Re: The right tool for the job
From: Tim Bray That's an awfully nice picture. No, you don't need a 645D. I don't need a 645D. Nobody needs a 645D. If anyone on this list gets one I'm going to send a poisoned Bolivian dwarf to teach them the error of their ways. -Tim Unless, of course, you invite the rest of us over to play with it. On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I was driving home from dancing in SF, and seeing the mist and clouds lit by the moon over some water I was compelled to stop and take a few pictures. ?At one point when I was bracketing two cameras (K20 and Kx) two lenses (16-50 20/1.8), several isos and exposures, my first thought was that if I had a K-5 this would be so much easier because I'd at least know which camera body to use. ?Then I realized that for this shot I didn't need a K-5, I needed a 645D. Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. Where my thoughts ended up, while waiting for the 30 second exposures, plus the 30 second dark fields, is that what I'd really like to see is what Ralf could do at night with a 645D, and that if Pentax were smart, they'd loan Ralf a 645D for a few weeks, just to see what one could do for night time landscapes. I need to go to bed rather than going through all of my n-dimensional bracketing from three different shooting locations, but after a quick scan, this seems to be one of the more promising shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5191532097/ K20, ISO 400, 16-50 at 16mm f/2.8 30 second exposure. ?Which matches my previous experience that the sweet spot at night is a 30 second exposure with the K20 at ISO 400. For the Bay Area Folks, this is shot from the frontage road, just north of Black Road (Bear Creek exit off Hwy 17). If there's interest, I could post my full bracketing of one of the shots. ?The last one I took ran into problems because the lens started fogging up. -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On 11/20/2010 3:55 PM, Larry Colen wrote: For the Bay Area Folks, this is shot from the frontage road, just north of Black Road (Bear Creek exit off Hwy 17). Just may be we could have a PUG theme of Night Photography. Boris -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On Nov 20, 2010, at 11:28 PM, David Mann wrote: On Nov 21, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Larry Colen wrote: On my cameras auto focus won't work in that light, and I didn't bring my laser pointer. Funny, I'd never thought of using a laser pointer to assist AF. I don't have a cat so I never had an excuse to get one until now. I haven't actually tried it myself yet, but if you do, you will want a green one. They are many times brighter than the red. Cheers, Dave -- 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 sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
What shipping company would deliver a dead dwarf anyway? On 11/21/2010 2:26 AM, David Mann wrote: On Nov 21, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Tim Bray wrote: That's an awfully nice picture. No, you don't need a 645D. I don't need a 645D. Nobody needs a 645D. If anyone on this list gets one I'm going to send a poisoned Bolivian dwarf to teach them the error of their ways. If Pentax do send me one, I won't tell you. :) Dave -- His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy. -Woody Allen -- 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.
RE: The right tool for the job
Have you tried http://www.pygmyexpress.com? What shipping company would deliver a dead dwarf anyway? On 11/21/2010 2:26 AM, David Mann wrote: On Nov 21, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Tim Bray wrote: That's an awfully nice picture. No, you don't need a 645D. I don't need a 645D. Nobody needs a 645D. If anyone on this list gets one I'm going to send a poisoned Bolivian dwarf to teach them the error of their ways. If Pentax do send me one, I won't tell you. -- 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.
The right tool for the job
I was driving home from dancing in SF, and seeing the mist and clouds lit by the moon over some water I was compelled to stop and take a few pictures. At one point when I was bracketing two cameras (K20 and Kx) two lenses (16-50 20/1.8), several isos and exposures, my first thought was that if I had a K-5 this would be so much easier because I'd at least know which camera body to use. Then I realized that for this shot I didn't need a K-5, I needed a 645D. Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. Where my thoughts ended up, while waiting for the 30 second exposures, plus the 30 second dark fields, is that what I'd really like to see is what Ralf could do at night with a 645D, and that if Pentax were smart, they'd loan Ralf a 645D for a few weeks, just to see what one could do for night time landscapes. I need to go to bed rather than going through all of my n-dimensional bracketing from three different shooting locations, but after a quick scan, this seems to be one of the more promising shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5191532097/ K20, ISO 400, 16-50 at 16mm f/2.8 30 second exposure. Which matches my previous experience that the sweet spot at night is a 30 second exposure with the K20 at ISO 400. For the Bay Area Folks, this is shot from the frontage road, just north of Black Road (Bear Creek exit off Hwy 17). If there's interest, I could post my full bracketing of one of the shots. The last one I took ran into problems because the lens started fogging up. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On 20/11/10, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed: my first thought was that if I had a K-5 this would be so much easier because I'd at least know which camera body to use. Then I realized that for this shot I didn't need a K-5, I needed a 645D. Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. Mark! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
Nice shot just the way it is, Larry. Monitors can display quite a wide variation at this level of exposure. Jack --- On Sat, 11/20/10, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com Subject: The right tool for the job To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, November 20, 2010, 5:55 AM I was driving home from dancing in SF, and seeing the mist and clouds lit by the moon over some water I was compelled to stop and take a few pictures. At one point when I was bracketing two cameras (K20 and Kx) two lenses (16-50 20/1.8), several isos and exposures, my first thought was that if I had a K-5 this would be so much easier because I'd at least know which camera body to use. Then I realized that for this shot I didn't need a K-5, I needed a 645D. Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. Where my thoughts ended up, while waiting for the 30 second exposures, plus the 30 second dark fields, is that what I'd really like to see is what Ralf could do at night with a 645D, and that if Pentax were smart, they'd loan Ralf a 645D for a few weeks, just to see what one could do for night time landscapes. I need to go to bed rather than going through all of my n-dimensional bracketing from three different shooting locations, but after a quick scan, this seems to be one of the more promising shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5191532097/ K20, ISO 400, 16-50 at 16mm f/2.8 30 second exposure. Which matches my previous experience that the sweet spot at night is a 30 second exposure with the K20 at ISO 400. For the Bay Area Folks, this is shot from the frontage road, just north of Black Road (Bear Creek exit off Hwy 17). If there's interest, I could post my full bracketing of one of the shots. The last one I took ran into problems because the lens started fogging up. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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. -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
Larry Colen wrote: I was driving home from dancing in SF, and seeing the mist and clouds lit by the moon over some water I was compelled to stop and take a few pictures. At one point when I was bracketing two cameras (K20 and Kx) two lenses (16-50 20/1.8), several isos and exposures, my first thought was that if I had a K-5 this would be so much easier because I'd at least know which camera body to use. Then I realized that for this shot I didn't need a K-5, I needed a 645D. Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. Where my thoughts ended up, while waiting for the 30 second exposures, plus the 30 second dark fields, is that what I'd really like to see is what Ralf could do at night with a 645D, and that if Pentax were smart, they'd loan Ralf a 645D for a few weeks, just to see what one could do for night time landscapes. I need to go to bed rather than going through all of my n-dimensional bracketing from three different shooting locations, but after a quick scan, this seems to be one of the more promising shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5191532097/ K20, ISO 400, 16-50 at 16mm f/2.8 30 second exposure. Which matches my previous experience that the sweet spot at night is a 30 second exposure with the K20 at ISO 400. For the Bay Area Folks, this is shot from the frontage road, just north of Black Road (Bear Creek exit off Hwy 17). If there's interest, I could post my full bracketing of one of the shots. The last one I took ran into problems because the lens started fogging up. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est Larry - this doesn't look like it was worth the effort... It looks like your tripod wasnt steady , for one thing... ann -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
Excellent shot. I find it very compelling. The horizon in the middle works well with your subject here. Paul On Nov 20, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Larry Colen wrote: I was driving home from dancing in SF, and seeing the mist and clouds lit by the moon over some water I was compelled to stop and take a few pictures. At one point when I was bracketing two cameras (K20 and Kx) two lenses (16-50 20/1.8), several isos and exposures, my first thought was that if I had a K-5 this would be so much easier because I'd at least know which camera body to use. Then I realized that for this shot I didn't need a K-5, I needed a 645D. Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. Where my thoughts ended up, while waiting for the 30 second exposures, plus the 30 second dark fields, is that what I'd really like to see is what Ralf could do at night with a 645D, and that if Pentax were smart, they'd loan Ralf a 645D for a few weeks, just to see what one could do for night time landscapes. I need to go to bed rather than going through all of my n-dimensional bracketing from three different shooting locations, but after a quick scan, this seems to be one of the more promising shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5191532097/ K20, ISO 400, 16-50 at 16mm f/2.8 30 second exposure. Which matches my previous experience that the sweet spot at night is a 30 second exposure with the K20 at ISO 400. For the Bay Area Folks, this is shot from the frontage road, just north of Black Road (Bear Creek exit off Hwy 17). If there's interest, I could post my full bracketing of one of the shots. The last one I took ran into problems because the lens started fogging up. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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. -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
Larry, I like this one except for the spot right in the middle of the frame (porch light?) A little work and this might be a really good shot. Ted -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
Thanks all for your comments. Ann, I did some pixel peeping on other photos in the set looking for evidence of tripod shake. I think that one problem I'm having is accurately focusing the 20/1.8 in the dark. I suspect that infinity is not exactly infinity. On my cameras auto focus won't work in that light, and I didn't bring my laser pointer. Pointing directly at the moon it wouldn't have made a difference, but do polarizers have the same effect at night on darkening the blue of the sky? Can they be used to bring out the stars better? Here's one where I used the burn in brush in lightroom to darken the sky: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5193155990/ To do this right, I suspect I'd need to know a lot more photoshop. And, for those that are interested some more shots from the set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157625430541230/ On Nov 20, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Larry Colen wrote: I was driving home from dancing in SF, and seeing the mist and clouds lit by the moon over some water I was compelled to stop and take a few pictures. At one point when I was bracketing two cameras (K20 and Kx) two lenses (16-50 20/1.8), several isos and exposures, my first thought was that if I had a K-5 this would be so much easier because I'd at least know which camera body to use. Then I realized that for this shot I didn't need a K-5, I needed a 645D. Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. Where my thoughts ended up, while waiting for the 30 second exposures, plus the 30 second dark fields, is that what I'd really like to see is what Ralf could do at night with a 645D, and that if Pentax were smart, they'd loan Ralf a 645D for a few weeks, just to see what one could do for night time landscapes. I need to go to bed rather than going through all of my n-dimensional bracketing from three different shooting locations, but after a quick scan, this seems to be one of the more promising shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5191532097/ K20, ISO 400, 16-50 at 16mm f/2.8 30 second exposure. Which matches my previous experience that the sweet spot at night is a 30 second exposure with the K20 at ISO 400. For the Bay Area Folks, this is shot from the frontage road, just north of Black Road (Bear Creek exit off Hwy 17). If there's interest, I could post my full bracketing of one of the shots. The last one I took ran into problems because the lens started fogging up. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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 sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On flicker, especially, I'm noticing blockiness in the sky. I suspect that I've got my jpeg quality turned down too low for a photo where I'm pushing things this hard. I suspect that these photos will go into the file marked Near miss, try and learn from them. I'm not sure, however what I can learn from them other than that I occasionally run up against the limits of skill or equipment. On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Thanks all for your comments. Ann, I did some pixel peeping on other photos in the set looking for evidence of tripod shake. I think that one problem I'm having is accurately focusing the 20/1.8 in the dark. I suspect that infinity is not exactly infinity. On my cameras auto focus won't work in that light, and I didn't bring my laser pointer. Pointing directly at the moon it wouldn't have made a difference, but do polarizers have the same effect at night on darkening the blue of the sky? Can they be used to bring out the stars better? Here's one where I used the burn in brush in lightroom to darken the sky: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5193155990/ To do this right, I suspect I'd need to know a lot more photoshop. And, for those that are interested some more shots from the set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157625430541230/ On Nov 20, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Larry Colen wrote: I was driving home from dancing in SF, and seeing the mist and clouds lit by the moon over some water I was compelled to stop and take a few pictures. At one point when I was bracketing two cameras (K20 and Kx) two lenses (16-50 20/1.8), several isos and exposures, my first thought was that if I had a K-5 this would be so much easier because I'd at least know which camera body to use. Then I realized that for this shot I didn't need a K-5, I needed a 645D. Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. Where my thoughts ended up, while waiting for the 30 second exposures, plus the 30 second dark fields, is that what I'd really like to see is what Ralf could do at night with a 645D, and that if Pentax were smart, they'd loan Ralf a 645D for a few weeks, just to see what one could do for night time landscapes. I need to go to bed rather than going through all of my n-dimensional bracketing from three different shooting locations, but after a quick scan, this seems to be one of the more promising shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5191532097/ K20, ISO 400, 16-50 at 16mm f/2.8 30 second exposure. Which matches my previous experience that the sweet spot at night is a 30 second exposure with the K20 at ISO 400. For the Bay Area Folks, this is shot from the frontage road, just north of Black Road (Bear Creek exit off Hwy 17). If there's interest, I could post my full bracketing of one of the shots. The last one I took ran into problems because the lens started fogging up. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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 sent from i4est -- 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 sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. You're all far overestimating the role I'm playing in all this. 90 percent of it is living near the right places and being there when the light is good. Yes, there is good and bad light at night. The time around full moon, like tonight, is always good. Combine it with a few low hanging fluffy clouds to give the sky more depth and you already have one half of a good shot. Far less wizardry involved than you all think. I'd really like to see is what Ralf could do at night with a 645D So would I. :-) and that if Pentax were smart, they'd loan Ralf a 645D for a few weeks, just to see what one could do for night time landscapes. Anyone at Pentax reading this...? Though I'm currently quite happy with the K-5. Been spending whole evenings finding out just how far one can push things in Lightroom without producing any noticeable of noise. Incredible, absolutely incredible... As to your shot, I honestly don't see how I could have done any better, especially since such simple nature shots are far more demanding than my industry scenes which are quite spectacular just by their subjects. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On Nov 20, 2010, at 7:55, Larry Colen wrote: I need to go to bed rather than going through all of my n-dimensional bracketing from three different shooting locations, but after a quick scan, this seems to be one of the more promising shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5191532097/ K20, ISO 400, 16-50 at 16mm f/2.8 30 second exposure. Which matches my previous experience that the sweet spot at night is a 30 second exposure with the K20 at ISO 400. Beautiful! -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On Nov 20, 2010, at 15:24, Larry Colen wrote: Thanks all for your comments. Ann, I did some pixel peeping on other photos in the set looking for evidence of tripod shake. I think that one problem I'm having is accurately focusing the 20/1.8 in the dark. I suspect that infinity is not exactly infinity. On my cameras auto focus won't work in that light, and I didn't bring my laser pointer. This is going to sound odd, but the last time I did long exposures at night, I found that using the Live View was a great way to quickly get my little points of light in the distance to be as tiny (thus, in-focus) as possible with a minimum of fuss. That and stopping down to f/8 or so. -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Charles Robinson wrote: On Nov 20, 2010, at 15:24, Larry Colen wrote: Thanks all for your comments. Ann, I did some pixel peeping on other photos in the set looking for evidence of tripod shake. I think that one problem I'm having is accurately focusing the 20/1.8 in the dark. I suspect that infinity is not exactly infinity. On my cameras auto focus won't work in that light, and I didn't bring my laser pointer. This is going to sound odd, but the last time I did long exposures at night, I found that using the Live View was a great way to quickly get my little points of light in the distance to be as tiny (thus, in-focus) as possible with a minimum of fuss. I tried that, but couldn't see anything in live view, I'll have to try again and see what it takes to get it to work. That and stopping down to f/8 or so. Good point, but I was already exposing at 30 seconds. -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- 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 sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Charles Robinson wrote: On Nov 20, 2010, at 15:24, Larry Colen wrote: Thanks all for your comments. Ann, I did some pixel peeping on other photos in the set looking for evidence of tripod shake. I think that one problem I'm having is accurately focusing the 20/1.8 in the dark. I suspect that infinity is not exactly infinity. On my cameras auto focus won't work in that light, and I didn't bring my laser pointer. This is going to sound odd, but the last time I did long exposures at night, I found that using the Live View was a great way to quickly get my little points of light in the distance to be as tiny (thus, in-focus) as possible with a minimum of fuss. I tried that, but couldn't see anything in live view, I'll have to try again and see what it takes to get it to work. It does work, but can be a pain. Getting the stars to points is probably the easiest, but for that shot I'd just set the lens to infinity and use DOF. That and stopping down to f/8 or so. Good point, but I was already exposing at 30 seconds. Bulb and a locking cable release, no reciprocity failure on digital so test exposure at 30s, stop-down and reshoot -Adam -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
Pointing directly at the moon it wouldn't have made a difference, but do polarizers have the same effect at night on darkening the blue of the sky? Can they be used to bring out the stars better? Larry, light is light, right. The main difference is the amount that is there. It still has the same properties so I would think it would have some effect though it might be hard to tell while you are looking through the viewfinder. You would also loose approximate 2 stops, so would give you longer shutter speed. This is just speculation on my part, I have not tried using a polarizer at night. Try it and see what happens. Later Ted -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
That's an awfully nice picture. No, you don't need a 645D. I don't need a 645D. Nobody needs a 645D. If anyone on this list gets one I'm going to send a poisoned Bolivian dwarf to teach them the error of their ways. -Tim On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I was driving home from dancing in SF, and seeing the mist and clouds lit by the moon over some water I was compelled to stop and take a few pictures. At one point when I was bracketing two cameras (K20 and Kx) two lenses (16-50 20/1.8), several isos and exposures, my first thought was that if I had a K-5 this would be so much easier because I'd at least know which camera body to use. Then I realized that for this shot I didn't need a K-5, I needed a 645D. Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. Where my thoughts ended up, while waiting for the 30 second exposures, plus the 30 second dark fields, is that what I'd really like to see is what Ralf could do at night with a 645D, and that if Pentax were smart, they'd loan Ralf a 645D for a few weeks, just to see what one could do for night time landscapes. I need to go to bed rather than going through all of my n-dimensional bracketing from three different shooting locations, but after a quick scan, this seems to be one of the more promising shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5191532097/ K20, ISO 400, 16-50 at 16mm f/2.8 30 second exposure. Which matches my previous experience that the sweet spot at night is a 30 second exposure with the K20 at ISO 400. For the Bay Area Folks, this is shot from the frontage road, just north of Black Road (Bear Creek exit off Hwy 17). If there's interest, I could post my full bracketing of one of the shots. The last one I took ran into problems because the lens started fogging up. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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. -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On Nov 20, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Theodore Beilby wrote: Pointing directly at the moon it wouldn't have made a difference, but do polarizers have the same effect at night on darkening the blue of the sky? Can they be used to bring out the stars better? Larry, light is light, right. The main difference is the amount that is there. Except that the light that comes from the moon is reflected. Reflection is one thing that causes polarization of light, but that' is usually off of flat, non conductive surfaces. Conductive surfaces (metal) don't reflect polarized light. The effect of the atmosphere on the light, I would guess, would be the same whether it's from the sun, or the moon. I also expect that the color balance in both the visible and the invisible spectra would be different between moonlight and sunlight. It still has the same properties so I would think it would have some effect though it might be hard to tell while you are looking through the viewfinder. You would also loose approximate 2 stops, so would give you longer shutter speed. That is another factor. This is just speculation on my part, I have not tried using a polarizer at night. Try it and see what happens. I plan to sometime. It would have required thinking of it when I was grabbing my cameras out of my car. I think that my biggest lapse in forethought was in not bringing a microfiber cloth to wipe the dew from the front of the lens. That may have contributed to the softness that Ann saw. Later Ted -- 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 sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On Nov 20, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. You're all far overestimating the role I'm playing in all this. 90 percent of it is living near the right places and being there when the light is good. I suspect that that 90% is more a case of knowing how to recognize which are the right places and the good light. I'd love to see what you could do at the Oakland shipyards with their At-At cranes. Yes, there is good and bad light at night. The time around full moon, like tonight, is always good. Combine it with a few low hanging fluffy clouds to give the sky more depth and you already have one half of a good shot. Far less wizardry involved than you all think. I'd really like to see is what Ralf could do at night with a 645D So would I. :-) and that if Pentax were smart, they'd loan Ralf a 645D for a few weeks, just to see what one could do for night time landscapes. Anyone at Pentax reading this...? I wonder if Pentax Europe is easier or harder to reach than North America or corporate? I hope that Pentax is flooded with orders from early adopters of the 645D, and that drives the price down, as well as helps them iron out all the wrinkles. I hope that there are enough people complaining about lack of tethering that they get a good tethering solution, and that it trickles down to the APS models. I also hope that the 645DII is to the 645D what the K-5 seems to be to the K20, and in not too many Though I'm currently quite happy with the K-5. Been spending whole evenings finding out just how far one can push things in Lightroom without producing any noticeable of noise. Incredible, absolutely incredible... As to your shot, I honestly don't see how I could have done any better, especially since such simple nature shots are far more demanding than my industry scenes which are quite spectacular just by their subjects. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de -- 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 sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
Larry Colen wrote: Thanks all for your comments. Ann, I did some pixel peeping on other photos in the set looking for evidence of tripod shake. I think that one problem I'm having is accurately focusing the 20/1.8 in the dark. I suspect that infinity is not exactly infinity. That's true - and I'd have difficulty focusing in the dark for sure!... I used to set the focus a bit shy of infinity whenever I couldn't see what I was doing... On my cameras auto focus won't work in that light, and I didn't bring my laser pointer. Pointing directly at the moon it wouldn't have made a difference, but do polarizers have the same effect at night on darkening the blue of the sky? Can they be used to bring out the stars better? no clue, but I wouldnt think so... Here's one where I used the burn in brush in lightroom to darken the sky: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5193155990/ To do this right, I suspect I'd need to know a lot more photoshop. And, for those that are interested some more shots from the set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157625430541230/ well even though it is soft - I think this one is a lot more interesting than your night with stars shot http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5193161970/in/set-72157625430541230/ I think it is really difficult to get an intersting shot at night with stars... they so often only look like bits of dust one needs to spot out on a print :-) Not sure I'm much help here.. ann On Nov 20, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Larry Colen wrote: I was driving home from dancing in SF, and seeing the mist and clouds lit by the moon over some water I was compelled to stop and take a few pictures. At one point when I was bracketing two cameras (K20 and Kx) two lenses (16-50 20/1.8), several isos and exposures, my first thought was that if I had a K-5 this would be so much easier because I'd at least know which camera body to use. Then I realized that for this shot I didn't need a K-5, I needed a 645D. Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. Where my thoughts ended up, while waiting for the 30 second exposures, plus the 30 second dark fields, is that what I'd really like to see is what Ralf could do at night with a 645D, and that if Pentax were smart, they'd loan Ralf a 645D for a few weeks, just to see what one could do for night time landscapes. I need to go to bed rather than going through all of my n-dimensional bracketing from three different shooting locations, but after a quick scan, this seems to be one of the more promising shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5191532097/ K20, ISO 400, 16-50 at 16mm f/2.8 30 second exposure. Which matches my previous experience that the sweet spot at night is a 30 second exposure with the K20 at ISO 400. For the Bay Area Folks, this is shot from the frontage road, just north of Black Road (Bear Creek exit off Hwy 17). If there's interest, I could post my full bracketing of one of the shots. The last one I took ran into problems because the lens started fogging up. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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 sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On Nov 20, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Larry Colen wrote: Thanks all for your comments. Ann, I did some pixel peeping on other photos in the set looking for evidence of tripod shake. I think that one problem I'm having is accurately focusing the 20/1.8 in the dark. I suspect that infinity is not exactly infinity. That's true - and I'd have difficulty focusing in the dark for sure!... I used to set the focus a bit shy of infinity whenever I couldn't see what I was doing... I think that I may have tried that. And, for those that are interested some more shots from the set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157625430541230/ well even though it is soft - I think this one is a lot more interesting than your night with stars shot http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5193161970/in/set-72157625430541230/ That's one of the first ones I took. I think it is really difficult to get an intersting shot at night with stars... they so often only look like bits of dust one needs to spot out on a print :-) The primary interest of having the stars is that the shot looks like daylight so the stars give an interesting cognitive dissonance. Not sure I'm much help here.. On the PDML has being of help ever been anything but secondary to puns and cormorants? ann On Nov 20, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Larry Colen wrote: I was driving home from dancing in SF, and seeing the mist and clouds lit by the moon over some water I was compelled to stop and take a few pictures. At one point when I was bracketing two cameras (K20 and Kx) two lenses (16-50 20/1.8), several isos and exposures, my first thought was that if I had a K-5 this would be so much easier because I'd at least know which camera body to use. Then I realized that for this shot I didn't need a K-5, I needed a 645D. Then I realized what I really needed was Ralf's nightscape skills. Where my thoughts ended up, while waiting for the 30 second exposures, plus the 30 second dark fields, is that what I'd really like to see is what Ralf could do at night with a 645D, and that if Pentax were smart, they'd loan Ralf a 645D for a few weeks, just to see what one could do for night time landscapes. I need to go to bed rather than going through all of my n-dimensional bracketing from three different shooting locations, but after a quick scan, this seems to be one of the more promising shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/5191532097/ K20, ISO 400, 16-50 at 16mm f/2.8 30 second exposure. Which matches my previous experience that the sweet spot at night is a 30 second exposure with the K20 at ISO 400. For the Bay Area Folks, this is shot from the frontage road, just north of Black Road (Bear Creek exit off Hwy 17). If there's interest, I could post my full bracketing of one of the shots. The last one I took ran into problems because the lens started fogging up. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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 sent from i4est -- 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 sent from i4est -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On Nov 21, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Tim Bray wrote: That's an awfully nice picture. No, you don't need a 645D. I don't need a 645D. Nobody needs a 645D. If anyone on this list gets one I'm going to send a poisoned Bolivian dwarf to teach them the error of their ways. If Pentax do send me one, I won't tell you. :) Dave -- 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.
Re: The right tool for the job
On Nov 21, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Larry Colen wrote: On my cameras auto focus won't work in that light, and I didn't bring my laser pointer. Funny, I'd never thought of using a laser pointer to assist AF. I don't have a cat so I never had an excuse to get one until now. Cheers, Dave -- 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.
