actually, I liked looking at these - as science, not photography :) Although full moons often have an adverse effect on me.
But my eyes are simply not good enough to see any difference at all between the three shots. And I've certainly spent plenty of time doing that sort of thing - i.e., taking pictures just to see if I can do it and make it work. lots of close-ups of rocks. I'm off to scrabble land. a WW wrote: >>While the fellas were out for their evening constitutional, I looked >>at the >>heavens and saw a very clear sky with the moon in a location that I >>could >>take pictures of it easily. >>So, I set up the rig again, and went about photographing it again. >>This time, I set the focus most carefully, and used a cable release >>on the >>camera, along with the 3 second delay. >>Then, I decided to ramp up the ISO to see if I could get some noise. >>There are three shots of the moon on this page, the top was shot at >>ISO 100, >>the middle at ISO 400, the bottom was shot at ISO 1600. >>Again, this series was shot with the A600/5.6 with the 2XL converter >>mounted. I attempted to process each file as close to identically as >>I >>could, though I gave the ISO 1600 file less sharpening as it was >>showing >>noise at that point. >> >>http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/moon/moons.html >> >>Anyway, as a technical experiment, it seems successful, as a >>photograph, the >>subject line says it all. >> >>William Robb >> >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>[email protected] >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
