Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Big Photo Thread

  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

#226 ilikeit

ilikeit

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Southeast Washington

Posted 31 October 2017 - 06:30 PM

Thanks for sharing your story. Great synopsis. Looks like you went all out on your first attempt at eclipse photography and your results speak for themselves! This was also my first time (after 4 previous eclipses) that I worked to get decent pix although without the electronically controlled system you had. Still tweaking my composite image since my last post - never satisfied. I'm always impressed at the sharp, high contrast composites people make with only a half-dozen frames or so. With anything less than ~30 exposures I got a lot of noise.

What were your focal length, f-stop, ISO, etc? And where exactly were you (I think we were nearby in E OR near the ID border)?

Thanks for your reply Ejohn88.

I was approx 20 miles west of Huntington, Oregon, just slightly north of the eclipse center line.

Canon T5 camera, WO GT71 scope, AVX mount, Solomark F50 guidescope w/ altered generic webcam using LuSol Guide Software, Camera controlled by 'Eclipse Orchestrator' software.

Being first time at this I just went with the basic recommended settings of Eclipse Orchestrator, so during totallity, all pictures were shot at 100 ISO, I calculated my F/stop for 5.9, and eleven pics at 1/400, 1/200, 1/100, 1/50, 1/25, 1/13, 1/6, 1/3, .6, 1.3 and 2.5 exposure increments. plus two at 4 sec for earthshine. After the earthshine pics it took the eleven again. I only used the second set of the eleven. I wish I would have tried 1/3 or 1/2 steps starting at 1/800 to get more inner corona detail and reduce the ring effect of stacking. I just wasn't sure if my camera could fit that many exposures in the amount of time, so played it safe.

As far as my finished picture, its all a matter of personal preference. I did a few attempts using the HDR technique with fair resusts but I felt they look a tad faky. Also tried the radial blur technique but ultimately went with photoshop's high pass filter. I like the more flat images and also don't mind the soft haze. I also did not add any blue as I personally like the natural color. Like I said, matter of personal preference.



#227 dghundt

dghundt

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 194
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2017

Posted 11 November 2017 - 09:37 AM

I took me forever to tweak my image.

comp9%20is%20comp4%20without%20sky%20hal

Edited by dghundt, 11 November 2017 - 01:55 PM.

  • dawsonian2000, SteveRosenow, dan_hm and 1 other like this

#228 ilikeit

ilikeit

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Southeast Washington

Posted 13 November 2017 - 06:00 PM

I took me forever to tweak my image.

comp9%20is%20comp4%20without%20sky%20hal

Great job! I believe it's upsidedown however.


  • dghundt likes this

#229 SteveRosenow

SteveRosenow

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Shelton, Washington

Posted 13 November 2017 - 06:29 PM

Fantastic image, even if it's rotation is off and upside down. :)


  • dghundt likes this

#230 dghundt

dghundt

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 194
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2017

Posted 13 November 2017 - 08:54 PM

LOL
The rotation was planned, to point the east and west solar poles roughly towards the frame corners.
The 180 degree offset was not planned.
I got so used to it upside down during post processing, I left it there!

Edited by dghundt, 13 November 2017 - 10:06 PM.


#231 nmoushon

nmoushon

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Wenatchee Valley, WA

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:38 PM

Not a new photo but wanted to give everyone who posted here a heads up! 

 

The mods are going to be putting together a photo contest for this forum. 

 

I posted a new thread for early discussion here: PHOTO CONTEST!

 

It will be starting hopefully the first of December! Post all your questions and ideas there please. 

 

Thanks everyone!


  • ilikeit likes this

#232 Ejohn88

Ejohn88

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2017

Posted 20 November 2017 - 12:59 AM

Hi Phillip,
Yes I used the Nikon 300 mm f/4 AF-S (not the VR version) with TC-14E II to get 420 mm. The main issue was flare during the diamond rings probably due to the large number of elements. For the other shots, sky brightness was up (and had a faintly bluish tint) in my longest exposures of mid totality (1/15 f/5.6 iso 400) but I didn’t see that as a lens or haze problem. In general photography, that lens combo has yielded pretty contrasty images.

#233 Philipp

Philipp

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2006

Posted 21 November 2017 - 05:27 PM

Hi Phillip,
Yes I used the Nikon 300 mm f/4 AF-S (not the VR version) with TC-14E II to get 420 mm. The main issue was flare during the diamond rings probably due to the large number of elements. For the other shots, sky brightness was up (and had a faintly bluish tint) in my longest exposures of mid totality (1/15 f/5.6 iso 400) but I didn’t see that as a lens or haze problem. In general photography, that lens combo has yielded pretty contrasty images.

Hi,

 

thanks for the information, I assumed that it was not the PF version, as it reacts badly to strong overexposure, which is of course the case during longer exposures of the solar corona.

 

thanks!




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics