DSLRUsers.com

Trying out my new Gitzo 1325 Tripod & RRS BH55-Pro ball head for the first time tonight getting some moon shots. Had once chance at this and I didn't have the focus right

Great idea Peter. Just keep at it, there will be another full moon

Btw, what's the white in the center? Aircraft lights?

kipper wrote:Great idea Peter. Just keep at it, there will be another full moon

Btw, what's the white in the center? Aircraft lights?

Light under the aircraft - it had only just taken off. I'm so bummed I hadn't got the moon in focus it would have been.....

Great idea, Peter. I really like it, even though not focused.

Alex

Serendipitous or planned, that is a great shot despite the missed focus. I refrained from voting in the 'Decisive Moment' comp because nothing there met with my anticipation of what a 'Decisive Moment' should be but, had this been included, I would have certainly given it a tick.

Worth thinking about would be to focus on the moon and let the plane go a tad soft if need be. There is an old theory, anyway, that for the best depiction of SHARP it is the distance that needs to be favoured.

Flight paths are fairly fixed entities and if you made good notes about the elevation of the moon and your orientation and location it might not be so hard to replicate.

I love it, glowing belly button and all.

By the way, the diffraction caused by the propulsion really is an integral and delicious aspect of this for me.

Cheers,

Sheetshooter wrote:Serendipitous or planned, that is a great shot despite the missed focus. I refrained from voting in the 'Decisive Moment' comp because nothing there met with my anticipation of what a 'Decisive Moment' should be but, had this been included, I would have certainly given it a tick.

Worth thinking about would be to focus on the moon and let the plane go a tad soft if need be. There is an old theory, anyway, that for the best depiction of SHARP it is the distance that needs to be favoured.

Flight paths are fairly fixed entities and if you made good notes about the elevation of the moon and your orientation and location it might not be so hard to replicate.

I love it, glowing belly button and all.

Completely serendipitous. I'm at birddog's tonight and went into his back yard to give my new toys a whirl. I'd manually focussed my 70-200 for the first time (I'm an 'A' man) and thought I had it. I wear multifocals and it LOOKED in focus. As I was getting ready for one of my shots I could see the plane coming up, flight path looked good, so I waited and pressed the shutter release. I wasn't using my remote release (for some reason it's not working) so either my eyesight is worse than I thought or I shook it as I pressed the shutter.

Sheetshooter wrote:By the way, the diffraction caused by the propulsion really is an integral and delicious aspect of this for me.

Cheers,

Absolutely - it's probably the magic part of the shot for me, but I'm still

Hi Stubbsy,

great shot at that moment !
I'am actually starting to consider experimenting with composit photography.
Your moon and plane shot for example; if you had a perfect moon in one shot and a perfect silouette of a plane in another shot and combined the two, you'd probably have a great shot.
Would that be cheating ?
I remember there was a great photographer who's reputation got sort of tainted for exactly doing that.
And I can see how this actually improved the photos.

Cheers,
CD

I knew about the man on the moon, but a plane?
...or perhaps Virgin Space has started a few years earlier than planned!

Good capture Peter - even if it's not perfect, it's better than none at all

christiand wrote:Hi Stubbsy,

great shot at that moment !
I'am actually starting to consider experimenting with composit photography.
Your moon and plane shot for example; if you had a perfect moon in one shot and a perfect silouette of a plane in another shot and combined the two, you'd probably have a great shot.
Would that be cheating ?
I remember there was a great photographer who's reputation got sort of tainted for exactly doing that.
And I can see how this actually improved the photos.

Cheers,
CD

Christian. For me composite photos are art works. They are not photographs. I like both and have no problems either way - certainly it's not cheating unless you're an absolute purist - but then isn't ANY PP in the same category?

Stubbsy,

I didn't even see the diffraction caused by the propulsion; that is something that would be hard to super impose from a seperate image.
I'm also wearing transitional multifocals; most of the times that is ok
with focussing.

Regards,
CD

........peter turn the shot into an art piece using the tools in PSCS2 and you may have a saver.......try using the art filters and different brushers......

I'll take my hat off to the person that can combine a silhouette of a plane and an image of the moon and get that sense of immediacy that the diffracted distortions lend.

Already this industry is well stuffed because people are going to stock libraries and licensing elements of pictures for combination rather than commissioning some poor sod trying to feed his kids to go and get the shot.

Another point about 'designerd' pictures is that many of the greatest pictures have been the result of the element of chance and happy accidents. Where does that fit into a cut and paste world?

Cheers,

Peter
You out there howling again? Go to bed! Oh...nice shot! That's the kind of stuff I like!

peter a brick in a bag, or a sand bag, hanging under the tripod will help steady the unit......an old trick.....

Matt. K wrote:Peter
You out there howling again? Go to bed! Oh...nice shot! That's the kind of stuff I like!

It's actually Gitzo meet

I'll take my hat off to the person that can combine a silhouette of a plane and an image of the moon and get that sense of immediacy that the diffracted distortions lend.

Already this industry is well stuffed because people are going to stock libraries and licensing elements of pictures for combination rather than commissioning some poor sod trying to feed his kids to go and get the shot.

Another point about 'designerd' pictures is that many of the greatest pictures have been the result of the element of chance and happy accidents. Where does that fit into a cut and paste world?

Cheers,

I agree with your first sentence, a lot of skill would be required.

Second sentence; I don't know the industry. I'm an amateur.

Third sentence; I completely agree with the " element of chance and happy accidents. "
In fact these make the really great photos.

I agree with Stubbsy; there is photography and there is another form (composites) which can be art.

Thanks for your input, I appreciate a lot what you are saying.

p.s.: this may start a lenghty discussion ...
Cheers,
CD

Great timing, Peter. It's a very cool shot, as is.

Great shot, I'm sorry your disappointed with the focus on it, but I think it's still a nice shot, and a great talking point as is. I'm be more then happy myself to have that in my collection. (I guess if it was in my collection, then I'd be like you are now, disappointed it wasn't a little better..)

Thanks one and all for the comments. This shot in many ways typifies what photography is to me. There are two components to a great photo. First, and foremost is the content of the shot. The feel, the essence of the captured moment. Second there's the technical aspects - light, colour sharpness etc etc. This shot got the first fantastically well for me, but it is severely lacking in the second. So for me it's a good shot, not a great shot. I'd like to always be able to take the great ones. As my skill gets better I figure I'll be able to increase the times both aspects of the shot come together

Stubbsy, bloody impressive! Great idea. Don't worry about the focus, this shot has an ethereal quality about it which transcends sharpness, etc. Really well done for concept and execution.

That was taken after a couple of hours of Gitzo ownership, looks like the 10sec challenge might be yours

Stubbsy, as a matter of interest, wouldn't the focus when shooting the moon be on infinity? Does the focus on the 70-200 differentiate between, say 200,000 kilometres and 250,000 kilometres?

Great shot by the way. Perceived shortcomings notwithstanding - anyone would be delighted to have taken it.

Greg B wrote:Stubbsy, as a matter of interest, wouldn't the focus when shooting the moon be on infinity? Does the focus on the 70-200 differentiate between, say 200,000 kilometres and 250,000 kilometres?

Great shot by the way. Perceived shortcomings notwithstanding - anyone would be delighted to have taken it.

On reflection I think you're right and playing with the focus was illusory. The real problem was camera shake when I pressed the shutter. Still can't work out why my remote isn't working!

Stubbsy, was the camera set to remote? It defaults off that quickly on std settings, probably about a min, I have changed that to the longest (ten or fifteen minutes) on mine. Sometimes you can't tell in the dark.

Peter - if you wait to get the combination of great shot and technical excellance everyone on this forum will long be dust.

The shot you got would not of happened if everything had been perfect, you would still be waiting and we would not be commenting on this very nice capture.

Glen wrote:Stubbsy, was the camera set to remote? It defaults off that quickly on std settings, probably about a min, I have changed that to the longest (ten or fifteen minutes) on mine. Sometimes you can't tell in the dark.

Yes - had it set to ten minutes - no matter what I did, nothing happened. I'd successfully used the remote a few weeks earlier. Maybe the battery is flat although it's hardly been used.

Could you PLEASE send me the original. I'm interested in trying to improve the focus.

This would be much appreciated.

this is a deserving POTW
great great capture

flipfrog wrote:this is a deserving POTW
great great capture

Thanks Dee. Not quite up to your high standard, but I'm working on it

Peter
That cardboard cutout of a plane finally came in handy! Seriously though...your image gets more impressive everytime I see it. It really is a wonderful photograph! And to make POW shows that you definitly are "In the loop". Congratulations. I am now inspired to get off my butt and go take some more shots. Not many images can do that to me.

Matt

There are a number of people here whose work I hold in high regard Dee(flipfrog) is one of those and you are another. Now you've both commented on how good this pic is I'm humbled and honoured at the same time.

Brought myself back down to earth just now when I realised why my nikon remote didn't work. I only set the duration for the remote, but didn't turn the feature on so the remote icon showed in the display

Peter,

To rewturn to your original title:

I think you got the cigar anyway!!

And deservedly so.

Sheetshooter wrote:Peter,

To rewturn to your original title:

I think you got the cigar anyway!!

And deservedly so.

SS - sure did. Not a smoker though

Neither am I any more, but if you know somebody who enjoys a fine Havana I have two excellent humidors I'm trying to flog.