd say take a look at something even wider (the canon 10-22 gives you the most range, but is probably more than you want to spend) so that you could add to your range, rather than getting a lot of overlap. The sigma 10-20mm is the wide angle that I have, and am also very happy with it. What kind of stuff do you usually shoot?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dave T,</p>

<ol>

<li>If the camera is level (your case 2), the normal times for rise and set apply. </li>

<li>If you're looking up at an object, rise will be later and set will be earlier. If you know the altitude of the object, and you're using a program like the Sun/Moon Calculator or JPL Horizons, you can specify a nonzero altitude to reflect this. Alternatively, you can generate a table of Sun or Moon positions (azimuth and altitude) using many programs (such as the USNO) to get a pretty good idea of when the object will appear; you need to remember that rise and set times usually refer to the top of the body's disk, while positions are usually given for the center of the body. <br />As Peter is finding out, though, the hardest part of all this is getting the azimuth and altitude of a feature. </li>

<li>If you're on a hill looking down (e.g., a sunrise from Colorado's Pikes Peak), it's more complicated because of additional refraction, and most calculators (including the USNO) give the wrong anwser because they don't account for the dip of the horizon. The Sun/Moon Calculator takes this into account if a nonzero Height Above Horizon is specified. A few other calculators also do this. </li>

</ol></blockquote>

<p>Thanks a lot!</p>

<p>I'm on the canon side of things and I can't see how video would be enough of an advantage to make the switch. On the other hand, here are some other advantages which made me choose Canon over Nikon in the first place:</p>

<p>- better low noise performance (not an issue anymore, but it used to be!)</p>

<p>- compatibility with M42 lenses for cheap alternatives to Canon lenses (also compatible with some other lenses that can't focus to infinity on Nikon systems)</p>

<p>- more accessible lenses in my area</p>

<p>- I liked the ergonomics better</p>

<p>As mentioned above, video seems (to me) to be more of a novelty. I don't think it's worth changing entire systems over.</p>

<p>I'm wondering if somebody could give me an idea of where I could find some resources regarding moonrise/set sunrise/set positions and times with regards to the horizon. Specifically I become confused when:</p>

<p>1) I'm shooting from a hill, looking down</p>

<p>2) I'm shooting from a hill, towards an object on another hill of the same height</p>

<p>3) I'm shooting from ~sea level, looking up towards an object</p>

<p>I'm sure it's simple, I'd just like to get a bit more accurate...</p>

<p>The 10-22 is a great lens and it's pretty unlikely that you would need IS at those focal lengths.</p>

<p>I don't think it shuts down, it just doesn't work properly.</p>

<p>This argument is absolutely fruitless I believe. The amount of time spent shooting spice bottles, focus charts, etc. would be much better used getting out and using the equipment for what you want to shoot. I am by no means any kind of pro, but I don't think that sitting on my keyboard arguing the merits of either medium will bring me any closer to being a better photographer. Brilliant photographs have been taken with both mediums. Get out there and shoot, regardless of what you use, your eye and technique are the most important tools in your arsenal. This discussion will resolve very little, as shown by the fact that these hundreds of posts haven't swayed either side.</p>

<p>Let's not try to turn photography into something so scientific that we completely remove the artistic quality of this wonderful hobby (or in some fortunate cases, job). Film still exists in a wide variety of forms for film shooters, digital shooters also have as many options as they will ever need. Trying to belittle one side doesn't help the other, while trying to make one side better than it actually is only detracts from its actual qualities. Get out there and take pictures of what you love, it will be infinitely more satisfying than trying to 'win' this endless debate.</p>

<p>This is a pretty absurd thread. Also, any test regarding handheld MSU shots is going to have a very very difficult time convincing me of anything. Unless you can have a robotic arm which will replicate the exact movements twice, once with MLU, and once without, there are far too many variables to take into account.</p>

<p>Also, the shots above used to show the loss of sharpness due to lack of MLU with an IS lens also don't show much. Even IS lenses aren't 100% infallible in terms of motion blur. Focus could also be a problem here. I would also say that some of the additional sharpness in the second image comes from the increased contrast as well.</p>

<p>Well, I have come to terms with the fact that essentially, at the moment, it's nearly impossible to get pinpoint stars, with a detailed foreground because of technological limitations. Recently I bought a tracking mount so that I can get longer exposures of the stars, so my question is regarding the combination of the sharp foreground image with the star images.</p>

<p>I'm starting to think, that it's just a lot of painstaking work in photoshop, but I'm also not sure. For example, in this image from <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/user?user_id=2005194">William Hood</a>:</p>

<p><a href="../photo/7829571&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/7829571&size=lg</a></p>

<p>I find it incredible that it would be necessary to sit in photoshop with a layer mask on the foreground, and erase every part of the tree where the stars should be shining through. I'm wondering if there is any way to do this without spending hours in front of a computer monitor, especially in situations where the foreground wouldn't be completely black...</p>

<p>thanks for any help!</p>

<p>Found another nice one, although seems a bit large:</p>

<p>Loap venture 60: <a href="http://www.trekshop.cz/batohy-55-65-l/akcni-cena-batoh-loap-venture-60-l-celovka-zdarma/">http://www.trekshop.cz/batohy-55-65-l/akcni-cena-batoh-loap-venture-60-l-celovka-zdarma/</a></p>

<p>Looks almost perfect.</p>

<p>Yeah Daniel, I realized that basically, in order to get the kind of starry landscapes that I wanted, I'd have to get a tracking mount. I think that it might be possible with the 5d2 and a 1.8 lens, but that would've required me changing my entire system. I'd still rather shoot at no high ISOs either. </p>

<p>I still haven't gotten out to use my mount yet, been cloudy for weeks. I bought the astrotrac mount that I can attach to my tripod normally. I bought it new directly from astrotrac. I needed something really portable, so this seemed like the best bet. The kenko skymemo was also suggested to me, but the weight and cost were higher.</p>

<p>Hopefully I'll get out soon and see what the potential for this setup is. But like you said, the key is to make it look realistic. I'm not trying to go for deep sky imaging, just maybe get 4-5 minute exposures of tight stars, then composite with a 4-5 minute image of the still foreground. I'll sefinitely post some of my thoughts/examples once I get on it.</p>