Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 6, 2007, 1:58 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Ok - one more time - the images were 100 bytes over the limit and the board tossed everything including the text.

It's Monsoon season here, which brings clouds during the full moon - an photo opportunity. So what is the best technique to take images where one primary area does not oversaturate the rest of the image?

On the cloud image - not having the moon burn through, and on the tree image not having the trunk over saturate and trying to get the finer detail in the branch structure.

Both of these are hand held with SR on - in fully automatic - the exif information should be available, I need to get a remote shutter release and start using the tripod that is setting over in the corner.

They were both at 800 at around f 5.6 (I think). Considering to moving to the tripod, using a speed of 200 and going to f16 to get a better depth of field, and letting the camera figure out the exposure time.

Suggestions most welcome!
Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 6, 2007, 1:59 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

and the second...
Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2007, 2:52 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Tachikoma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,086
Default

With regards to the moon/clouds issue, the photo I took:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=80

I had to meter once for the moon, take a shot, and another for the clouds, and blend the two photo's together. The moon is too bright to meter for and capture the clouds at the same time.

As for the tree, best thing to do is grab a tripod, and mess with a few options, I have had some nice night photo's at ISO200 and longer exposures than ISO800+ and shorter exposures, but you will need a tripod.
Tachikoma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2007, 8:04 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

A tripod would definitely help. As far as the exposure problems - there's just only so much a digital sensor can handle when it comes to dynamic range. When you are trying to go beyond it your only real choice is to either go to HDR software or merging two differently exposed pictures. Your clouds are pretty well done - I've never managed to get even as good a shot as that when I've tried.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2007, 4:01 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

What I do in these situations is that I take full benefit of the digital era. I use a tripod and take 15-30 exposures with different under- and over exposures and different apertures (for DOF) and keep one or two that come out well. Then I count how much money I wasted by taking 30 bad ones.:-)

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2007, 8:48 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

I won an auction of assorted 52mm filters when I first started in photography. One of them was clear except for a ND type circle in the middle. Something like that would probably be perfect for your moon shot and would have been the only way (that I know of) to do it with film.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2007, 9:30 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Thanks, I have been so busy with work, that I have not really had any time to just sit down and consider the number of approaches you all have suggested. The HDR is a natural, here and that coupled with just sitting down and taking a lot of shots at a variety of exposure settings is another.

I like the K100D quite a bit. It is simple enough to not let the technology get in your way. That being said, on the auto-bracketing, the system only allows you three images. On other higher end system it goes to something like 7. Yes, there are limitations, but they can be worked around.

Just sitting here thinking, I am wondering if I took a series of auto-bracketed image sets at speeds of 200, 400, 600 and 800 - and f 5.6 and f16 thus catching the entire range and then blending all the images together with the HDR approach.

Question - would people think that the results would be better at a speed of 200 with f5.6 or with f16 - would any one know if a larger apperature works better with a slower or faster film speed?

The tree, I can catch any evening - the clouds are a target of opportunity...

I am somewhat irrated at myself for not thinking of the HDR approach when I had the opportunity. In that I was handholding the camera, a single short was difficult enough, let alone 3. I got the tripod setup, put the base on the camera and am thinking of going out this evening and picking up the remote release. I find the tripod absolutely useless with out the remote release, as I just introduce jitter with the shutter.

Thanks for the suggestions!
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2007, 10:30 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

a little PP will work .. hope you don't mind

roy


Attached Images
 
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2007, 10:37 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

i can send you the action if you would like it

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2007, 5:43 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

AArobar wrote:
Quote:
a little PP will work .. hope you don't mind

roy

I have no doubt you WILL likely take offense....as you have in the past.

And maybe you want to say that is natural... AND MAYBE i WARMED A BIT MUCH..... BUT it balanced... no moon or sun is THAT BLUE... even a so called blue moon... which is more about rings than actual color.

But actually i think Id' like the original maybe a bit cropped was a bit more intersting... and as it was and it would be with a tad of EC as wel.... maybe too much PP on your part Robar??? And even color balanced for the orange rbough out the background far more than your ICE COLD blue did.

Or at least with all that effort you probably went to moon and everything all around it stayed so blue.... that's easy... make it all yellow/match. (Really BASIC Irfanview compensation) Being a place I see sunrise and sunset, and all phases of ther moon it is maybe white but NEVER BLUE.

OK (literally) 5 sec Irfanview further effort I like this much more... and actualy quick and dirty razor sharp... just in the dark areas (No feathering, etc) boundaries but can you really see them? (just croped center and made it match your enhancement CB wihixch oddly by matching brought the bcground color out more as well... that was not intentional.
Attached Images
 
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:47 PM.