moon over the sierra foothills

AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
edited September 10, 2005 in Holy Macro

Comments

  • gubbsgubbs Registered Users Posts: 3,166 Major grins
    edited September 8, 2005
    You should keep it andy, lovely shot thumb.gif
  • Ann McRaeAnn McRae Registered Users Posts: 4,584 Major grins
    edited September 8, 2005
    Ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!


    That is su-weeeet.clap.gif

    ann
  • NappaloniaNappalonia Registered Users Posts: 96 Big grins
    edited September 8, 2005
    *dead*
    http://nappalonia.smugmug.com/gallery/580776

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    20D :clap
    Canon
    18-55
    85 1.8 :wink
    Tamron
    28-75 2.8
    Sigma
    70-300 DG APO Macro
    30 1.4:thumb
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited September 8, 2005
    I don't know much about IR photography. Did you have the same sort of dynamic range problems that arise from shooting moonlit scenes in the visible spectrum? How much post is involved? Was the moon shot separately?
    If not now, when?
  • dragon300zxdragon300zx Registered Users Posts: 2,575 Major grins
    edited September 8, 2005
    Common andy share with us why you are giving up a camera that can produce amazing images like this. I love that photo. Something I would deffinately put up on one of my walls.
    Everyone Has A Photographic Memory. Some Just Do Not Have Film.
    www.zxstudios.com
    http://creativedragonstudios.smugmug.com
  • Osprey WhispererOsprey Whisperer Registered Users Posts: 3,803 Major grins
    edited September 8, 2005
    Mooning us....now that's nice. :D Nice shot, Andy. I would like to mod a digi for some IR shots...but it'll have to wait until after I purchase a 400mm f/2.8...or I rob a bank. eek7.gif

    BMP
    Mike McCarthy

    "Osprey Whisperer"

    OspreyWhisperer.com
  • John MuellerJohn Mueller Registered Users Posts: 2,555 Major grins
    edited September 8, 2005
    gubbs wrote:
    You should keep it andy, lovely shot thumb.gif
    15524779-Ti.gif
  • USAIRUSAIR Registered Users Posts: 2,646 Major grins
    edited September 8, 2005
    Wow great shot very cool
    I vote keep it too :D

    Fred
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2005
    gubbs wrote:
    You should keep it andy, lovely shot thumb.gif

    thank you, gubbsie :D
  • mushymushy Registered Users Posts: 643 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2005
    That is an amazing picture, definitely one for the wall assuming you have the space
    May I take your picture?
  • devbobodevbobo Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 4,339 SmugMug Employee
    edited September 9, 2005
    very nice, sure is tempting, since it's on the market icon10.gif
    David Parry
    SmugMug API Developer
    My Photos
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2005
    Ah, please, Andy, tell us how much post went into this. Pretty please? It looks great. Everyone who has ever tried to shoot moonlit shots with the moon in them knows this is very hard with visible light. There is a thread kicking around about this: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=17377
    Even Ansel Adams didn't manage to make the moon look as large as you have.

    So, how much of this is due to IR photography? How much is post?
    If not now, when?
  • 4labs4labs Registered Users Posts: 2,089 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2005
    Andy that is just an awesome shot.
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2005
    Ann McRae wrote:
    Ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!


    That is su-weeeet.clap.gif

    ann


    wave.gif hiya ann, thanks for looking and stoppin :D
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2005
    rutt wrote:
    Ah, please, Andy, tell us how much post went into this. Pretty please? It looks great. Everyone who has ever tried to shoot moonlit shots with the moon in them knows this is very hard with visible light. There is a thread kicking around about this: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=17377
    Even Ansel Adams didn't manage to make the moon look as large as you have.

    So, how much of this is due to IR photography? How much is post?

    i shot the moon at long focal length, and merged with the scene. ansel didn't do this (and i own, thanks to the dgrinners that went to yosemite, "moon over halfdome" and totally love it!. the infrared file gives the ability to make deep blue skies, make them totally black - this is done with a severe curves adjustment - really simple, and no selection required.

    infrared work allows for unlimited possibilities in post - and that's one of the reasons i love it so much.

    thanks for stopping, looking, and your question - a really good one.
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2005
    andy wrote:
    i shot the moon at long focal length, and merged with the scene. ansel didn't do this (and i own, thanks to the dgrinners that went to yosemite, "moon over halfdome" and totally love it!. the infrared file gives the ability to make deep blue skies, make them totally black - this is done with a severe curves adjustment - really simple, and no selection required.

    infrared work allows for unlimited possibilities in post - and that's one of the reasons i love it so much.

    thanks for stopping, looking, and your question - a really good one.

    One very specific question you didn't answer: is the exposure difference between the moon and the ground as large in IR as in visible? Since you merged separate shots, I suppose you didn't have to fret this. But out of curosity, what was the difference in exposure between the shots?
    If not now, when?
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2005
    rutt wrote:
    One very specific question you didn't answer: is the exposure difference between the moon and the ground as large in IR as in visible? Since you merged separate shots, I suppose you didn't have to fret this. But out of curosity, what was the difference in exposure between the shots?

    iirc, no - they weren't different - but i processed this two nights ago and don't really remember how much i did in the raw conversion - probably not much. usually my infrareds are -1/3 ec, av mode.

    cheers
  • Red BullRed Bull Registered Users Posts: 719 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2005
    Now with your IR-modded Rebel sold, I'm gonna miss these infared shots. Unless you are getitng an IR-modified 20D.uhoh2.gif
    -Steven

    http://redbull.smugmug.com

    "Money can't buy happiness...But it can buy expensive posessions that make other people envious, and that feels just as good.":D

    Canon 20D, Canon 50 1.8 II, Canon 70-200 f/4L, Canon 17-40 f/4 L, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 430ex.
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2005
    Red Bull wrote:
    Unless you are getitng an IR-modified 20D.uhoh2.gif

    :nono

    something better is in the works :photo


    thanks for stopping, looking, and commenting, redbull thumb.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.