HOME | DD

pynipple In reply to Mr-Tetanus [2007-11-20 08:29:18 +0000 UTC]

Thank you so much for your nice comments - really made me feel good

One of my favorite things to do when people comment on how much you must have to spend on equipment to get shots like this is to tell them the truth

First of all, I'm a horrible photography equipment junkie, so I DO have a ton of expensive photography gear - but you could easily take a photo like this without spending much at all - it just so happens that this one of my moon shots was taken with my more expensive camera

I could get a nearly identical shot out of my Minolta 7D body (~$400) and a Sigma 400mm f/5.6 prime (~125) with a Minolta 2x teleconverter (~$40) believe it or not ... and if you wanted to use film instead, the lens and teleconverter are exactly the same, but a really good Minolta film SLR camera body can be bought for (~$50) and take phenomenal photos

I used a Canon for this shot, but you’ll see a few of my other lunar photography was shot with the same Minolta setup that I described above … inexpensive, easy and high quality

So as you can see, it's not free, but it's not just a hobby for someone that wants to take out a 2nd mortgage on their house just to buy the lens ... if you currently have a film or (better yet) digital SLR camera, I would highly suggest looking for a Sigma 400mm/5.6 prime lens and a regular old 2x teleconverter - you will be absolutely AMAZED at what you can get with that combination

Along with that gear, I used a tripod (some brand new ones are $20) and a remote shutter release cable (~$25) which I think are also fairly important

the one huge trick to getting a photo like this is to get the camera to be completely steady, and more importantly to get the FOCUS to be as close to perfect as you can possibly get it … after that, even if you don’t have a huge MP camera with a long lens, you can always zoom and crop the photo and still end up with an image like this

I try to get people to put whatever camera that they have and put it on a tripod (or something super steady if you don’t have one) and just work on the focus and try to take a few photos … most of the time the people that do it are really impressed and surprised by what they can do … I know I was shocked at what my first attempts produced – I was like most people and assumed that I needed a lot of experience and equipment, which I didn’t have at the time – but after 30 minutes in my back yard freezing my butt off I felt like I’d been doing it for years

If you have a digital camera with manual focus – get out there and give this a try … if you like photography at all, this is an easy and fast way to get a huge ego boost at the same time

As far as sharing my photography … I'm just happy when other people want to use it … I have a lot of respect for the people that use stock photography in their manipulations, and I'm a big fan of that kind of art in general … and besides, there’s enough pay-to-use stock in the world already

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

quicsilver In reply to pynipple [2008-03-22 00:55:15 +0000 UTC]

hey im trying to do some lunar photography and i have a canon rebel xt (digital) and tried to use the afocal setup with the camera lens removed and setting it up with the eyepiece to take shots. but so far its been a freagin disaster. Im thinking about getting a barlow but i want some advice first before throwing away cash to the wind. I have a T-adapter that fits with the rebel and an adapter i got cheap which is just a pipe attachment and does nothing significant and even with a tripod the pictures are awfully blurry and out of focus. see here [link] . so what CAN i do with it? should i go with a barlow or try a teleconverter like you said above?

id appreciate the help

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mr-Tetanus In reply to pynipple [2007-11-20 21:03:37 +0000 UTC]

I've got several cameras, including an oldschool Pentax K1000, a much newer Pentax SLR, an Olympus waterproof digital, my twin camera 3D rig (cheap and nasties, that have built in mp3 players, of all things) and my Nikon D50 digital SLR. I've got a couple of lenses for that, and I've done lunar shots (yes, on a tripod), but with nowhere near the clarity that you've got there. But you're right. A 2x converter could give me the edge I need. I'd only ever use it for moon shots, as my standard telephoto is usually quite adequate for most other applications. It's just that The Matron is so obsessed with the moon, and it's easy to impress her by just taking a few 1/2 decent shots for her.
Thanks for the tip. I might start looking into them tonight after work.

T

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pynipple In reply to eeron [2007-11-02 18:46:11 +0000 UTC]

thank you for the nice comment ... but to be fair, the details were always there, I just happened to get some of them to funnel through my lens

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

eeron In reply to pynipple [2007-11-02 18:58:05 +0000 UTC]

Still an excellent job - i love how sharp this image is, usually there is a bit of blur, yours, nope, very still and clean. Great stuff

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pynipple In reply to eeron [2007-11-13 08:53:47 +0000 UTC]

Thank you very much for the nice comment ... it's comments like this that keep me going back out there in the freezing cold at 4am with my camera

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pynipple In reply to Rachastock [2007-10-19 09:55:33 +0000 UTC]

Thank you so much ... it's actually a lot easier than it looks, and much easier than I imagined it would be - it's all about getting the focus as perfect as possible and having the camera on a steady and heavy tripod (i just hung a 5lb weight from the center of mine for more stability, but you can buy tripod weights or even purposefully heavy tripods if you really wanted to) ... once you're all set up, just use a remote shutter release and play around with the shutter speed and aperture

Thanks again for the nice comment, I'm a big fan of your work ... your GALLERY is really excellent

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rachastock In reply to pynipple [2007-10-21 12:17:33 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for the description. I will have to have a play. I had tried to take photos of the moon before on a really bright night, but I didn't get any shots as wonderful as this. The weighted tripod and remote shutter seem to be the key elements. And thanks for the compliment about my work too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pynipple In reply to Rachastock [2007-10-23 08:49:39 +0000 UTC]

I'm so happy that you are going to give this a shot again – with all seriousness, that makes me happy and makes me think you're to get some really good results ... I think you will find that it's a lot easier than it seems like it would be

One thing I forgot to mention, and it’s an important one ... the worst time to photograph the moon is during a full moon ... if you do it when it is waxing or waning, you will be able to get a HUGE amount of detail from it and you will be able to see the actual depth of the craters and the shadows on the crater and mountain walls much, much easier … when you take one when it’s halfway in the middle of being a crescent, you will even be able to see into some of the larger craters … don’t plan on seeing any real detail or high definition items … it’s not like you will be able to see individual rocks or anything – the scale of these craters is still enormous, but this way you will at least be able to get the most for your time, and you will definitely be getting the most out of the light, which is the most important thing - there is a massive depth to these structures, craters and landmasses up there, and if you get it so the shadows are falling on them at the correct angle (when the moon is just about anything but full ... 1/2 way waxing or waning is perfect) you will see a side of the moon that you probably never realized you could take

Basically, if you take it when it’s full, you will get drowned out by the light and the resolution will be sucky – and the contrast and depth of field will be unrecoverable, even in post processing – there’s just too much concentrated light when it’s a full moon … not only that, but when it’s full, the sunlight is shining directly onto the top of the craters and not giving off any shadows like you want to good depth perception

With all honesty, I really think you could go out on any given night and blow away the lunar photos that I've put up here ... all of mine were kind of test runs that ended up turning out really good ... if I put a lot more time into them, they would have been worthy of a cover of National Geographic or something - it's really that easy ... I have a really had health situation involving my back that I've had for a little more than 7 years now and it keeps getting worse every month, so that's why I couldn't stand there too long to get everything perfect

I have a 12” Meade LX200GPS Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope that I've always wanted to hook my camera up to, but I haven’t gotten around to it yet … but when I get that all put together, they will be unlike anything that you will see on here … with that, I can get just one crater to completely fill my whole screen with complete sharpness and clarity (but again, not when the moon is full)

But if you have the time and desire to get it all right and go through the details, your jaw just might drop when you realize the quality of the lunar photo that you just took and you just may find yourself in disbelief that you just took that photo … you really don’t have to spend a fortune on camera equipment or lenses – with these photos, I think it’s more effort than equipment – assuming that you have 600-800mm’s of focal length and a steady tripod/remote shutter release

Another thing to remember ... (I'm assuming wanting to use a digital DSLR because of the quality and speed) ... take plenty of photos - way more than you think you need ... on a typical night like the ones that I took for this moon shoot, I would take between 100-300 photos of the moon at each try - the focus and stability is really that critical and you will end up finding your 'money shots' in there if you take enough photos … out of those 100-300 I would probably end up with 12-15 really decent photos just because of little vibrations in the ground, or very slight focus adjustments

As I've mentioned, you don't have to have top of the line gear or even super quality lenses ... a lot of what I've taken was from my Minolta 7D DSLR and a Sigma 400mm f/5.6 lens with a 2x Minolta teleconverter ... a lot of people might tell you that Minolta is crap or low quality, but there are times that I will purposefully take my digital Minolta 7D and a $400 Sigma 400mm lens instead of my $7000 digital Canon 1DsMK2 body and a $4000 Canon 400mm lens just because there are a lot of situations where I firmly believe that the Minolta produces a better quality photo (I just know I'm going to get reamed by someone for this comment, but that's the truth about how I feel, and you can't argue with the results)

So ... if you don't have the gear to do this yet, please don't think that you need to take out a second mortgage to get it ... there are thousands of excellent cameras and lenses out there that won't set you back all that much, but will give the high dollar units a run for their money when it comes to quality – and there isn’t anything wrong with used equipment as long as you check it out before you buy it, you can save a ton of money that way too ... if you ever need any advice about buying camera equipment, I would be more than happy to help ... I've been lucky enough to be able to try most of them out, including the stupidly expensive ones ... I've seen photographers create photos that literally made me want to shed a tear, only to find out that they were using a low budget (sometimes really low budget) camera/lens/flash etc... - I mean what my sig reads - it's easy to buy your way into photography, but the real talented photographers can do it with just about anything ... which really drives the rest of the guys that just spent $14,000 on a camera body, lens and a flash crazy when they see what the talented guys can do with a camera setup that cost them maybe $700 total or even less for everything

What you should try to shoot for (as far as camera gear) is a decent DSLR that you’re comfortable with … if you already have one and like it, GREAT – don’t change because I'm sure it will be perfectly fine

Then you will need a longer lens … I recommend a 400mm f/5.6 (you can get by with a 300mm, but the price difference is super small between the two, and the 400mm is a really big improvement) – Sigma makes a really nice one for Minolta, Canon and Nikon, so finding a used one should be a piece of cake (and fairly cheap) on ebay … it’s a prime lens, so it will beat the pants off of any zoom lens that’s out there, I'm not sure if you know about prime lenses, but they are what all of the professional photographers have always used for a very good reason, even the lower focal lengths like 24mm and 85mm … when it’s quality that you NEED, or if you need to work in a low-light environment, a prime lens is the way to go every time – so this happens to be a coincidental thing that will absolutely amaze you when you are using it, and when you go to check out the photos afterwards

Most people only dream of owning all primes because they are so expensive, so you will be getting a MAJOR upgrade to your lens kit while saving money at the same time – it’s great quality and inexpensive piece of glass (I've gotten them in ‘like new’ condition on eBay for around $100 - $150 believe it or not … the same thing in a genuine Canon costs $1000 easy, and you might be able to save $100 if you find it used or in rough shape) … the next thing you’ll need is a 2x teleconverter, which are also cheap and easy to find … it will cut back on the amount of light you can get through your lens, but we can easily make up for that by varying the shutter speed and things like that … you can get any brand for a teleconverter, and most of them can be found in great shape for less than $75 – that will double the focal length of any lens you are using … so the 300mm becomes a 600mm and the 400mm becomes an 800mm (which is a great length for lunar photography)

Now you’re all set, assuming you are going to do the weighted tripod thing and the remote shutter release (the remote shutter release cables cost around $15 – $30 brand new and are worth every penny … a very good investment that you will use more than you probably realize)

I can't wait to see the lunar photos that you will create … I would bet that they are going to be a lot better than mine, because you are obviously really into this, and you most likely will be able to spend more time out there setting it up and checking the results a lot more than I was able to … Just take your time and enjoy the scenery … just get that focus spot on, and get the moon where you want it in the shot and you almost can't lose

Best of luck, I will be watching … please let me know if you want any help at all from me … I don’t have any secrets to hide and I'm happy to tell you about all of the cool tips and tricks that I've learned along the way …I wish I could be there with you for this, but I'm in Minnesota … but I'm really excited to see you're work when it’s done

By the way, I hope I didn’t make it seem like you NEED to upgrade to a DSLR camera with interchangeable lenses … if you want to keep using your Powershot that you already have, that will work too – the only drawback is that you won't be able to get the magnification you would get from a DSLR camera and it will be harder to get the focus just right … so, it’s possible with the Powershot, but not easy … if you’re going to stick with Canon, the Rebel XT and XTi are both great cameras and are one of the best for the dollar (from what I've seen of all of your work, you deserve the best camera you can get, because you will put it to good use) – but don’t pressure yourself into anything – the moon isn’t going anywhere, take your time and make good decisions that you won't regret later

Have fun,
Chris

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rachastock In reply to pynipple [2007-10-23 10:23:48 +0000 UTC]

Thank you so much for all the information. I have bought myself a Canon EOS 400D SLR. I have only got a 50mm and a 28-105mm lens for it presently.

I will have to get myself a 300mm and a 2x teleconverter. I also need to get myself a remote shutter release, but they would really come in handy for self portraits anyway. I'm still figuring out how to use my new camera. It's quite a bit different to the little simple Powershot. Probably be awhile before I can afford to get the new lens, but it is something good to work up to and I can try out the weighted tripod and remote shutter with what I have now anyway. I'm going to keep this write-up. It has really wonderful advice.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pynipple In reply to relhom [2007-10-19 09:55:59 +0000 UTC]

thank you very much, I'm happy you like it

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pynipple In reply to EleganceApparent [2007-10-19 09:57:54 +0000 UTC]

Your finished pic is really good, I'm glad I was able to help you to complete it ... you did a beautiful job on it

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pynipple In reply to crossbrace [2007-05-08 05:45:14 +0000 UTC]

thanks a lot for the compliment ... I've never really thought of submitting them as stock, but then again I never thought anyone would want to use them ... so I think I will somehow list them as stock too - thanks for the advice, I really hope somebody will use them for a cool manipulation - that would be a huge compliment in its own way

do you think I should resubmit them on here in the stock category, or create a separate stock account?

so far all of these have just been with my DSLR and a long telephoto lens (usually a 400mm or a 600mm lens with a 2x teleconverter) ... I now have a good sized Meade LX200GPS Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope that puts these to shame ... I'm still trying to figuring out the best way to get photographs with it - I'm not sure if I am going to buy the adapters to hook my Canon DSLR directly up to the telescope, or if I am going to get a dedicated astrophotographic CCD imager for it that would be installed on the telescope all the time ... but once I get it all decided, purchased and installed, I am planning on having a LOT more images ~~ the moon has always been my favorite sky subject, and I don't see that changing - but my scope is large enough to get amazing images of Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Venus and even Neptune and Uranus if the skies are clear out, so there will hopefully be a lot of good planetary and nebular photos on here before too long as well

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

crossbrace In reply to pynipple [2007-05-08 12:40:12 +0000 UTC]

I think the first step is to decide if there are any that you would NOT want used as stock. If you don't mind opening all of your work to stock use, a general note in your journal saying so would get you started. You would need to determine the rules under which you offer these. If you browse stock you will notice that people are much more careful with rules for images of themselves, family, and friends than with more neutral images. My only rules for most of my own stock is that I would like to be credited when feasible and I would like to be made aware of its use so I can see and enjoy the results. To be totally professional, you will anticipate possible commercial use including people desiring to sell prints of their works that include your stock images. Then you should go back and edit each image; noting that it is stock in your comment and choosing the license under which you offer it. The legal licensing is accomplished by making the choices near the bottom of the submittal page. I choose the most open options myself.

If, like me, you have works that are purposely for stock and works which you really don't want used, do consider a separate account. If you decide to pursue this, please do let me know so that I may use my friendship with some in the stock and image manipulation community to help get you launched. Feel free to note me at any time, I'm happy to help if I can.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pynipple In reply to crossbrace [2007-05-09 06:27:47 +0000 UTC]

thank you so much ... I really want to give this a try

as far as rules, I would be fine with anyone using my images for their own work as long as I know about it (just so I can see it) ... I wouldn't care to get in on any profit that they made if they were to offer their final stuff as a print, because at the end of the day, it's still their work they are selling even though they used one of my images in it ... fair is fair

so ... I am going to edit them all to make it known that they can be used as stock ... the only rule that I can think of is that I would like to have a link back to my original image in their final piece, and I would like to be sent a link so I can look at it myself ... I think those are pretty standard stock rules, so I don't think anyone should have a problem with it

but do you think they will not be found as stock because they aren't in the 'stock' category? or will people still be able to find them and use them?

thanks again for the suggestion, I would have never done this without you

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

crossbrace In reply to pynipple [2007-05-09 15:13:32 +0000 UTC]

So much of your artist's comments on stock photos will be the same for every submission that you may want to type it out and save it where you can just copy/paste when you put them up. To be found by potential users, you would change the category to Resources>Stock Images>Nature when you do your edits. I suggest that you continue to post some as you have already, even double posting the very best under different titles in both the original deviation category you have been using as well as stock. This will allow both sets of viewers to continue to notice your work. Being noticed is the coin of the realm here as you know. There is certainly no problem with allowing stock use of a photo that isn't categorized as stock. Just say so in the comment.

When you are set up, please let me know so I can let a couple of people in the stock, and manipulation communities know about your work. I look forward to using a couple of your shots myself in my 3D work. About half of my watchers are others in that community. If my esteem for your work is shared by others, as I think it will be, be prepared to send out a bunch of thanks and replys.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pynipple In reply to GenFeanor [2007-05-08 06:03:26 +0000 UTC]

thank you so much ... yes, a good lens helps a lot, but don't let that stop you ... I started doing this a long time ago with a Minolta and a much lower quality lens and it still gave amazing results ... the biggest challenge by far is to get the focus just right - if you have a 300mm lens with a 2x teleconverter you will be amazed at what your camera can produce ... with a 400mm lens and a 2x TC you will really see it shine

in fact, I've seen some really impressive lunar photos come from point-and-shoot digital cameras lately - like I said before, the equipment certainly does help a lot, but it's what the photographer does with it to get the photo that makes the biggest difference ... GO TRY IT!!

just make sure to take the photos when the moon is NOT full, that way you will get the most detail out of the craters ... and make sure your camera can FOCUS very well and I think you will be surprised at what you can do even without high end expensive glass ... I have a good friend with an Olympus E-500 (which is what I am assuming that you are thinking about using for this based on the EXIF from some of your deviations) and there are some really good lenses available for it - look for a Sigma 400mm f/5.6 prime - they are relatively inexpensive, have excellent image quality and can be found used on ebay most of the time - with the Sigma 400/5.6 and a 2x teleconverter (any brand) you will be able to see crater and lighting detail similar to the work in my gallery ... it might not be exactly like mine (it might even be better ) but the focal range will be very close to this one (which was shot at 800mm) - in fact, it will look even closer because of the crop factor of that camera, which works to your advantage when it comes to work like this ... best of luck, let me know if you decide to give it a shot, I would love to see what you can come up with

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

GenFeanor In reply to pynipple [2007-05-28 19:13:29 +0000 UTC]

Hey, thank you so much for you advice.
Right now finances are somewhat limited so it will be a while before i can get my hands on some new lens. So now i'm concentrating on other fields of photography (i won't be pointing my camera into the heavens just yet).
But as soon as i try out something i'll let you know.
Thanks again...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pynipple In reply to GPStrider [2007-05-08 06:04:38 +0000 UTC]

thank you for the nice compliment - I'm glad you liked it - hope to have more coming soon when I get this telescope figured out and talking with my camera

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pynipple In reply to Kokone [2007-03-23 13:14:03 +0000 UTC]

hi ... the focal length is always written in the EXIF from my experience, but only by computerized electronic lenses ... it would be cool to get a telescope to report EXIF though

this was taken with a Canon 1Ds mark2 camera, a Canon 2x II teleconverter and a Canon 400mm f/5.6L telephoto lens, no telescope used at all ... 400mm X2=800mm

however ... I just received my new telescope yesterday but I don't have the adapter to attach a camera to it yet and it was too bright/cloudy last night to play around with it to start to get used to it anyway - real astrophotography here I come!

I'm hoping to get even better lunar photos in the near future using it and my DSLR - keep an eye out for them

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pynipple In reply to likwitchy [2007-03-23 13:45:11 +0000 UTC]

pas trop grand, un objectif 400mm principal avec un multiplicateur de l'objectif 2x (teleconverter) - le secret est se focaliser presque parfait et pour utiliser un trepied rigide lourd ... la partie la plus difficile est se focaliser

pour etre honnete, je ne suis pas tres bon encore, mais j'apprends plus chaque fois photographie de I notre lune

n'importe qui avec un trepied, appareil-photo, un objectif de 300-400mm et une certains patience et desir peut probablement produire une bonne photo lunaire comme celle-ci

il est beaucoup plus facile que beaucoup de gens croient

👍: 0 ⏩: 0