My new 400, my first moon shot w it was today

ginger_55ginger_55 Registered Users Posts: 8,416 Major grins
edited September 25, 2005 in Wildlife
And in broad daylight! I wish I had had ansel adams type setups, but I just used some trees.

37409866-L.jpg



37351224-L.jpg


and one more, to shoot the moon..............

37351187-L.jpg


Something different, even for me. I hadn't thought about it being the first moon shot with that 400 Prime 5.6 lens, until I saw the subject heading from Gus. These are the first moon shots for me, too.

Smile,

ginger (I see some dust spots are still there, I am not going to deal with them tonight. Including the photography,and the driving, I have been at this since 7:15 this morning, am really, really tired.) I got some of the sensor spots, Sunday, AM.
After all is said and done, it is the sweet tea.

Comments

  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited September 25, 2005
    What if you just set focus to infinity and hold the camera as still as possible to make the moon sharp and the foreground setup very soft or even bokah? What if you stopped down enough for both? What if you shoot them separately and assemble in PS with the moon slightly bigger?

    The moon is a bitch.
    If not now, when?
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited September 25, 2005
    Great try G. Have you googled 'Sunny 16 rule' & maybe added the word moon in ?

    Its the only way to nail it straight up.

    You cant do that with the 400 f/5.6 rutt as it is sharpest just a bee's doodle back from manual infinity. That last tiny bit ruins it. Too small an amount to do by eye.
    Thats what ive found anyway.
  • ginger_55ginger_55 Registered Users Posts: 8,416 Major grins
    edited September 25, 2005
    You all, iMO, there is a point missed in the assumption of what the moon looks like.

    At that time of day, late morning probably, it looks like that: a barely there thing. Not seen by most. I took the photos, got distracted, came back and the moon was gone. It was kind of a ghost moon in the first place.

    It never looked like more nor less than it was/is.

    I have noticed a lot of moon shots out lately in various places, even Andy's. There seems to be a tendency to letting the moon "go", even at night. I have been meaning to try it, just haven't gotten to it. Yesterday, I just saw the moon, pointed it out to some people, ignored it, then thought oh what the Hey, and I set it up next to the trees.

    g (I don't mean to "yes but" such replies, but IMO, I nailed what I was after.)

    There was no moon as we are used to at night with our telescopes and big lenses. There was just a hint of a shaped spider web in the sky.

    Thanks for stopping and commenting.

    I would not have explained/argued, but I think it is an interesting subject for discussion. Even at night


    (I have a shot of just the moon, focused at the moon, just a bit bigger, but looks the same.) Didn't work it up. Could, but didn't.

    Rutt, I think the moon is easy to shoot, it is daylight, take that into consideration and bracket it. Don't have to hold for Loooooooooooooooong exposures, it is daylight. Unless you let the moon go, go for the foreground, then you have to hold for the foreground. In my case that was daylight, also. Smile.

    Maybe we should have a forum called, "making art". I am not angry or annoyed, I feel pretty safe in my thoughts on this. To some people the moon is just a round ball of cheese.
    After all is said and done, it is the sweet tea.
  • ginger_55ginger_55 Registered Users Posts: 8,416 Major grins
    edited September 25, 2005
    The moon by itself, full frame, but a bit bigger
    37409860-L.jpgIt got smaller and less intense as moments passed. Maybe the haze got it.

    g
    After all is said and done, it is the sweet tea.
Sign In or Register to comment.