moon over the sierra foothills

Andy · September 7, 2005

shot with my infrared-modded canon 300d.

map it

gubbs · September 8, 2005

You should keep it andy, lovely shot

Ann McRae · September 8, 2005

Ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

That is su-weeeet.

ann

Nappalonia · September 8, 2005

*dead*

rutt · 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?

dragon300zx · 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.

Osprey Whisperer · September 8, 2005

Mooning us....now that's nice.

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.

BMP

John Mueller · September 8, 2005

gubbs wrote:

You should keep it andy, lovely shot

USAIR · September 8, 2005

Wow great shot very cool
I vote keep it too

Fred

Andy · September 9, 2005

gubbs wrote:

You should keep it andy, lovely shot

thank you, gubbsie

mushy · September 9, 2005

That is an amazing picture, definitely one for the wall assuming you have the space

devbobo · September 9, 2005

very nice, sure is tempting, since it's on the market

rutt · 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?

4labs · September 9, 2005

Andy that is just an awesome shot.

Andy · September 9, 2005

Ann McRae wrote:

Ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

That is su-weeeet.

ann

hiya ann, thanks for looking and stoppin

Andy · 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.

rutt · 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?

Andy · 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 Bull · 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.

Andy · September 10, 2005

Red Bull wrote:

Unless you are getitng an IR-modified 20D.

:nono

something better is in the works :photo

thanks for stopping, looking, and commenting, redbull

moon over the sierra foothills

Comments