HOME | DD

pynipple In reply to ArmindaIrene [2007-06-02 08:38:32 +0000 UTC]

well, actually I didn't take this photo - it's the only one in my gallery that I didn't take

I just fixed up the contrast and lighting levels from another persons deviation - the original photo is here: [link]

but thanks for the comment, I hope you like the rest of my gallery

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ArmindaIrene In reply to pynipple [2007-06-02 18:13:18 +0000 UTC]

I visited the gallery linked here and... what nice pictures! I think you use a telescope attached to the camera.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pynipple In reply to ArmindaIrene [2007-06-10 07:40:14 +0000 UTC]

thanks for the nice comment!

actually, I haven't used a telescope with a camera at all ... I do have a large LX200GPS telescope that I am planning on using for astro and lunar photography, but I haven't done it yet

so far, all of my work has been done with my digital SLR cameras and long focal length lenses and sometimes teleconverters to increase the focal length further

most of my moon photos were taken with my Canon 1Ds MarkII digital SLR camera and either a 400mm f/5.6 or a 600mm f/4 Canon lens - and sometimes using a Canon 2x II teleconverter ... that's it ... with some of the extreme close ups, I have cropped the photos and what you are seeing is actually only a small portion of the original photo ... the 1DsMk2 is a 16.6MP camera with incredible resolution and image quality, so it's easy to crop a photo and still have that smaller crop look excellent

once I get my telescope camera set up, I think there will be a big improvement in the photo quality, and especially on how much I am able to 'zoom' into the moon to get individiual crater detail (I haven't decided whether to use an adapter that will allow me to use my DSLR on it, or to just use a CCD camera designed to be attached to a telescope that's made specifically for astrophotography)

I know that it may look like my current lunar photos came from a telescope, but the truth is that it's just camera lenses so far ... just about any DSLR with a 300mm or 400mm lens and a 2x teleconverter is capable of making photos like this ... one of the hardest parts about photographing the moon is to get the focus just right - once you get the focus spot on (something that the Canon does amazingly well) it's fairly easy to take exciting and detailed lunar photos ... you don't have to spend a fortune on equipment to do it - I also have a Minolta 7D that I use for lunar photography with a Sigma 400mm f/5.6 lens and a 2x Minolta teleconverter - that set up is MUCH less expensive than the Canon gear that I use, yet still produces amazing quality images

you don't have to be a professional photographer to take these kinds of photos, you just have to really want to do it and put the effort into it ... if you have the gear, go for it!

I have to point out once again, this particular photo was NOT taken by me, it was taken by and the original version can be found in his gallery here: [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ArmindaIrene In reply to pynipple [2007-06-12 01:25:52 +0000 UTC]

I cant afford those equipments . What I own is a Nikon 5700 digital camera and an old manual Yassica with both a 50 mm and 120mm lenses.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pynipple In reply to Mercy-Angel [2007-06-02 08:45:50 +0000 UTC]

Your moon photo is really excellent --> here: [link]

I really like it - and you are right, it isn't as easy as it seems like it should be -- you did great for taking that through a telescope - it sure moves around a lot and can vibrate that way, but you pulled it off nicely

one secret ... don't take photos of the moon when it's full - if you take them when it's at half bright or less you will get a LOT of crater detail and shadowing and it will look much more 3D like

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Mercy-Angel In reply to pynipple [2007-06-03 17:39:32 +0000 UTC]

i tried that once. but i deleted or lost the photo... something happened to it lol. so i retook it on a full. Its hard to take a new one, because the moons position behind out trees. IT SUCKS!!! Because the moon is HUGE and ORANGE at the moment!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pynipple In reply to oibyrd [2007-06-02 09:01:50 +0000 UTC]

Hi there ... actually, I didn't take this photo - I just touched it up for another deviant, which I linked to in the description

I used ACDSee Pro to start out with because it has some real good tweaking presets that are very good at what they do, and are really easy to get done ... then I finished it off in Photoshop CS2 for the final little things that ACDSee can't do

also, this is the only photo in my gallery that I didn't take - I just tweaked the contrast and levels for another deviant

Photoshop can honestly do just about anything with a photo, but in some cases, ACDSee Pro does the same or better job in a lot less time - it's a lot less powerful than CS2, but for some things, it's great ... in this case, ACDSee made the job easier - it's also great for correcting the white balance in a JPG photo, which you can only normally do with a RAW file - ACDSee takes care of that really good and is one of the main reasons that I started using it

overall, I'm glad I have both programs, and I wouldn't do without either of them

if you haven't used ACDSee before, you can get a free 30 or 45 day trial at [link] -- it's worth it for sure

thanks for the nice comment - it means a lot coming from you ... I'm a big fan of your work

👍: 0 ⏩: 0