Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Black and White' started by caimi, Sep 20, 2013.
Pan GH3 P20 and P100-300
CIMI - This is amazing! I love the tonality. What did you use for PP?
Wow the moon looks huge!
i did an almost exact same shot. burn the edge of the moon more on the right so the end of it looks more realistic.
just my two cents - its nice as it is.
Is the size of the moon as seen here, relative to the total image area, what one gets with 300mm on m4/3? Or was cropping or some image manipulation involved?
That's a cool image, for sure.
Im not sure how he did it but what i did was took a 300mm shot of the moon, cropped it, took a diff shot for the foreground, and then converted the moon as smart object and put on top of the foreground.
Adubo... yes, I've done that myself (cropping an image of the moon then resizing and pasting into another frame to make it larger than it appeared in the original frame.) THis image has that look to it... but perhaps it is a straight out of camera image. I don't have anything close to a 300mm lens to test to find out.
What I was wondering is if this image displays the actual size of the moon that one would see, relative to the overall frame, when shooting at 300mm on m4/3? Does that question make sense?
duplicate post in error - please delete.
Yeah i get what you mean. I dont think the moon will get that "near" and big tho. Can it? Im not quite sure.
Could be real. Angular diameter of the moon is roughly half a degree. The angular view of the 300mm lens, at diagonal, is roughly 3.5 degrees.
This is a representation of what people think they see when there is a full moon. It is always larger in the memory so I made it larger in the picture than it actually appeared. It is a crop of the moon over another image. The moon was taken with P100-300 at 300mm and the Sunset Motel was shot with P20.
That's a very nice image, however I don't think it's a single shot. The moon is normally far brighter than the electric light lit walls of the building,and they are overexposed. So with these exposure settings the moon would be blown out.
oops! you beat me by 1 min
Chrome: The moon was processed in LR5. Sharpened with a bit of contrast boosted. The scene was then merged in PS but I also added a bit of fog for atmosphere in Colorefex before changing it to b&w.
Caimi... thanks for the info. I've done the same thing in the past with moon shots. But not having anything longer than 140mm, I wasn't sure if 300 would even get to what you showed with a straight shot.
I'm guessing one might need a 400mm to 500mm or so on m4/3 to have the moon of that size in a landscape image?
Nikon 300mm with a Speedbooster, so 420mm'ish effective
View attachment 310171
Getting an actual shot of the moon at sunset is quite difficult simply because of the physics involved.
On the day of the full moon, the moon rises exactly opposite of where the sun sets and the sun sets at exactly the same time the moon rises. In other words you will just miss it.
The sun will set at almost exactly the same time the following day but the moon will rise 40 minutes later. So there is exactly one day a month that you can catch a moon rise and a sunset and that is one day before the full moon. Then the moon will rise 40 minutes before the sunsets - this results in a lot less than 40 minutes of the moon having risen before the sun has set. You obviously also need totally clear skies.
Funnily enough, this actually occurred for me a week ago. It lasted approximately 7 minutes. I have a series of photos but I havent had a chance to process them yet but I will post a couple more in a few days. Here is an OOC jpeg shot at 300mm equiv (and cropped about 15%).
Incidentally, even though the mountains are quite far away, I dont see how you can get the moon totally in focus unless you shoot multiple shots which would kind of defeat the purpose of getting the sunset and the moon rise in the same photo in the first place.