FishProfiles.com Message Forums

Posted this in premie, but figured others might get a kick out of it too.


This is what the moon mars and jupiter looked like last night when we went out our front door.

Cool - an starry smilie.

ADAAAAAM! BABELS mooning us!

Atleast ya got to see it, was too cloudy here in my neck-o-the woods... nice pic !!

J

Nice. It was too cloudy here to see it, but it was supposed to be frowning on this side of the world (that's what the radio said, at least). o.O

I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I have a question: How did you get your camera to focus on the sky without getting any flaring? I can't get any of my cameras (not even my DSLR or film SLRs) to focus. Even if I set everything up manually and set focus to infinity, I still get a crazy flare.

Here's what I get. You can see the moon, but the flare is off of the moon...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/PoisonWaffle/moonlensflare.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/PoisonWaffle/DSCF0421Large.jpg

I can still get some cool pics like that, tho
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/PoisonWaffle/DSCF0422Large.jpg

Any advice?

Edit: Yes, I know, there is dust on the inside of the lens I used for those pictures. It's not on the CCD (though it looks like it is)... I only get the dust with that lens... need to blow it out...

Hey Pwaff !!
I dig your artistic "flare" hehe
way back in '97, I tried to take some pics through my telescope of Hale-Bop using a 'ol 35mm Cannon almost as old as I am( and yes, it still works lol ) I found that shortening the exposure time the less flare I got, also not using a "moon filter" or a "astral filter" but a filter lens for terestrial "soft light" and a high speed film ( 400 if I recall) seemed to do the trick.

J

Hmm...

I can get semi-decent pics thru a telescope, but with a regular telephoto lens I have problems. I could try going up to 1600 ISO on my DSLR and see how short of an exposure I could get...

I've got a few soft filters... might have to give them a shot, too.

Btw, since when was 400 speed considered 'high speed'? I suppose way back in the day it was. I've been using 3200 speed film as 'high speed' film for the last 10 years or so...

ya know, its been so long since I've "bought" film for a older camera, yer probably right PW,now I'm gomma have to dig up the scope and camera and see if there are any old film boxes left and see how far off my memory is !! lol

J

Well, higher film speeds will always give you more grain (film) or noise (digital) so most photographers try to shoot with the lowest ISO, some like the effect. 400 has long been considered high speed. you won't see 1600 film on a regular basis for consumers.


waffley, what was the fstop on those? a slower fstop will reduce flaring. I kinda like the flare. but you're right it doesn't 'work' sometimes. if you look close at the planets you'll see that they have flaring.

That photo was a shorter exposure as I don't have the $2K tripod that won't shake from the shutter.

I tend to do better with hand held, this was craters of the moon nat park f 5.6, 1/100s ISO200 300mm, oh, and shot through the back window of the van

Attached Image:

So thats what those bright 'stars' were...

The last one I linked is f/32 at iso 800.

The others are f/4-4.5 at iso 1600.

All were taken through a 210mm telephoto lens on a basic tripod.

Btw, I usually go for the lowest iso I can use in the situation (usually based on amount of light and movement, depending on the subject)... I crank it up if I need shorter exposure times or greater depth of field.

I'll give it a shot on the next clear/decent night. I'll also look into building an adapter for my telescope and microscope out of PVC and one of those covers that you put over the body when you take the lens off... whatever they call those things o.O

Thanks for the tips

Hoods


It'll be cool to see how they turn out.

*tries to remember* I think I've also read that the more glass you have the more you can get flares which is why you can get a 500mm lens that is a few hundred, or a few thousand (well one of the reasons!). Quality of the glass and that sort of thing, but that's only a half remembering so it might just be a confused remembering at that .

^_^

Hmm. Methinks hoods are good only if they make the light source (that's causing the flare) to be out of the frame... not if you're taking a picture of the light source.

For example, a hood would have probably gotten rid of the flare in these shots. (note the crud inside the lens on the photo)

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/PoisonWaffle/DSCF0020.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/PoisonWaffle/DSCF0024.jpg

Though I was able to get the flare out by changing positions (moving over ~20') with the same lens without a hood.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/PoisonWaffle/DSCF0037.jpg

I know what you mean about quality of glass. That's the main reason why I can build crazy lenses out of PVC for so cheap. It cost me less than $5 to make a lens that I use for taking pictures such as these...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/PoisonWaffle/DSC02629.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/PoisonWaffle/DSC02633.jpg

Note: That's 1/8" glass in the background of this picture:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/PoisonWaffle/microstar.jpg

I'm going to build a fish-eye lens out of PVC and a magnifying lens like this: http://www.abledata.com/product_images/images/02A0587.jpg (note that I didn't take that pic)

Anyway, sorry for stealing your thread... I'll let you know how the pictures of the moon come out (will probably take 'em tonight)

Thanks

Tonight was the first clear night we've had since I started watching for 'em, and it was perfect! 30F, no humidity at all (less atmospheric interference), no clouds, and a full moon!

I tried a full range of fstops and exposures with two different lenses, and figured out that a smaller aperture (the best shots I got were at f/26.9) yields less flare (and of course a longer exposure time and a greater depth of field). Once I figured that out, I was able to shoot at the lowest ISO I could without getting too long of exposures and getting blur (was shooting handheld, no tripod). The best pics I got were at ISO 800 f/26.9 and 1/100-1/250 sec. The 210mm lens I ended up using still has dust inside of it, so I had to put the moon in a few random places where it could fit that dust wouldn't be in the picture (and then crop it).

Here's what I got!

Full picture
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/PoisonWaffle/DSCF0168.jpg

Cropped
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/PoisonWaffle/DSCF0168-crop.jpg

Whaddaya think?!

Again, sorry about stealing your thread, I didn't expect this to turn into a question/answer/'this thread is worthless without pics' thread o.O

And again, thanks for the tips

oh I totally don't mind my thread being 'stolen' in such a manner!

those came out great! is that doppler I'm seeing, blue on one side of the moon, red on the other o.O?

I'm surprised you had the best success with the smallest aperture Usually to get the star look without a filter the trick is to use the highest fstop possible! the image speaks for itself though. Have you had any success with the same shooting info on smaller points of light (stars planets UFO) ?

We've had some clear nights here (finally) perhaps I should be spending time outside as well .

^_^

I'm not noticing any difference in color on either side of the moon... maybe it's your monitor? Either way, the doppler effect shouldn't occur on an object because it's spinning (especially not on something as small as the moon)... it should occur when moving toward or away from a celestial object at a significant speed...

No, I haven't had any luck on stars or smaller objects. I tried, but it was too cold to do much. I don't have enough zoom or enough megapixels to record a star very well. I'll definitely keep my eye out for brighter/bigger stars, though.

Btw, the higher the fstop number, the smaller the aperture... the lower the fstop number, the larger the aperture... they're inverse. That may be the source of your confusion?

Yea, astrophotography is great stuff... definitely get out an' take some pics whenever you get a chance

You can get doppler shifting because of something spinning, but it would have to be spinning at a ridiculously high speed.

There I see what Babel is talking , left side has a red haze, right side bluish. I think it's a case of chromatic abberation or similar.

You've got a point... it'd have to be spinning pretty darn fast if that were to be possible...

Now I see what you're talking about... I had to look really closely to see it. I wonder if it's my camera, the atmosphere, or something celestial that's causing the tints. I'm thinking it may have something to do with how the moon gets a reddish tint when it's near the horizon and/or eclipsing (though it was almost directly overhead when I took the pic)...