Gonz wrote:
The second set (k20) appears to be the wrong set.
oops,
It should be
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/albums/72157625430541230
or
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/albums/72157625430541230
Igor might be interested in the set I accidentally sent:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/albums/72157625430541230
It is photos from dancing on Thursday night, after noise reduction was
applied.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Larry Colen<l...@red4est.com> wrote:
I've been exploring the K-1 and night photography lately. This set was shot
in the same place, on two different nights. The first night there was a half
moon that had risen a couple hours previously, the second night there was no
light from the moon, but a lot more light from hwy 17 lighting the
foreground. They were actually two nights apart, it's just that the first
night was after midnight so the dates only show one day difference:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157670122716326
If you look at the exif data:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157670122716326
By way of comparison, here are some photos taken with the K20 at the same
spot, late at night. The mists made the scene a bit more photogenic.
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/albums/72157625430541230
You will see that after post processing it is nearly impossible to tell
apart two shots with the same exposure apart from ISO. I don't know why I
can see the milky way in the first set, but not the second set, perhaps it
hadn't moved into the scene yet because that is exactly the opposite of what
I expected.
On one hand, this means that if your post processing software could handle
it, you could shoot at base ISO all of the time, and almost never clip your
highlights. However, since lightroom does not handle more than 5EV
gracefully, there is also little to no downside to pushing the ISO hard
enough to see what you need to see (so long as you don't clip highlights).
I was shooting way under exposed last night so as not to blow out the
colored lights behind the band I was shooting. The problem was that the
people in the foreground were so dark, I couldn't see anything useful on the
display.
I would love to see a paradigm shift in cameras used by people who shoot in
raw. The ability to always shoot at base ISO (not the requirement, but the
ability), and to have an equivalent to ISO control, simply control the
brightness of the preview jpeg. Ideally, being able to adjust it in camera
while you're looking at it.
The histogram would, of course, report the raw data, ideally also showing a
number with the percentage of clipped pixels in each channel.
I'd love to see some sort of number showing SNR in the shadows as well.
The only photos of any artistic merit are the ones of the fir trees at the
end. They were well lit by the headlights on the hwy. There are some weird
effects where they have more illumination in some shots than others. It may
have something to do with traffic patterns, though it didn't seem to vary
that much over 20 second time spans at the time.
For people who know the area, I took the bear creek / Black Road exit, and
doubled back to Montevina road. I parked at a little pullout there and
walked a hundred yards/meters or so back towards the exit to get a better
view of the lagoon.
BTW, I'm still waiting for a chance to try my luck with M31. I haven't had
both a clear view of it and a long lens. It seems to be rising pretty late
at night, usually after the moon.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
