Go and look at the moon tonight...10pm ish..... [Archive]

SUPERTYKE

19-11-2005, 12:55

Originally posted by vidster
I just tried getting a picture but the ring is too big to fit in the frame :( It would have made a good wallpaper as well.

So how would someone take a photo of this phenomenon?

The moon itself is easy to photograph. It has no recordable thickness so depth of field is not an issue and its brightness range is within the limits of most films. The problems usually arise when people try to include clouds in the picture.

The brightnass range then is well beyond the physical abilities of film. I.E. you end up either with a 'burnt out' white disc and visible clouds; or a properly exposed moon against a pitch black background.

The ring was so large that a 24mm wide angle lens (at least) would have been needed, in which case the resulting image would have been a tiny disc in a sea of black.

I have shot the moon with 600mm lenses and even then the image occupies less than 25% of a 35mm frame!

Try to shoot the moon with a cheap and nasty digital and you may get some idea of the limitations of these 'wonder inventions'.

'Matsallah', What is that? Bin the camera and take up crochet!

matsalleh

19-11-2005, 15:35

Try to shoot the moon with a cheap and nasty digital and you may get some idea of the limitations of these 'wonder inventions'.

'Matsallah', What is that? Bin the camera and take up crochet! [/B]

Which is more or less what I said,but someone asked how you would photograph the moon.I gave an answer in good faith for a digital camera.I will not bin either of my digital cameras or my 30 year old Exacta Varex 2B.
Constructive criticism and/or advice is always welcome.Matsallah translates to something completely different to "Matsalleh"!

SV500

19-11-2005, 19:57

"Try on a full moon when the shadows of the craters can be seen,"

on a full moon the shadows won't be seen as the sun is "looking" straight down onto the moon,its a cressant moon where the shadows can be seen due to the low angle of the sun,

when trying to photograph "rings" try to use "wide angle" ,most digi camera's exposures can be altered (mine only goes 2 stops up/down but with a bit of software can make almost pitchblack look light twighlight ,and if you can get something in the way of the moon,even if you obscure the moon and the bottom half of the display with a roof top or something it may look ok,
and hold the camera steady against a fence/gate ect,
a just experiment take loads of pics,after all it doesn't cost that much being digi :rolleyes:

JJ..

samsmum

19-11-2005, 22:44

guys, guys, lets not get into a 'im a better photographer/my cameras better than yours' arguement.

for the majority of us who dont have the know how, a simple answer like 'you need xxxxx to take pics of the moon', not "Try to shoot the moon with a cheap and nasty digital and you may get some idea of the limitations of these 'wonder inventions' " - not a very constructive comment really....and my digital camera wasnt cheap and its quite nice actually, not nasty at all ;)

I thought the 'my cameras better than yours" type arguements were restricted to the playground. if you guys have a gripe with each other please do it somewhere else and not on my 'moon' thread. :D

I thank you.

as you were soldier:D

JoeP

19-11-2005, 22:53

I could get SERIOUSLY in to the techie details of astrophotography, having been involved in amateur astronomy for 30 years man and boy, but, I agree with samsmum - let's just enjoy the sights and get out there and TRY something!!! :)

The other thing I've noticed over the last few evenings is the cool optical illusion of the moon being 'bigger' close to the horizon - soething else to look out for.

Joe

samsmum

19-11-2005, 22:59

Originally posted by JoeP
I could get SERIOUSLY in to the techie details of astrophotography, having been involved in amateur astronomy for 30 years man and boy, but, I agree with samsmum - let's just enjoy the sights and get out there and TRY something!!! :)

The other thing I've noticed over the last few evenings is the cool optical illusion of the moon being 'bigger' close to the horizon - soething else to look out for.

Joe

it was awesome on thursday night......it was very low, and was a kind of orange colour!
fantastic!

burny

19-11-2005, 23:48

Hi,

its due to the cold weather... its always this way when it gets frosty pretty early on.

Looks lovely tho :)

martss

20-11-2005, 00:27

Why is the moon sometimes orange as it rises? I was driving down Station Road at Woodhouse on Fri evening and the moon was rising, very low on the horizon.

My kids want to know why it was orange.

Cliff Clavin

20-11-2005, 12:10

Yeah it looked cool! I have seen it a few times before, never seen the rainbow effect though.

pattricia

20-11-2005, 13:30

Originally posted by Draggletail
I'd hate missing the beer more :D Yeah, Id miss my Budweiser !!!!!:thumbsup:

SUPERTYKE

22-11-2005, 13:05

Originally posted by samsmum
guys, guys, lets not get into a 'im a better photographer/my cameras better than yours' arguement.

for the majority of us who dont have the know how, a simple answer like 'you need xxxxx to take pics of the moon', not "Try to shoot the moon with a cheap and nasty digital and you may get some idea of the limitations of these 'wonder inventions' " - not a very constructive comment really....and my digital camera wasnt cheap and its quite nice actually, not nasty at all ;)

I thought the 'my cameras better than yours" type arguements were restricted to the playground. if you guys have a gripe with each other please do it somewhere else and not on my 'moon' thread. :D

I thank you.

Sorry Samsmug, I didn't realise that the initiator of a thread had the right to vito future threads.

And I think that if you read my post you will find that I DID say that you will need xxxx^^****_++_!!$£££ in order to get a reasonable image of the moon.
Try using a cheap and nasty camera, digital or otherwise, and you will be assured of disappointment.
My ire, if indeed I HAD ANY, is for the manufacturers of these tacky placcy snappy things, who claim that their cameras will produce for you stunning images of incredible quality and all you have to do is push a little button. They don't really care that they disillusion thousands of people and very probably stop many potentially good photographers in their tracks, as long as there is a perpetually renewable market of growing kids and 'never say dies' who eagerly lap up the nonsence that they see dailly on T.V.

If you really love photography, take a few classes at your local college. You will do yourself a massive favour, be disappointed far less often, and realise that big business is making twerps of millions of people.

My comments were in my opinion very constructive. I wasn't demeaning your camera which I am sure is very expensive and not at all nasty.

And, lighten up Matsaller, I'm sure your photography is much better than your crocheting.

'heads up asses' comes to mind.

And when did I say that my top of the range medium format professional cameras and high quality lenses were any better than anyone elses?! My four years at university doing fine art and design in photography wouldn't qualify me to suggest that.

My my, samsung you really do read a lot into an innocent and well meant reply.

My original reply, was meant, incidentally, for 'Vid something'; soz 'Vidi-thing', I'm not too good at remembering all of these wierd and wonderful 'tags'.
(I'm praying that your noggin is not also wedged firmly up your khyber, and you can have a laugh at my outrageous ineptitude!)

So I say, with a deep and puffy flourish,

"I THANK YOU."

vidster

22-11-2005, 18:00

Originally posted by SUPERTYKE
The moon itself is easy to photograph. It has no recordable thickness so depth of field is not an issue and its brightness range is within the limits of most films. The problems usually arise when people try to include clouds in the picture.

The brightnass range then is well beyond the physical abilities of film. I.E. you end up either with a 'burnt out' white disc and visible clouds; or a properly exposed moon against a pitch black background.

The ring was so large that a 24mm wide angle lens (at least) would have been needed, in which case the resulting image would have been a tiny disc in a sea of black.

I have shot the moon with 600mm lenses and even then the image occupies less than 25% of a 35mm frame!

Try to shoot the moon with a cheap and nasty digital and you may get some idea of the limitations of these 'wonder inventions'.

'Matsallah', What is that? Bin the camera and take up crochet!

Well i thought it was quite informative SUPERTYKE :wink:
Not sure if the 'cheap and nasty' part was aimed at me but i use the best i could afford/understand at the time and i'm quite happy with one or two of the results:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v502/Vidster/closeup2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v502/Vidster/e3116880.jpg

Which i suppose is all that matters really :wink:

And it's vidster :thumbsup:

SUPERTYKE

25-11-2005, 11:16

WOW Vidster! Your close up of the moon is superb. And it's a modest man/woman that you are! Can you give me any advice on shooting the moon?!

And, though the second image is interesting, it illustrates my point that, in order to get any cloud detail, all detail in the moon must be lost.

And of course I wasn't referring to you, re;- cheap and nasties, or anyone else in particular, but manufacturers do con so many people, and are getting very rich out of it all.

I was in Jessops a few weeks ago when a woman brought back a camera that was giving her problems, she was treated appallingly and she soon found that her 'guarantee' was woefully inadequate. She was promised a reduction in repair costs, her kodak digi had cost her over £250 14 months earlier.

I would have chinned him, seriously. But she was totally embarrassed (shop full of impatient customers) you know how it is. I could have laughed at the bull he was dishing out, as to the probable causes of the fault. Such scenes are repeated hourly, the country over, I wager.

My cameras are far from being 'top of the range', though they are pro spec, the oldest was bought 16 years ago and has had two services in that time. None have ever let me down through some heavy extremes of climate, location, and combinations of clumsiness, abuse and and carelessness.

Anyway Vidster, happy snapping.

Phanerothyme

25-11-2005, 11:44

Originally posted by martss
Why is the moon sometimes orange as it rises? I was driving down Station Road at Woodhouse on Fri evening and the moon was rising, very low on the horizon.

My kids want to know why it was orange.

If an astronomical light source (like the moon or the sun) is low on the horizon, it is shining through a very thick layer slice of the atmosphere. If this air is at high pressure, it is thicker, has more dust particles and moisture. Because of this it will scatter all but the longest wavelengths of light (red), which is the only wavelength to make it to your eye.

re: photographing the moon.

If you have a camera that supports bracketing then you have the option of creating "high dynamic range" image where you can adjust the exposure to either bring out the detail in the clouds or the moon.

Also, if you use the bracketing feature, you can combine the images in post processing to produce a perfectly exposed moon and clouds.

In 'the old days' this was a tricky mix of double exposure on the enlarger and lots of dodging.

Alternatively you can be Ansel Adams and take a picture like "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" or "Moon and Half Dome, Yosemite" (http://www.drowlord.com/art/favoriteArtists/ansel_adams/full_size/74_moon_and_half_dome.jpg) , both of which have a perfectly exposed foreground, clouds and moon.
[edit]
But then you will need a camera slightly larger (http://www.fiberq.com/cam/images/gundlachkoronaview4x5a360.jpg) than your average SLR

SUPERTYKE

25-11-2005, 12:14

Minor correction there, plane or hymn, I think you'll find that the wavelengths of light are LONG at the BLUE end of the spectrum.

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

And even the great 'Ansel' can't alter the laws of optical physics.
The photo to which you refer was taken during daylight hours and at an aspect where issues of contrast/ brightness are less of an issue.
Also, size doesn't really matter in this case.
A 35mm or even a digi will recreate Ansels effect simply by useing a polarising filter or a number 25 red filter. (Or both) As I said, his shot was taken in daylight (possibly towards dusk,) when the foreground would still be sufficiently lit to enable his 8"x10" plates to record shadow detail.
Of course, the all conquering photoshop can solve all of these problems at the stroke of a mouse. For the mere price of your soul. HA HA HA YES YOUR SOUL I TELL YOU -- YOUR SOUL!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA

Phanerothyme

25-11-2005, 15:24

Originally posted by SUPERTYKE
Minor correction there, plane or hymn, I think you'll find that the wavelengths of light are LONG at the BLUE end of the spectrum.

No, I think you will find that you are confusing wavelength with frequency.
Originally posted by SUPERTYKE

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

When what happens? See here (http://www.usbyte.com/images/EM%20Spectrum.jpg)
Originally posted by SUPERTYKE
And even the great 'Ansel' can't alter the laws of optical physics.
The photo to which you refer was taken during daylight hours and at an aspect where issues of contrast/ brightness are less of an issue.
[/B]

Well... you just said
The brightnass range then is well beyond the physical abilities of film. I.E. you end up either with a 'burnt out' white disc and visible clouds; or a properly exposed moon against a pitch black background.

Which is only true if you are photographing the moon in complete darkness, as Adams has illustrated so beautifully

Originally posted by SUPERTYKE
Of course, the all conquering photoshop can solve all of these problems at the stroke of a mouse. For the mere price of your soul HA HA HA YES YOUR SOUL I TELL YOU YOUR SOUL!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA [/B]

Not at all. You don't need photoshop to make an HDR image.

SUPERTYKE

25-11-2005, 16:34

Soz, Planeorhymn I'm so blinded by science after all that bullbobbar that I can hardley see my monitor!

I'm not being pedantic but you seem to be unaware of the importance of being sure that the information that you post is the CORRECT INFORMATION. (I refer the hon gentleman to the edit that I made earlier)
We seem to have overlapped our postings here as I alternate between the demands of my voracious lover, the P.C. and this delectable meal she's just thrown at me!

If you think Ansel photographed his many moon shots in darkness then you really should study photographic technique some more. You should also know that film has a very different definition of 'darkness' than as we humans know it.
Your suggestion that a larger camera would help is utter nonsence as any first year night school student would know and
your extravagant use of graphs and technical initials leads me to suspect that you are the proud owner of a digital camera. There is nowt wrong with digital cameras and I'm selling an D.1X if you're interested. But even that and in fact, even my Mamiya 6.7. film camera would be anable to adequately resolve both highlight and shadow detail in a moonscape where the light was any less than just prior to twilight.

Finally, of course the effect can be recreated useing montage etc techniques in both the darkroom and in p.c s but that is not the issue and most people just wouldn't be arsed.

You really should beware of supplying incorrect data to folks. It can be extremely destructive.

What on earth was that all about re 'bracketing'? A visit to the lending library might be of some help to you IN THIS REGARD.

Samsmum must be spitting nails it seems that her thread really is getting screwed up! SOZ!

Phanerothyme

25-11-2005, 16:58

Supertyke - I don't know why you feel so compelled to heap disdain upon me, simply for pointing out that you have confused wavelength and frequency, which is a very easy mistake to make.

I linked to the spectrum graphic to demonstrate to you that blue light has a shorter wavelength than red. Not, as you suggest, a longer wavelength; provided the speed of light remains constant, wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency.

(let's not get into wave particle duality here)

Where you get the idea from that I thought Adams took those shots in darkness I don't know.

My (too subtle) implicit suggestion was that to photograph the moon and to resolve detail both of the moon and the clouds and the foreground, following Adams' example would be the way to go. Because he was so damn good at it.

I linked to the camera, as that is the type of camera Adams used for the Yosemite and Hernandez Photos. I'd challenge you to get the same level of detail from a 35mm or medium format camera. Bigger negatives you know.

You simply omitted, in your expanation of how when you photograph the moon you cannot correctly expose for the moon, clouds and foreground, to say that this is only true if you photograph the moon at night.

I am the proud owner of a Pentax MX, ME super, Nikon Coolpix 3500, and a part owner of a crown graphic 4x5 press camera.

Bracketing is a very common photographic technique indeed. Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracketing).

Perhaps you'd like to point out what "incorrect data" I have been supplying to people?

Happy Snapping

BoroughGal

25-11-2005, 17:44

Oooh, Phan, I have some good photos of you taken on my bullbobbar digital camera - remind me to show you.

Phanerothyme

25-11-2005, 20:51

Originally posted by BoroughGal
Oooh, Phan, I have some good photos of you taken on my bullbobbar digital camera - remind me to show you.

Cheers BG.

I too have some (very noisy) images of both forum members and the moon (http://www.netheredge.com/galleries/moon2-1.jpg) taken at a Lunar Picnic a little while ago.

SUPERTYKE

28-11-2005, 11:34

PHANEROTHYME; Can I assure you that my disdain is for the sin and not the sinner! Your post's are not only inaccurate but steeped in pretention and pomp and it comes as no surprise to me, that you have great pride in your your, 'equipment', -- Crown Graphics, ooooh they're SO BIG.

So, as my break ends in 12 mins I'd better get on with this study in tedium.

Yes, red IS the longer wavelength I concede the error, but the point I was making was that the reason that the 'lens' effect of the atmosphere affects the colour of the sun moon and sky is that it slows down the longer wavelengths so that the shorter (red) wavelengths reach the eye first, scattering and dust etc only enhance the effect.

It remains to be seen if you have grace enough to concede your errors.

And,- no-- no, -- please no;----- don't get into 'wave partical duality'.
My nerd alarm just fell off the wall!

An excellent teacher once told me that REALLY clever people are capable of expressing complex ideas, theories etc, in simple
AND CLEAR TERMS,which most people can understand and therefore benefit from. Those who profess cleverness but possess little, will invariably try to confuse and mislead others in an attempt to increase their preceived 'cleverness'.
I wonder if the latter type relates to you?

You and I both know that at best your explanations were misleading. The onus is on the 'teacher' to guard against misleading his 'pupils'. And it is therefore up to you to state clearly that Adams' moonscapes were shot in fading daylight and with the help of an orange or red filter to further 'darken' the sky. Clearly anyone looking at the shot with its dark sky will assume that it was taken at nighttime.And this you must know.
Your pretence at surprise at my suggestion is embarrassingly transparent.

Had anyone then attempted a moonscape, without fore-knowledge of the necessary focal length of lens 250mm in Ansels' case, fitted as it was with an orange or red filter and shot around dusk, they would have been unnecessarily disappointed.

As to the camera that he used I think that you will find that he was useing an Hassellblad 2000 MEDIUM format camera for this shot and for most of his more 'rugged' locations at this time, and not the LARGE format veiw camera that you say he used.

Here, for my delectation, are your EXACT WORDS. You say,----

:---" I linked to the camera ( it being a LARGE format 5x4 veiw camera) as that is the type Adams used for the Yosemite, --Hernandez Valley photos."

You hope to win your arguments by sneaky means hoping that most people won't know which cameras he used for this work.So your authority on ANSEL is not as extensive as you would have us think, is it?

YOU THEN GO ON TO SAY,--- " I'd challenge you to get the same level of detail from a 35mm or medium format camera, bigger negatives you know."

Well well it seems that his negs are not bigger at all. And it seems that I COULD get the same level of detail as he , if not the same level of magnificance. Even the small format of 35mm with the correct combination of film and developer could get a very acceptable level of resolution.

What really amazes me is that you choose to bring Ansel into the thread at all. That there are more than a handful of people in the world who come anywhere near his level of expertise is debatable, and you casually say, "You could do an Ansel--etc--"
wer'e talking about a few people that want to pop out on an evening (without meaning to patronise) with their digi's and spend a short time mooning! Oooooh madam!

You are adept indeed at reminding people of their limitations.
In future try to oblige the initiator of the thread by not blinding people with science especially innacurate science.
I was seriously rebuked for the crime that you are guilty of by her, compared to my first post yours is tantamount to extreme and deliberate nerdism.

And then, for a final insult, you imply that I don't know what bracketing is. My point was that you were being presumptious in the extreme, ie;- anyone who knows about bracketing would know that low light exposures obviously necessitate bracketing.
AND I KNOW FEW PEOPLE, WHO ARE AT ALL SERIOUS ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY, WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VERY RUDIMENTARY PROCESS OF BRACKETING IS. You mustn't assume that all people are less informed than you, or that there is any victory in 'winning' arguments through deception and misinformation.

Phanerothyme

28-11-2005, 13:19

Originally posted by SUPERTYKE
Yes, red IS the longer wavelength I concede the error, but the point I was making was that the reason that the 'lens' effect of the atmosphere affects the colour of the sun moon and sky is that it slows down the longer wavelengths so that the shorter (red) wavelengths reach the eye first, scattering and dust etc only enhance the effect.
Hmm, you are still confused - Red is the longer wavelength. Nevertheless you say that shorter (blue) wavelengths reach the eye first. Presumably, then, the longer (red) wavelengths would reach the eye a little later.....maybe about teatime?

The reddening of the sky, the sun and the moon, when veiwed through a thick layer of high pressure atmosphere is almost entirely down to Rayleigh scattering, i.e. scattering of the shorter wavelengths of light by gas molecules. It was formulated before quantum theory so does not touch on QED and the complexities that entails, but it provides a pretty accurate description of what is going on.

It remains to be seen if you have grace enough to concede your errors.

It remains to be seen if there are any errors. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

You and I both know that at best your explanations were misleading.
Which explanations were misleading?

As to the camera that he used I think ... an Hassellblad 2000 MEDIUM format camera for ths shot and for most of his more 'rugged' locations at this time, and not the large format veiw camera that you say he used.

Here, for my delectation, are your EXACT WORDS. You say,

:---" I linked to the camera ( it being a LARGE format 5x4 veiw camera) as that is the type Adams used for the Yosemite, --Hernandez Valley photos."
From Adams' own notes - for the one shot of Hernandez, of the two exposures he took.

# Camera: 8 X 10 view camera
...

And for "monolith"

* Camera: 6 1/2 by 8 1/2 Korona View camera
...

You noticed that the camera image I linked to was a Korona View? It was the only decent sized pic of one I could find, I'm sorry if you find it disappointingly small, as Adams' used a larger model. I don't know what his 8x10 was though.

YOU THEN GO ON TO SAY,--- " I'd challenge you to get the same level of detail from a 35mm or medium format camera, bigger negatives you know."
Well well it seems that his negs are not bigger at all. It seems that they are...but hey, what do I know...

SUPERTYKE

28-11-2005, 13:41

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Hmm, you are still confused - Red is the longer wavelength. Nevertheless you say that shorter (blue) wavelengths reach the eye first. Presumably, then, the longer (red) wavelengths would reach the eye a little later.....maybe about teatime?

The reddening of the sky, the sun and the moon, when veiwed through a thick layer of high pressure atmosphere is almost entirely down to Rayleigh scattering, i.e. scattering of the shorter wavelengths of light by gas molecules. It was formulated before quantum theory so does not touch on QED and the complexities that entails, but it provides a pretty accurate description of what is going on.

It remains to be seen if there are any errors. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Which explanations were misleading?
From Adams' own notes - for the one shot of Hernandez, of the two exposures he took.

And for "monolith"

You noticed that the camera image I linked to was a Korona View? It was the only decent sized pic of one I could find, I'm sorry if you find it disappointingly small, as Adams' used a larger model. I don't know what his 8x10 was though.

It seems that they are...but hey, what do I know... [/B]

SUPERTYKE

28-11-2005, 14:00

As I suspected, you are a graceless and cowardly liar.

I refer you to Ansel's book, 'The Camera.' As I said, for most of his more rugged locations and positively for the location of the moonscape to which we refer, he used an Hassleblad 2000.
FACT.

And tea time may well be the time that red wavelegths reach the eye. Either way it is due to the slowing down of other wavelengths that this phenonemon occurs and there is nothing that you or your pathetic attempts at ridicule can do to change that --- FACT.

PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST A PLACE WHERE WE COULD MEET TO DISCUSS THE MATTER FURTHER.

Phanerothyme

28-11-2005, 15:24

Originally posted by SUPERTYKE

PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST A PLACE WHERE WE COULD MEET TO DISCUSS THE MATTER FURTHER.

you don't sound like someone who would like to agree to differ then.

do you have any pictures of the moon we could look at instead?

[edit] - I'm prepared to listen to reason; when was the first Hasselblad 2000 released?

Don_Kiddick

28-11-2005, 16:47

Originally posted by SUPERTYKE
As I suspected, you are a graceless and cowardly liar.

I refer you to Ansel's book, 'The Camera.' As I said, for most of his more rugged locations and positively for the location of the moonscape to which we refer, he used an Hassleblad 2000.
FACT.

And tea time may well be the time that red wavelegths reach the eye. Either way it is due to the slowing down of other wavelengths that this phenonemon occurs and there is nothing that you or your pathetic attempts at ridicule can do to change that --- FACT.

PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST A PLACE WHERE WE COULD MEET TO DISCUSS THE MATTER FURTHER.
someone needs a chill pill :hihi: someone needs a chill pill :hihi: someone needs a chill pill :hihi: someone needs a chill pill :hihi: someone needs a chill pill :hihi: someone needs a chill pill :hihi:

Draggletail

28-11-2005, 16:48

Originally posted by vidster

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v502/Vidster/e3116880.jpg

Great picture Vidster :nod:
Why not have a crack at offering it for publication?

Another thing, when putting your images on the forum/web, it might be an idea to put a 'copyright of' imprint on the bottom of the photo.

Google have 'lifted' some of my photos from a webpage I have.
Anyone could copy them from google images if they wanted and claim them to be there own.

(Thats if they want photos of the worlds cutest cocker spaniel ;)

vidster

28-11-2005, 17:30

Whoooaaa..... I thought i was back in the schoolyard then for a few posts :hihi:

Originally posted by Draggletail
Great picture Vidster :nod:
Why not have a crack at offering it for publication?

Another thing, when putting your images on the forum/web, it might be an idea to put a 'copyright of' imprint on the bottom of the photo.

Google have 'lifted' some of my photos from a webpage I have.
Anyone could copy them from google images if they wanted and claim them to be there own.

(Thats if they want photos of the worlds cutest cocker spaniel ;)

Thanks Draggletail :D
I wouldn't mind if someone thought my pictures were good enough that they wanted to steal them. I'd be quite flattered actually :)

A poet who kblade knows has already used one of my other moon pictures in his work. Chuffed? Ohh yes :D
I wouldn't know how to put a copyright on a picture anyway :suspect:

Draggletail

28-11-2005, 17:54

Originally posted by vidster

I wouldn't know how to put a copyright on a picture anyway

I suppose you would open your photo in cr@ppy ms paint or something and just use white or black lettering and put 'copyright vidster 2005' on the photo. Someone on here will tell you where to get the 'C' with a circle round it on your keyboard.
Thats it far as I know, I don't think that you have to register the copyright anywhere.
If you do, someone will put me right..... ;)

spyro2000

28-11-2005, 17:56

Originally posted by Draggletail
I suppose you would open your photo in cr@ppy ms paint or something and just use white or black lettering and put 'copyright vidster 2005' on the photo. Someone on here will tell you where to get the 'C' with a circle round it on your keyboard.
Thats it far as I know, I don't think that you have to register the copyright anywhere.
If you do, someone will put me right..... ;)

You are right. Copyright doesnt have to go through any special process, its just a case of stating that it is copyrighted.

Draggletail

28-11-2005, 18:24

Originally posted by spyro2000
You are right. Copyright doesnt have to go through any special process, its just a case of stating that it is copyrighted.
Thanks spyro :)

Go for it vidster!

Tony

28-11-2005, 18:28

Mod note:

Can we keep the bickering off this thread please? If you want to score points please use PM.

redrobbo

28-11-2005, 19:34

Originally posted by Tony
Mod note:

Can we keep the bickering off this thread please? If you want to score points please use PM.

Oh Tony! Just when the spat was getting to pistols at dawn! Spoilsport! :hihi:

Back on subject: whilst on holiday in Snowdonia last week, I saw this amazing halo effect round the moon. nobikejohn took photos of it. (It's o.k. folks - I don't know the first thing about cameras, so won't bore you with any technical details :hihi: ).

We also saw moon 'dogs' - which I understand is moonlight deflected through ice crystals in the atmosphere, which create patches of intense light either side of the halo.

We also saw a similar effect during sunset, when a light stack occurred. This was an amazing sight, and was like a multi-coloured reflection of the setting sun captured in a vertical stack in the late afternoon sky - again it was light deflected through ice cyrstals in the atmosphere.

A date for the forum stargazing meet will be announced next weekend. PMs will be sent to those on the list.

SUPERTYKE

29-11-2005, 12:51

Apologies for losing it a little and for getting all infantile.

Yes I can agree to differ, but facts are facts and are unalterable.

I used to attend a camera club before I entered the business and I wittnessed so much 'equipment snobbery' that I wanted to puke. Saw so many newcomers with their photos mangled by undecipherable jargon, walk away completely mashed, never to return, some maybe giving up photography altogether.

Some potentially good photographers would try to stick out the the ritual executions of their pride and joy, whilst the 'in crowd' would decide whos face/background/ fit.
So I have become a little sensitized to this kind of behavior and possibly over-react when I suspect it is happening. Not that it was necessarily ill meant here, but careless advice can be very damaging.

Do I detect a bit of 'in crowding' here Redrobbo? Tut-tut!

And MOD; it doesn't help to trivialize a spirited and convoluted argument by referring to it as bickering. My protagonist enjoyed himself as did others - see;- Redrobbo. It's not as if offensive or threatening behavior occurred !-- I really did suggest a friendly and civilized discussion where we could present our evidence in person --
HONEST!

Many a good forum has become jaded and predictably fingers down throat agreeable.
I've always believed that Sheffielders and Yorkshire people were forthright and open to a good argument. We're not so delicate.
At least thats how my (in) crowd are.

John prenderghast is playing at the Crown in Killamarsh tonight.
superb guitarist and backing band. be there or be ---- somewhere else!

SUPERTYKE

23-12-2005, 16:45

Vidster, I'm really impressed with the snap of the second larger moon you shot, and wondered if you would let me know the 'f. stop' - shutter speed combination you used to get it. Also what was the focal length of the lens you used? And what was the camera? - Must be a mighty fine machine! What film did you use? I.S.O?
'PRECIATE IT!

spyro2000

23-12-2005, 16:47

vidster

24-12-2005, 02:25

Originally posted by SUPERTYKE
Vidster, I'm really impressed with the snap of the second larger moon you shot, and wondered if you would let me know the 'f. stop' - shutter speed combination you used to get it. Also what was the focal length of the lens you used? And what was the camera? - Must be a mighty fine machine! What film did you use? I.S.O?
'PRECIATE IT!

Confession time... I don't have a clue what you're on about :blush:

f.stop? No idea what that is, sorry :(
Shutter speed: I had the camera shutter set at all different speeds. Took loads of pictures and picked the best of the bunch. I can't remember the exact speed :( again...

The camera is a Fujifilm Finepix s5500 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5100/). I love it! I hope Santa is bringing me a bigger memory card and a tripod :wink:

I'm sorry i can't give you more info but i'll be trying to recreate the same effect again soon and i'll make sure i take note of all the settings :)

matsalleh

26-12-2005, 09:03

Originally posted by vidster
Confession time... I don't have a clue what you're on about :blush:

f.stop? No idea what that is, sorry :(
Shutter speed: I had the camera shutter set at all different speeds. Took loads of pictures and picked the best of the bunch. I can't remember the exact speed :( again...

The camera is a Fujifilm Finepix s5500 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5100/). I love it! I hope Santa is bringing me a bigger memory card and a tripod :wink:

I'm sorry i can't give you more info but i'll be trying to recreate the same effect again soon and i'll make sure i take note of all the settings :)

Here you are young man,download this and the plugins :-
http://www.irfanview.com/
This is an excellent free photo browser.Open a (or many) photo into the program goto image>information>exif info and it will tell all you need to know and a lot more besides.Even how many pints you had last night.:loopy:

vidster

26-12-2005, 12:22

Originally posted by matsalleh
Here you are young man,download this and the plugins :-
http://www.irfanview.com/
This is an excellent free photo browser.Open a (or many) photo into the program goto image>information>exif info and it will tell all you need to know and a lot more besides.Even how many pints you had last night.:loopy:

That's brilliant matsalleh :thumbsup: This is going to help me remember all sorts of details i'd normally just forget.

Now for the bad news :(
I can't find the folder i saved my moon shots in anywhere on my notebook. My favourite folder and it dissappeares! Gutted :?

I only have a few moon shots now SUPERTYKE. The closest one i could find has the details below:

Make - FUJIFILM
Model - FinePix S5500
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Digital Camera FinePix S5500 Ver1.00
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
Copyright -
ExifOffset - 294
ExposureTime - 1/250 seconds
FNumber - 3.10
ExposureProgram - Shutter priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 100
ExifVersion - 0220
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/256 seconds
ApertureValue - F 3.14
BrightnessValue - 1.03
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 2.83
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 57.00 mm
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 2272
ExifImageHeight - 1704
InteroperabilityOffset - 1158
FocalPlaneXResolution - 4255
FocalPlaneYResolution - 4255
FocalPlaneResolutionUnit - Centimeter
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
SceneType - A directly photographed image
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
WhiteBalance - Manual
SceneCaptureType - Standard
Sharpness - Normal
SubjectDistanceRange - Unknown

Maker Note (Vendor): -
Version - 30333130
Quality - NORMAL
Sharpness - Normal
White Balance - Auto
Color saturation - Normal
Flash Mode - Off
Flash Strength - -0.67
Macro - Off
Focus mode - Auto
Slow Sync. - Off
Picture Mode - Shutter prior AE
Unknown - 1
Sequence mode - Off
Unknown - 0
Blur warning - No
Focus warning - No (Focus OK)
AE warning - Yes (Over exposure)

The picture i lost had a slightly longer exposure time and the possibility of a different ISO (although i doubt it). I am going to go on a mission to recreate all the pictures i've lost. Hopefully at this time of year it won't be too hard.

matsalleh

26-12-2005, 12:39

Originally posted by vidster

Now for the bad news :(
I can't find the folder i saved my moon shots in anywhere on my notebook. My favourite folder and it dissappeares! Gutted :?

LessonNo. 2. Always save your Photos to a multisession CD or DVD. We all learn the hard way.

SUPERTYKE

29-12-2005, 12:21

[QUOTE]Originally posted by spyro2000
[B]Have you lost your
============================================

No, I've not lost my keyring.

What a geekish way of of calling someone a geek -- you toad.
OOOH, YOU MUST KNOW YOUR WAY AROUND A P.C. SOUND LIKE A BIT OF A GEEK TO ME.
You should get out a bit more.

I'm only a professional photographer and could no more be regarded a geek for having an interest in the machinery of my trade, than could Michael Schumacher for having an interest in racing cars, or a thicky like you for having an interest in thicky things.
So up yours, - asshole.

Guess Mattsaller, must be 'Supergeek the Great', king and holiest of the holy of the holy order of ancient Geeks, judging by his latest post.

And your little camera must surely be on steroids Vidster, to produce an image like that. I can't get one that good with £4k of Canon body and 1.5k of lens. - Well done.

spyro2000

29-12-2005, 12:23

Flipppin ell, calm down, it was only a joke.

Jeeeeez :hihi:

matsalleh

29-12-2005, 14:59

Originally posted by SUPERTYKE
[QUOTE]Originally posted by spyro2000
[B]Have you lost your
============================================

Guess Mattsaller, must be 'Supergeek the Great', king and holiest of the holy of the holy order of ancient Geeks, judging by his latest post.

And your little camera must surely be on steroids Vidster, to produce an image like that. I can't get one that good with £4k of Canon body and 1.5k of lens. - Well done.

OK Superdyke (super troll),what's the problem with my last post ?
It is good practice to back up and save originals.You as a professional should know that.

matsalleh

29-12-2005, 15:01

Originally posted by SUPERTYKE
[QUOTE]Originally posted by spyro2000
[B]Have you lost your
============================================

And your little camera must surely be on steroids Vidster, to produce an image like that. I can't get one that good with £4k of Canon body and 1.5k of lens. - Well done.

This proves that the person behind the camera is of more value than all the expensive gear.

Phanerothyme

29-12-2005, 16:26

Originally posted by SUPERTYKE
[QUOTE]Originally posted by spyro2000
[B]
And your little camera must surely be on steroids Vidster, to produce an image like that. I can't get one that good with £4k of Canon body and 1.5k of lens. - Well done.

A 320mm lens or equivalent, and a tripod should do it. From the exif data on Vidster's image it would appear that it was shot with a focal length of 57mm.

I don't know what the sensor size is on his camera though, but it's possible to derive the equivalent 35mm SLR focal length from the sensors size. (somehow). Given that it's a close crop (I assume) from a larger image, it does not seem unrealistic. And it is a cracking shot.

Maybe you need to ditch the £5.5k rig you have and get the same camera as him? For taking images of the moon at least.

SUPERTYKE

30-12-2005, 14:05

Originally posted by spyro2000
Flipppin ell, calm down, it was only a joke.

Jeeeeez :hihi:
=======================================

It's a good idea to use a 'smiley' after a 'joke' as your inane and idiotic smile is not visible on the Forum when you are submitting your 'joke';and I'm not a mind reader.

As for Mat seller, you really have spoiled yourself, - I was almost warming to you as well.
My point was that, if I was a geek for my short list of gobbledy gook, 'GIRO', not I, must think that you are 'super geek'.
You really must pay attention to all of this subtle humour that's flying about here!

Oooh bitchy 'Phannytime'! You are awful -- (but I like you)

The point is clear here and I won't say more than that, (being a gentleman.) But to add that the sensor on the cam in question is a tiny 12.6mm format size, unlike my full frame 35mm size sensor which with a 400mm lens would struggle to achieve that kind of definition at the enlargements shown.

H. N. Y. y'all.