/p/ - Photography » Thread #3234059

[42 / 8 / ?]

59KiB, 1280x853, DSC_0454.jpg

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 02:51:30 No.3234059 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3234061 >>3234078 >>3234089 >>3234127 >>3234341 >>3234452

/p/ wat do??

I only have a 18-55mm lense right now and I want to take some nice shots of the moon tonight. I have a 70-300mm coming in like 2 weeks but by then it'll be too late. Is there anything I can do with a 18-55mm to take a decent shot of this moon tonight?
This is literally the best shot I could get with how bright the moon is. Lowering aperture made it too small with no detail gain and lowering iso just made it darker with no detail gain. Am I SOL?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 02:53:21 No.3234061 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234059
>Am I SOL?
yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 02:57:31 No.3234067 Report

Quoted By: >>3234073

Even if you knew what to do, you'd have the same picture as everyone else whose only intent is to shoot the moon as close as possible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 02:59:27 No.3234073 Report

Quoted By: >>3234087

>>3234067
I just want a good shot of it. Haven't you ever seen something and thought "Man, I need a shot of that"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 03:00:46 No.3234078 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234059
literally, you faggot, at the moment you posted there is a moon thread at this very page, so fuck off

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 03:08:19 No.3234087 Report

Quoted By: >>3234095

>>3234073
If my photo is just going to be a shittier version of someone else's photo, I typically don't shoot it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 03:10:51 No.3234089 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234059
>Lowering aperture made it too small with no detail gain and lowering iso just made it darker with no detail gain.
Wait wait wait, hold up. Are you telling me you didn't try shooting at faster speed?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_0472.jpg, 253KiB, 3000x2000

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 03:14:39 No.3234093 Report

Quoted By: >>3234484

Ok I tried again and this is the best shot I could get. I guess I'll just have to wait till I can get a 300mm or longer lens and try again.

juemrami !VS2GweCb.c

juemrami !VS2GweCb.c Wed 31 Jan 2018 03:19:34 No.3234095 Report

Quoted By: >>3234098

>>3234087
>If my photo is just going to be a shittier version of someone else's photo, I typically don't shoot it
your camera must still be in the box then.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO liar liar.jpg, 73KiB, 222x226

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 03:25:27 No.3234098 Report

Quoted By: >>3234107

>>3234095
>the hurt heard round the ass

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 03:37:58 No.3234106 Report

Quoted By:

how hard is it to menu dive and miss the shot with a one control dial entry level nikon? pics are example?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 03:40:35 No.3234107 Report

Quoted By: >>3234108

>>3234098
/b/ is this way ->

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 03:42:48 No.3234108 Report

Quoted By: >>3234135

>>3234107
>tell someone I try to avoid taking shitty versions of overdone photos
>start getting insults thrown at me
>I'M the /b/ poster
Right

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 04:40:48 No.3234127 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234059
Yeah well, I I've only got a 50 and I wanna take nice shots of anything but portraits holy shit my 18-55 and 70-300 can't come soon enough. Might just reverse it and fall for the macro meme for now.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_0328.jpg, 1MiB, 2436x1920

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 04:48:00 No.3234130 Report

Quoted By: >>3234139 >>3234147

Depending on where you live a 300mm will do the job. Get one before the March 31st blue moon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 04:58:50 No.3234135 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234108
->

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 05:04:59 No.3234139 Report

Quoted By: >>3234218

>>3234130
I'll have to do the blue moon then, my 70-300mm should be in Feb 7th or so.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1611b.jpg, 374KiB, 1620x1080

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 05:52:31 No.3234147 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234130
Here's the moon with my 70-300mm tonight. Too bad I won't be able to see the, "Super Blue Blood Moon," this morning. It'll be behind a hill soonish hours before then. I have a bloodmoon from another eclipse though, from many years ago with a shitty camera.

>A rare, super-blue-blood-moon on the 31st of January. It'll be the 2nd full moon this month, also be a supermoon during a total lunar eclipse... The first time all three events occurred simultaneously since 1866.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 06:14:49 No.3234158 Report

Quoted By: >>3234310 >>3234311

Is it always the same handful of retards starting new threads?
Protip: Manual mode is not for idiots. At least learn to operate your camera if you're going to buy more lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 09:23:42 No.3234218 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234139
Be grateful for that, full moon shots are bland and boring, the small details, craters etc... only show up when there are shadows.
Feb 7th will be perfect for a nice shot if the sky will be clear enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 15:37:47 No.3234310 Report

Quoted By: >>3234311

>>3234158
this
learn how to fucking use the camera first, your short could have been slightly better had you know how to make adjustments before making this shit thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 15:41:49 No.3234311 Report

Quoted By: >>3234318

>>3234158
>>3234310
>not explaining how to make the shot better with that hardware
>just pisses on OP instead

Quality posts, kids.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 16:05:29 No.3234318 Report

Quoted By: >>3234325 >>3234341

>>3234311
>whines about others not helping
>doesn't help
Unlike you faggot, I don't come here to educate retards.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 16:35:11 No.3234325 Report

Quoted By: >>3234327

>>3234318
That is a whole lot of attitude considering you don't post any photos.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 16:44:32 No.3234327 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234325
>Anonymous doesn't post photos.

Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh

Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh Wed 31 Jan 2018 17:42:50 No.3234341 Report

Quoted By: >>3234342 >>3234344 >>3234509

>>3234318
I come here to educate retards.

>>3234059
Unfortunately, with just an 18-55, there’s not a lot you can do. Your options are basically
A. Have the moon very, very small in frame
B. Crop like a motherfucker to emulate a longer focal length.

Your best bet is probably to just wait for your 70-300 and he next full moon—the difference between a regular moon and a super moon isn’t *that* big in the grand scheme of things, and the moon cycles every month, so you should be fine.

Either way, there are a couple of other things to remember:
1. Don’t think of the moon as something dark that you need to have a long exposure for. The moon is a highly reflective object in full sunlight. You lose a lot of light on the journey to earth, but it’s still brighter than most new photographers expect it to be.
2. Shots of a full moon against black sky are dulllll. It’s basically the same shot that everyone has taken since the dawn of photography. The moon is tidally locked, so the same side always faces earth, and space is black, so it’s also always the same. Take the shot everyone else takes when you get your 70-300, but then move on to something more interesting.
3. More interesting being: a shot of the moon that includes something on the earth. Find out when the moon is going to be low on the horizon; put yourself somewhere far away from an interesting foreground item, positioned so the moon will be behind it, with line of sight; make sure this is in the early evening, just after sunset so the moon doesn’t entirely blow out relative to your foreground.
4. Still crop, ‘cause 300mm even on a crop sensor still isn’t that long from a moon-shot perspective.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 17:48:59 No.3234342 Report

Quoted By: >>3234345

>>3234341
Than main thing is people were trying to get the 5ultra rare "super blue blood moon" during the lunar eclipse this morning.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 17:52:36 No.3234344 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234341
To extend on that, exposing for the moon to have all its features takes a few test shots, the camera metering will not be enough.
I usually do this in Manual mode, have the aperture closed to f/8 or whatever, ISO 100 and play with shutter speed, then if needed bump up ISO to 200, 400 etc...
Practice on the moon higher in the sky to have a general knowledge on your settings than you can do the earth features with moon shots in a couple or so shots.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 17:52:44 No.3234345 Report

Quoted By: >>3234462

>>3234342
>"super blue blood moon"
The only part of that that is apparent in a photo is the eclipse part. With different focal lengths you can make the moon appear as big or small as you want, and blue moons are just a term invented because of our calendar system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 22:03:43 No.3234452 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234059
>tfw cloudy and raining

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 22:17:30 No.3234462 Report

Quoted By: >>3234463 >>3234467

>>3234345
The super part and blood part are apparent. Super being closer than normal and thus larger; have resolving more detail in your lens than normal. Blood being red due to the eclipse.

I took the best photo I can take of the moon until the next super moon, simply because it was as close as possible and directly above me in the sky.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 22:20:02 No.3234463 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234462
A regular moonshot can be better just by stacking and lucky imaging.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 22:25:01 No.3234467 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234462
I said the eclipse part was apparent, and I already explained the moon size part. And no, it being a super moon is not going to be enough of a size difference to notice more detail being resolved. The only way it would be noticeable is if you took two photos of the moon at different apparent sizes at the same focal length and showed them side by side. If I showed you a single photo of the moon, you would not be able to tell me whether or not it was a super moon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Jan 2018 23:00:53 No.3234484 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234093
You're joking

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO moon phases.jpg, 431KiB, 6480x640

Anonymous Thu 01 Feb 2018 00:21:32 No.3234509 Report

Quoted By: >>3234516 >>3234522

>>3234341
>It’s basically the same shot that everyone has taken since the dawn of photography.
Yes, this is true to an extent, however:

Even going back a couple of decades digital cameras were in their infancy, most CCD cameras used by amateur astronomers were "home built" with tiny monochrome sensors with low resolution.

The image stacking we have today didn't exist. It was being developed on the internet by individuals working together to produce the free software we have today (registax, deepsky stacker, ieis etc). Yes they are clunky and difficult but very powerful.

An overlooked factor is the optics themselves. Today huge light bucket reflectors and exotic glass refractors are reasonably affordable. If you want to get a little more spendy large astrographs are also quite affordable compared to not that long ago.

The images of the Moon you can capture from your back yard in 1993+25 are amazing really. Pic related is a series of thumbnails taken over 2 years, each one is about "1 day apart". If you look carefully you can see libration (wobble, not all Moons look the same).

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO moon.jpg, 363KiB, 1125x1700

Anonymous Thu 01 Feb 2018 00:31:31 No.3234516 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234509
Pic related is a thumbnail resized to be sharp on a screen. A lot of subtle detail is lost. Prints up pretty big.

Never got round to modified webcam stuff and stacking. Might give it a go, bought a cheap dashcam recently. Looks like it could be ok, I've already took it to bits and managed to reassemble it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Feb 2018 00:36:11 No.3234519 Report

Quoted By: >>3234526

>got a 70-300 mm lens
>picked up a nice ass tri pod
>all set up for sooper moon
>cloudy as fucking shit

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO half2.jpg, 241KiB, 1237x1750

Anonymous Thu 01 Feb 2018 00:38:19 No.3234522 Report

Quoted By:

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Thu 01 Feb 2018 00:40:54 No.3234525 Report

Quoted By: >>3234530

Dirt cheap refractor and $5 adapter is all you need.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Feb 2018 00:44:05 No.3234526 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234519
>cloudy as fucking shit
Such is life. The Moon isn't going anywhere. Sooper, blue, red, harvest etc. are just clickbait for slow news days. Same with meteor "storms".

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Feb 2018 00:51:20 No.3234530 Report

Quoted By: >>3235247

>>3234525
Stop being sensible! Although good luck with a dirt cheap tripod (inb4 rocks and a beanbag).

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Feb 2018 06:24:49 No.3235247 Report

Quoted By:

>>3234530
Amazon basics tho

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches