Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Killer91 on March 20, 2011, 01:10:48 AM
-
Oh noes we all gonna die!! (not really :D )
But I did get a semi-nice moon picture!!!
(http://i586.photobucket.com/albums/ss304/longhornsfan2010/IMG_6050a.jpg)
This picture is edited a little. I had to adjust the contrast to get rid of light pollution around the moon.
For now thats the max zoom I can acheive. I took this one with my 70-300mm lens. Hoping to eventually get a 650-1300mm lens.
Then I can get some closeups!! :rock
-
not a bad shot actually... how the heck did you get rid of the freaking light pollution?!?! where do you live??
-
Nice
Did you take that picture today?
-
not a bad shot actually... how the heck did you get rid of the freaking light pollution?!?! where do you live??
I knew i forgot to mention something in the original post.. I live in a small town so light pollution from city lights isn't a problem for me. I have serious issues with light from the moon making the a big circle of light around the moon and causing it to look fuzzy. It didn't help that there was a very thin layer of clouds over the moon which made the area of light around the moon worse. I simply added some contrast to the picture the extra light from the moon is removed leaving me with the above picture. This was the original:
(http://i586.photobucket.com/albums/ss304/longhornsfan2010/IMG_6050.jpg)
Nice
Did you take that picture today?
Yes sir. Took it a couple hours before I posted it here.
-
My camera won't focus on it, POS little digital monstrosity.
-
My camera won't focus on it, POS little digital monstrosity.
Thats why I own one of these [urlhttp://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+EOS+Digital+Rebel+XS+10.1-Megapixel+Digital+SLR+Camera+-+Black/8929699.p?id=1214611419717&skuId=8929699&st=canon rebel xs&cp=1&lp=1][/url]
:devil
I got tired of crappy point and shoots and there inabilty to focus on clouds and the moon :bhead
-
Supermoon
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa454/Kazokuauto/Bahara-Golestani-03.jpg)
Super awesome....
(http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa324/jimegrie/bahara-golestani-2.jpg)
-
There was a full moon about a month ago where the Moon looked huge. I was hoping someone took a picture of it.
-
There was a full moon about a month ago where the Moon looked huge. I was hoping someone took a picture of it.
if something aint huge after those two ^^^^^^ there is something wrong.
Nice mercedes, its my fave model of car.
-
"Super" Moon rise over Long Beach Island, NJ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBxJ9VpRZcE
-
When I was driving back home last night it was rising up straight on my 12... It was almost as bright as cars coming the opposite direction. Wish I took the time to take some pictures. I'll take one tonight maybe, its not too late.
-
How can this world be coming to an end when there is still such beauty in it?
-
How can this world be coming to an end when there is still such beauty in it?
All the beauty is out of humankind's reach.
On Earth, there are few things left,
untainted.
But that is another discussion for another thread :)
-
All the beauty is out of humankind's reach.
On Earth, there are few things left,
untainted.
But that is another discussion for another thread :)
Yes....if you post a thread I will kindly debate it with you...
:D
-
I see nip.
-
How can this world be coming to an end when there is still such beauty in it?
wether you choose to agree, or disagree with them, some people are blaming the moon for the earthquake &tsunami. saying its because of the moon being so close to earth that its gravitational pull was what made the tsunamis as hard hitting as they were.
i dont agree or disagree, im staying neutral to that discussion.
but this "beauty" may have come with an 8,000+ cost of life.
-
Yes....if you post a thread I will kindly debate it with you...
:D
Good discussion material there :aok I agree the beauties of this world out weigh the uglyness in it.
-
wether you choose to agree, or disagree with them, some people are blaming the moon for the earthquake &tsunami. saying its because of the moon being so close to earth that its gravitational pull was what made the tsunamis as hard hitting as they were.
i dont agree or disagree, im staying neutral to that discussion.
but this "beauty" may have come with an 8,000+ cost of life.
I don't know the math but I find it hard to believe that the moon would actually amplify any of the effects of the earthquake. If anything it would have just triggered it. And whether the moon had an influence or not, it's just one variable among many. It would've happened eventually, moon or no moon.
Anyway, I'm hoping some of the astrophotographers of this forum have some good pics to share... :cheers:
-
wether you choose to agree, or disagree with them, some people are blaming the moon for the earthquake &tsunami. saying its because of the moon being so close to earth that its gravitational pull was what made the tsunamis as hard hitting as they were.
i dont agree or disagree, im staying neutral to that discussion.
but this "beauty" may have come with an 8,000+ cost of life.
I think you took me the wrong way.......completely wrong, that read like you think I thought the destruction of Japan was awesome or something....
Look up......Great Falls, Potomac River...sight to SEE!!!
-
(http://i56.tinypic.com/se67ip.jpg)
(http://i51.tinypic.com/r8dzk7.jpg)
(http://i54.tinypic.com/md1qar.jpg)
unedited goodness :D
Took these around 11:30PM
-------------
EDIT: :O :O :O :O :O It looks like one big picture with 3 moons xD
Would you guys like me to space them out? :rofl
-
I think you took me the wrong way.......completely wrong, that read like you think I thought the destruction of Japan was awesome or something....
Look up......Great Falls, Potomac River...sight to SEE!!!
oh no, i didnt mean it like that at all. i was just putting out there what i heard. and what some ppl thought about the moon. i didnt mean to make it sound like you supported the destruction of japan or anything. my apologies.
-
The moon was at one of it's closests apogees on March 19th.
-
The moon was at one of it's closests apogees on March 19th.
the closest since March 1993
-
i had the telescope out last night for the supermoon. was pretty sweet :D
-
i had the telescope out last night for the supermoon. was pretty sweet :D
see any flaming messerschmitts? :lol jk
-
the closest since March 1993
ty for the research. :aok
-
see any flaming messerschmitts? :lol jk
:lol just the one
-
oh no, i didnt mean it like that at all. i was just putting out there what i heard. and what some ppl thought about the moon. i didnt mean to make it sound like you supported the destruction of japan or anything. my apologies.
"This is all proof that the moon hates Japanese people."
(http://slapblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Mike-Myers-wtf.jpg)
-
ty for the research. :aok
You're welcome :)
and reaper xDDDDD :rofl
-
(http://i56.tinypic.com/se67ip.jpg)
(http://i51.tinypic.com/r8dzk7.jpg)
(http://i54.tinypic.com/md1qar.jpg)
unedited goodness :D
Took these around 11:30PM
-------------
EDIT: :O :O :O :O :O It looks like one big picture with 3 moons xD
Would you guys like me to space them out? :rofl
Nice ones!! You using any filters on your camera??
-
We had clear skies last night. Moon was frikkin awesome. Neighbors butt didn't look bad either :O
-
Nice ones!! You using any filters on your camera??
Nope :)
-
One I attempted a couple years ago. Sigma 400mm 5.6 APO lens.
(http://www.kirksagers.com/Nature/Misc/The-Moon/217610354_uC3pb-L-2.jpg)
Also tried some of an eclipse once, but they didn't turn out so well, problem is it's so bright on one side and dark on the other.
(http://www.kirksagers.com/Nature/Misc/Lunar-Eclispe-2/261059554_3cwfR-L-2.jpg)
-
One I attempted a couple years ago. Sigma 400mm 5.6 APO lens.
(http://www.kirksagers.com/Nature/Misc/The-Moon/217610354_uC3pb-L-2.jpg)
Also tried some of an eclipse once, but they didn't turn out so well, problem is it's so bright on one side and dark on the other.
(http://www.kirksagers.com/Nature/Misc/Lunar-Eclispe-2/261059554_3cwfR-L-2.jpg)
Those are pretty nice!! The picture of the elcipse came out way better than any of mine.
And I agree. the different shades of light on the moon made getting good pictures insanely hard!!
-
Oh noes we all gonna die!! (not really :D )
I am pretty certain that we all will die.
-
Thats not a moon......
-
(http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/7/71/DSI_hdapproach.jpg)
:noid
-
oh shizzle....
Call the rebels! Tell them to abandon Libya! It has begun again!
-
Also tried some of an eclipse once, but they didn't turn out so well, problem is it's so bright on one side and dark on the other.
Just take two pictures with high and low exposure and have them merge in photoshop or some photo editing software to blend them up to your liking. That's how long exposure pics of stars are taken and the landscape (ex: lit from the moon) is still less illuminated than the sky.
-
These pics are cool don't get me wrong...but without a frame of reference they just look like any other pictures of a full moon?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/pictures/110321-supermoon-pictures-biggest-full-moon-science/
-
................
-
Just take two pictures with high and low exposure and have them merge in photoshop or some photo editing software to blend them up to your liking. That's how long exposure pics of stars are taken and the landscape (ex: lit from the moon) is still less illuminated than the sky.
I've been a photographer for many years, I know all about HDR, I use it a lot for landscapes now instead of GND filters like the good old days. Lots of people go overkill with the HDR though creating unnatural colors and that drives me nuts. Problem with an lunar eclipse is is moves pretty quick, and you need longish (20s) exposures for the dark side, it might have been possible still, I don't know. I could have tried an HDR merge from a single split RAW file. But honestly I don't care about that image that much, I was just messing around.
And I agree. the different shades of light on the moon made getting good pictures insanely hard!!
Yeah, you cannot trust your meter for moon shots, unless you have a hand held with a really small spot. The blackness around the moon will fool 99% of all built in meters
However, since the Moon is just reflected sunlight, I've always found that the "sunny 16" rule (f-16 aperture, shutter speed set same as ISO) works out just fine for standard moon shots. I'm to lazy to go through the metadata, but I'm pretty sure I shot that first one at f16, 1/400 and ISO 400.
-
However, since the Moon is just reflected sunlight, I've always found that the "sunny 16" rule (f-16 aperture, shutter speed set same as ISO) works out just fine for standard moon shots. I'm to lazy to go through the metadata, but I'm pretty sure I shot that first one at f16, 1/400 and ISO 400.
I'll have to remeber that. Constantly learning new things :cheers:
-
I took a picture of the moon through my telescope before.
I believe the ISO was set to 1600 with an exposure of 1/40
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x311/archywood/IMG_0213.jpg)
-
I've been a photographer for many years, I know all about HDR, I use it a lot for landscapes now instead of GND filters like the good old days. Lots of people go overkill with the HDR though creating unnatural colors and that drives me nuts. Problem with an lunar eclipse is is moves pretty quick, and you need longish (20s) exposures for the dark side, it might have been possible still, I don't know. I could have tried an HDR merge from a single split RAW file. But honestly I don't care about that image that much, I was just messing around.
I won't say that it's not possible, but I suspect that the bright halo of the shots exposed for shadows would not merge well with the shots exposed for highligths. I don't know, maybe it could be done with extensive manual masking, there are some Photoshop masters out there that do wonders, but it would involve a lot of work and expertise. And some sort of motorized mount would still be needed for the shadow shots to achieve a correctly exposed & sharp image.
And yes, overdone HDR images are annoying. What I tend to use a lot is the Graduated Filter feature in Lightroom; with a well exposed RAW file it works wonders: it has the same basic look that old graduated filters, but being fully adjustable in position, gradient and intensity the final result is, IMHO, much much better.
Yeah, you cannot trust your meter for moon shots, unless you have a hand held with a really small spot. The blackness around the moon will fool 99% of all built in meters
Spot metering usually works fine with a lens long enough (70-200mm on a Nikon D300) :).
-
I don't know the math but I find it hard to believe that the moon would actually amplify any of the effects of the earthquake. If anything it would have just triggered it. And whether the moon had an influence or not, it's just one variable among many. It would've happened eventually, moon or no moon.
Anyway, I'm hoping some of the astrophotographers of this forum have some good pics to share... :cheers:
The moon causes the ocean tides.
That means that it has a dramatic and perceivable effect on the substance that covers 3/4 of the planet that we live on.
Yeah, it's possible that the gravity of the moon would have some sort of effect, especially at close apogee's.
Without the moon, this planet would not be the one that you know and love today.