 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2007Night sky shots
Is it technically possible to shoot moonlit skies in full detail? Like where you can see Moon's surface, yet also clouds & stars etc? Right now all my attempts come out like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/goldman-x/345346124/ I've also tried HDR approach with no success... Peter > Is it technically possible to shoot moonlit skies in full detail? Like > where you can see Moon's surface, yet also clouds & stars etc? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I've also tried HDR approach with no success... The short answer is yes...and no. In the example you linked to, there are a couple of problems. First, there is too much cloud movement relative to exposure length, so any details in the clouds gets turned into streaks as the clouds move. You will need both a shorter exposure and much stiller air (much less cloud movement) to not have the "swept" appearance to the clouds. Second, there is simply too much contrast between night clouds and the moon. An exposure that would capture details on the moon would show little or no cloud detail. An exposure that captures the essence of the clouds will totally blow out the moon. There are many approaches to solving this, but they all boil down to two exposures, one for the clouds and one for the moon, that are then combined. Austin >> Is it technically possible to shoot moonlit skies in full detail? Like >> where you can see Moon's surface, yet also clouds & stars etc? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You will need both a shorter exposure and much stiller air (much less > cloud movement) to not have the "swept" appearance to the clouds. > Second, there is simply too much contrast between night clouds and the > moon. An exposure that would capture details on the moon would show [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > two exposures, one for the clouds and one for the moon, that are then > combined. Yep, such idea actually crossed my mind. However, in the 'clouds detail' shot exposure will have to be in quite long - this will not only wash out the moon but surrounding clouds as well. Also, I'm not sure air is ever still enough for clouds not to move over 10-20sec exposures? Or should I be going for noisefest at ISO 1600? When these two shots are combined it seems like one would need to actually cut out the moon image from low-exposure shot and paste it into high-exposure one... otherwise lens flare & blow-out clouds near moon will appear in combined image. Yeah, and I also notice stars are of different colour in my shot... wonder if it's lens CA? Peter > >> Is it technically possible to shoot moonlit skies in full detail? Like > >> where you can see Moon's surface, yet also clouds & stars etc? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > ever still enough for clouds not to move over 10-20sec exposures? Or > should I be going for noisefest at ISO 1600? Another option that can gain several stops depending on the lens you are using now is to go to a high speed (i.e. large apature) fixed focal lens. > When these two shots are combined it seems like one would need to > actually cut out the moon image from low-exposure shot and paste it into [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yeah, and I also notice stars are of different colour in my shot... > wonder if it's lens CA? Stars really are different colors. Austin >>> First, there is too much cloud movement relative to exposure length, so >>> any details in the clouds gets turned into streaks as the clouds move. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > are using now is to go to a high speed (i.e. large apature) fixed focal > lens. I can try 50mm f/1.4... >> When these two shots are combined it seems like one would need to >> actually cut out the moon image from low-exposure shot and paste it into [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Stars really are different colors. Hmm, didnt seem different colors to my eyes. Well, maybe they were. I'll have to wait now for another visible moon... it's all rainy & cloudy now Thanks! Peter > Is it technically possible to shoot moonlit skies in full detail? Like > where you can see Moon's surface, yet also clouds & stars etc? Peter- The problem is that the moon is illuminated directly by the sun, but the clouds are only illuminated by moonlight and extraneous city lights. The moon is actually a little darker than it appears, so you can use the "sunny 16" rule and over-expose by about a stop. Stars and planets appear as pinpoints of bright light, so exposure may not be critical for the brighter ones. To get the clouds, try it after sunset when there is still light in the sky. There may be a best time to take the picture when all the lighting is just right. Fred >To get the clouds, try it after sunset when there is still light in the >sky. There may be a best time to take the picture when all the lighting >is just right. Or try it just before sunset: <http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/adams_moonrise_full.html> jc  Signature"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA >>To get the clouds, try it after sunset when there is still light in the >>sky. There may be a best time to take the picture when all the lighting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > <http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/adams/adams_moonrise_full.html> Or even earlier in the evening: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/neigh borhoods> I did have to merge two focal lengths but no exagguration in scale. >> Is it technically possible to shoot moonlit skies in full detail? Like >> where you can see Moon's surface, yet also clouds & stars etc? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > sky. There may be a best time to take the picture when all the lighting > is just right. The sunset/sunrise light is probably the best chance to shoot moon + clouds - much less dynamic range in such conditions. If I gather it correctly 'true' night shot with black sky, moon & white-ish clouds will take something like f/0.1 and HDR? Awesome shots on Adams photo site! Peter > If I gather it correctly 'true' night shot with black sky, moon & > white-ish clouds will take something like f/0.1 and HDR? Peter- I wonder if a polarizing filter would sufficiently darken the sky, even before sundown? Fred >> If I gather it correctly 'true' night shot with black sky, moon & >> white-ish clouds will take something like f/0.1 and HDR? > > I wonder if a polarizing filter would sufficiently darken the sky, even > before sundown? Interesting... just might work. Might give it a try next time I see the sun (may not happen for months now!). Thanks! Peter >>> If I gather it correctly 'true' night shot with black sky, moon & >>> white-ish clouds will take something like f/0.1 and HDR? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Interesting... just might work. Might give it a try next time I see the > sun (may not happen for months now!). The sky is polarized when a light source, e.g. the sun or moon illuminates it. Maximum polarization is 90 degrees from the source and zero when looking at the source. Before sundown, the sky is illuminated by the sun and will be polarized, but again maximum 90 degrees from the sun. As the sky darkens after sundown, and if the moon is up, you have two sources: in twilight, the sun, and the moon. If the moon is at first or last quarter, the polarization of the sky will be reduced, but if the moon is full, the polarization will remain high. But if you want to include the sun or moon in your photo, you will see less effect. Where you can get the maximum polarization effect with the moon in the photo is the moon near first or last quarter and the sun near the horizon. If there were some clouds illuminated pink by the setting/rising sun, the effect of a polarizer can be dramatic. At full moon, photographs that include the moon show virtually no effect from polarization. Roger >>>> If I gather it correctly 'true' night shot with black sky, moon & >>>> white-ish clouds will take something like f/0.1 and HDR? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > of a polarizer can be dramatic. At full moon, photographs > that include the moon show virtually no effect from polarization. I have to confess I do not fully understand how CPL works. V/H polarization is simple... So you're saying that using a polarizer only makes sense when the sun is out (or at least close to horizon)? That means there's no point shooting night sky with the polarizer, right? Peter >>>>> If I gather it correctly 'true' night shot with black sky, moon & >>>>> white-ish clouds will take something like f/0.1 and HDR? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I have to confess I do not fully understand how CPL works. V/H > polarization is simple... You might start here: Polarized Light and Evaluating Polarizing Filters http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/evaluating_polarizing_filters > So you're saying that using a polarizer only makes sense when the sun is > out (or at least close to horizon)? That means there's no point shooting > night sky with the polarizer, right? The night sky is polarized if illuminated by the moon. Polarization is induced by light scattering off of molecules in our sky. So stars do create polarized light, but 1) stars are faint, and scattered star light much much fainter, 2) the many stars in the sky contribute to many directions of polarized light, so smear out the polarization. You need one dominant light source (sun or moon) to make a polarized sky. A polarized sky is linearly polarized. The use of a circular polarizer is only for use in modern cameras whose light metering systems are sensitive to linearly polarized light. Roger In article <45A3A71E.7050006@qwest.net>, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote: > A polarized sky is linearly polarized. The use of a circular polarizer is > only for use in modern cameras whose light metering systems are sensitive to > linearly polarized light. Roger- That is correct, but the effect is as if you used a liner polarizer. It seems that a linear polarizer is used to make a circular polarizer. If you hold the circular polarizer up to your eye and rotate it, you can see the effects IF you look through the correct side. Fred > In article <45A3A71E.7050006@qwest.net>, > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Fred I discuss that in detail on my web page. Did you not read it? Polarized Light and Evaluating Polarizing Filters http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/evaluating_polarizing_filters Roger > I discuss that in detail on my web page. Did you not read it? <q> a scene with a lot of polarized light becomes slightly "warmer" when a circular polarizer is used (this means a color shift to the read) <uq> Shirley, you didn't mean red? That would a cooler image, no? SignatureAlan LeHun >> I discuss that in detail on my web page. Did you not read it? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Shirley, you didn't mean red? That would a cooler image, no? No, blue is cool, red is warm. http://desktoppub.about.com/od/choosingcolors/p/color_meanings.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_theory#Warm_vs._cool_colors Unless I misread what you wrote. SignatureSenate Democrats proposed ethics reform legislation on Tuesday. It calls for lawmakers to pay the real cost of corporate jet flights and the full cost of skybox tickets for sporting events. If you want to know ahead of time what's going to happen to this bill, you simply need to watch the last five minutes of Old Yeller. >>a scene with a lot of polarized light becomes slightly "warmer" when a >>circular polarizer is used (this means a color shift to the read) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_theory#Warm_vs._cool_colors > Unless I misread what you wrote. The physical color temperature of red is cooler than the color temperature of blue. The "human" visual interpretation of red is warm or hot (fire), and blue is cool (ice). Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>a scene with a lot of polarized light becomes slightly "warmer" when a >>>circular polarizer is used (this means a color shift to the read) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Cheers, >Alan Yes, and Alan Browne was speaking of the visual part, not the color temp. At least that's how I read it. SignatureSenate Democrats proposed ethics reform legislation on Tuesday. It calls for lawmakers to pay the real cost of corporate jet flights and the full cost of skybox tickets for sporting events. If you want to know ahead of time what's going to happen to this bill, you simply need to watch the last five minutes of Old Yeller. > Yes, and Alan Browne You mean Roger > was speaking of the visual part, not the color > temp. > At least that's how I read it. Yes, that's quite clear to me now. It seems that blue is a hot color that's cool and red is a cold color that's warm. ty for the links. SignatureAlan Lehun > Yes, and Alan Browne was speaking of eh, not me! Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Yes, and Alan Browne was speaking of > >eh, not me! Yeah, I can't read... It was Alan LeHun ======= "Shirley, you didn't mean red? That would a cooler image, no? SignatureAlan LeHun" ======= -- Arnold Schwarzenegger was at the Golden Globes Monday to give away the award for Best Motion Picture Drama. He's no newcomer to the winner's circle himself. The Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas once voted him most lifelike over Al Gore. > Is it technically possible to shoot moonlit skies in full detail? Like > where you can see Moon's surface, yet also clouds & stars etc? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Peter A fully risen full or near-full Moon is thousands of times bright than the nighttime sky. 1/500th of a second or faster exposure versus 10 seconds for your clouds. The only practical way to do this shot is to cheat. Shoot the Moon as you normally would then wait for it to clear the area of sky you want it imaged with. Shoot that area for sky and clouds then combine the two images in software. Also remember that the area around the Moon is also brighter than other areas owing to water vapour scattering of the Moon's light. For those who don't want to cheat, and who want to experiment, look up "occultating disk" on amateur astronomy website and have at it... > I've also tried HDR approach with no success... Really? Did you actually try HDR software, or doing things in Photoshop? I think PS itself is actually a better bet, a lot more versatile. Maybe it's cheating, but if what you're trying to do is show the moon in context the way you see it, multiple layers and exposures are your friend. The moon is small in this one, but it's detailed for its size, and this was about a 30 minute exposure: http://forrestcroce.com/Photos/OlympicNightfall.html Of course the moon was a different exposure, and I had to clone the streak it left out of the main one. But photography is an art more than a science. >> I've also tried HDR approach with no success... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > streak it left out of the main one. But photography is an art more > than a science. I tried PS HDR using 3 shots captured using AEB (+/- 2 stops). PS complained there is not enough dynamic range in photos. Go figure. Your photo is really good... it's a cloudless sky therefore you dont have overexposed clouds that are illuminated by the moon. That was my main concern actually... how to properly stack HDR photos and avoid bright clouds near the moon. Next time conditions are favorable I might try bumping ISO up and going for shorter exposures in order to capture the clouds. Thanks! Peter |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.