|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Ok I am going to go out on a limb here and post a couple of shots from my first attempt at shooting the night sky. Its really nothing to write home about. I was using my trusty Pentax K-1000 that I have had since high school, Kodak Max 400 film. Shots of the moon were taken using positive projection 2 at 1 sec, 2 at 1/500, and 2 at 1/1000. M42 was shot at prime focus multiple shots at 60 seconds and 120 seconds. Unfortunatly I do not have a field de-rotator or a wedge for my LX200. So here they are for you to take pot shots at.... LOL. BTW I had to use photoshop to clean up some of the later night pics due to fog rolling in.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Here is M42 which is nothing special either....
Edited by Sheridan (11/05/03 11:51 PM)
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Finally
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Good try. Your first Moon is hugely over-exposed, examining the terminator, and the last one appears the opposite of the first, examining the limb washout. I'm not sure exactly what you've done to these images in Photoshop.. I also own a K-1000; good camera. Try a monochrome print film (ISO 100) and bracket several shots the same way. Don't worry about 1-2 second shots, even with ISO 100 film, until you feel ready to start doing lunar close-ups at high power. Of course, Photoshop should be used conservatively until you start to see some really impressive results- believe me it won't be too long!  ISO 400 for piggyback first: constellations and aurora. 400's are normally just about too tricky for our Pentax K-1000 cameras on a 1rst or 3rd Quarter Moon. Go monochrome and be amazed.
Michael
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Hello Sheridon,
Excellent first attempt's matey!:) your focus is a little off but not far off which is GOOD .
I had a play with your last image of the moon in Photoshop and got quite a nice result of which is down to you taking the photograph!
Well Done!
James uk
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
The Terminators are different because I scanned the photo 2 different ways. (My wife usually does all the scanning.)  I took some other shots later in the evening but it appears that the film was picking up moisture in the air as they came out grainy. Truth is I really did not do much planning on this I just grabbed the camera, (Thats were my last roll of film from Costa Rica was)  , an extra roll of film that was laying around, and off I went. (My wife likes to go hunting with her dad, and I get terribly bored in the evening while im up there so I took my scope with me.) I now have a list of more toys that I am sure will get me in to trouble with my wife hehehe but oh well  . Either a Wedge or a field de-rotator (yes this shots were in alt mode), and also a digital camera, or CCD. (I would probably get the Digital Camera before I could (ehemmm sneak the ccd past the wife) . Well thanks for the comments, do you all have any suggestions on a decent digital camera that would work well with long exposures that will not kill the pocket book?
Thanks again
Sheridan
Edited by Sheridan (11/06/03 07:57 AM)
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Here is one that came out really grainy, shot in prime. Yes I know it stinks but oh well
|
Suk Lee
Post Laureate
Reged: 10/07/03
Posts: 4315
Loc: Pleasanton, CA
|
|
Sheridan:
These are great first efforts, a ton better than you think.
I took your first moon shot, adjusted the histogram in Photoshop (it was overexposed) to reduce the contrast and bring out some more detail.
Then processed it in SGBNR to reduce the noise, particularly the vertical stripes, then brought back into Photoshop to sharpen a bit more.
How's this? It's your shot.
Your focus is pretty close, which is more than half the battle. You need to bracket to figure out exposure, and then you'll be well on your way.
Suk
--------------------
http://www.siliconvalleyskies.com
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Thanks for cleaning it up Suk. That looks much better. Thanks everyone for the encouragement.
Sheridan
|
wilash
Fairy Godmother
Reged: 09/30/03
Posts: 5746
|
|
Without seeing the negative, it looks like the grain is cause by underexposure. Humidity does not cause an increase in grain.
Your first image is simply overexposed. Because of that, the contrast in the highlights is very low. This is best compensated with a tone curve rather than a histogram. The highlight section of the curve needs a slope greater than 45 degrees to increase contrast.
Of course, it would be better to try again. Your bracket steps seem strange - 1 sec, 1/500, 1/1000. The jump from 1 sec to 1/500 is huge! I would calculate your exposure and then make a five step bracket (with negative film): -2 stops, -1 stop, calculated exposure, 1 stop, 2 stops.
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 