experimenting-scenery by moonlight

[ron chappel]

I just realized tonight that i hadn't ever done moonlight scenery shots with the digital camera .
What's going on here?! A chance to take more pics and i hadn't been doing it :lol:
Last time i tried was with slide and print film over a year ago .Very interesting but it raised more questions than it answered.I had heard the usual advice that moonlight is identical to sunlight but i had doubts-especially with regards to contrast.
In all past experiments i allways had blocked up shadows under trees for example :?
It looked like moonlight scenes were naturally more contrasty than sunlight.Also i wondered how acurate colours would be under moonlight.I knew film was giving me reciprocity failure but i suspected there were other odd colour cast problems too.I was going to take some images in raw mode but completely forgot :oops: .I did take some with white subjects in the scene so i could see how acurate it looked.

Well,after my first attempts i must say i'm very incredibly impressed with these canon DSLR's!!!
It is amazing-it really does look like a daylight scene.No colour cast,allmost perfect contrast (i.e looks allmost identical to daylight)
Sorry i can't post any examples yet-it takes time to upload images to my webspace
Hey,you have a camera-go try it yourself! :)

Other thoughts...
as i had found in the past,the sky is blue at night too-if you give it enough exposure.Looks odd with white specs/streaks though

This is pretty much the brightest part of the moon's cycle but i still couldn't get the dumb 300D to focus on anything(had my fastest lens-f1.8) :x :x

It's amazing how much branches and grass move even with no breeze!

[LittleG.]

but i still couldn't get the dumb 300D to focus on anything(had my fastest lens-f1.8)
How about you take along one of those rechargeable 'headlamp' torches? They reach quite a distance! Works great for focussing on your chosen point with autofocus, then switch the focus to manual, be careful not to nudge the manual focus ring, turn the torch off and fire. :idea: :D

[ron chappel]

Good idea little G
Afterwards i did think of grabbing a torch for focusing.It would have to be a big one for distant subjects but that's easy.I'll try it tonight :)

[Jim_T]

Hey.. I haven't done moonlight shots for a while.. I did some last winter and had no trouble getting focus.. Of course I was looking at shadows on bright white snow under a full moon. (see below) Although.. I guess you don't get much snow in Queensland :)

I think I might go out tonight and try it in the summer...

http://www.mts.net/~jwt/snow.jpg

[toddb]

I always end up with allot of noise when I've tried. I'd be interested in your settings. Another really cool thing to do at night is to paint with light. I saw a pretty cool cactus once where the guy set his tripod up, opened the shutter and then used a flash light with different color gels to paint it. It was pretty cool....I suppose you would end up with the same effect in photoshop but it would be a fun experiment. I've tried painting with a laser pointer....amazing how shaky your hand is, lol.

[Stapler123]

I did that for the heck of it on night. The flashlight thing that is. But just with a regular dieing flashlight. I had driven/walked out to a place where I figured the night shot of the city would be great on a night with no moon, Turns out it's a horrible view of the city.

http://home.earthlink.net/~miltonisking/Photo/flahscact.JPG

[toddb]

Here is a quick movie I just found on the web about light painting.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/2003_luau_video/lightpainting/

[ron chappel]

Yeah,most painting with light doesn't work out exactly as we think first time :lol:

I remember a competition winning image of a citroen 2CV taken in darkness.It was lit by a tiny light that was traced around the main shapes of the car.
There was also a puddle of water underneath that had lots of small fractured light reflections (because the photographer was walking through it to do the painting)
It was stunning-absolutally stunning! 8)


Settings-- iso400/30sec/f2 (or threabouts) for a normal landscape scene
Noise is VERY low i must say :)

I haven't done any serious experimenting to do with ISO choice but very brief tests show that it's much better to use 100-400 for longer times than trying to use 800 or 1600

[Cadenza]

[
How about you take along one of those rechargeable 'headlamp' torches?

Why do you Brits call flashlights "torches"? A torch
is a stick of wood with one end lit on fire, which the
Neanderthals used to iluminate their caves for
bison painting -- i.e., decidely not photography. :-)

[RichardtheSane]

[
How about you take along one of those rechargeable 'headlamp' torches?

Why do you Brits call flashlights "torches"? A torch
is a stick of wood with one end lit on fire, which the
Neanderthals used to iluminate their caves for
bison painting -- i.e., decidely not photography. :-)

The English language came from England, and has since been warped by other countries. So whatever we call it in England is correct, and don't you forget it.
;)

[ron chappel]

...So whatever we call it in England is correct, and don't you forget it.
;)

:lol: :lol:

We have all been bombarded by american 'culture' so much that i wasn't even sure i could say torch at first :lol:

[Big_B]

[
How about you take along one of those rechargeable 'headlamp' torches?

Why do you Brits call flashlights "torches"? A torch
is a stick of wood with one end lit on fire, which the
Neanderthals used to iluminate their caves for
bison painting -- i.e., decidely not photography. :-)

The English language came from England, and has since been warped by other countries. So whatever we call it in England is correct, and don't you forget it.
;)


Ahhh but you are a northener.... are you qualified to discuss the english language? :wink: :D



by the way, did you make it to that fair the other day?

[LittleG.]

How about you take along one of those rechargeable 'headlamp' torches?
Why do you Brits call flashlights "torches"? A torch
is a stick of wood with one end lit on fire, which the
Neanderthals used to iluminate their caves for
bison painting -- i.e., decidely not photography. :-)
Torch, torch, torch, TORCH, TORCH!
Why don't you yanks learn some proper grammar and spelling .... like what I do :P :lol:

Trash=rubbish, sneakers=trainers, french fries=chips, flashlight=torch, pants=trousers, chips=crisps, recess=playtime, diaper=nappy [napkin], sidewalk=pavement.... the list goes on :roll:

BTW "pants" are ladies panties so it always makes me smile when you guys mention the "pants" you wear.... :lol:

[ron chappel]

BTW "pants" are ladies panties so it always makes me smile when you guys mention the "pants" you wear.... :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[tofuboy]

I guess it would look pretty bad to mention wearing pants and trousers in the same sentence then ^^;;

And about the light painting, I saw a cool picture somewhere... the photography used a LONG exposure so it caught the star trails and they painted the tree which was pretty close with a light... the effect was impressive... so much so that I want to go out and give it a try... will have to wait for the pesky moon to go into hiding.

[Sketcher]

Here is a quick movie I just found on the web about light painting.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/2003_luau_video/lightpainting/
That's a cool clip. Wasn't sure what was meant by "light painting"... Wife's going to think I'm nutz...

[karusel]

The English language came from England, and has since been warped by other countries. So whatever we call it in England is correct, and don't you forget it.
;)

Dude, you drive on the wrong side of the road, all houses look the same, you have men there who wear skirts, and you call a cigarette a fag. I rest my case.


:mrgreen:

[Rayz]

Torch, torch, torch, TORCH, TORCH!
Why don't you yanks learn some proper grammar and spelling .... like what I do :P :lol:

Trash=rubbish, sneakers=trainers, french fries=chips, flashlight=torch, pants=trousers, chips=crisps, recess=playtime, diaper=nappy [napkin], sidewalk=pavement.... the list goes on :roll:

BTW "pants" are ladies panties so it always makes me smile when you guys mention the "pants" you wear.... :lol:

Hey! Steady on!, LittleG. We don't want to give these yanks an inferiority complex :lol: .

[Aylwin]

Trash=rubbish, sneakers=trainers, french fries=chips, flashlight=torch, pants=trousers, chips=crisps, recess=playtime, diaper=nappy [napkin], sidewalk=pavement.... the list goes on :roll:
Bah! Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe. Why not peruna? Lost you, didn't I? :twisted:

[mattchase]

Probably not the cactus you are refering to, but...
http://www.matthewchase.com/29palms/img_5149.htm

One of the first times I went out painting (you can actually see me in a few from this night)
http://www.matthewchase.com/coolnightshots/44045.htm

This one was actually painted with a 1 million candle power spotlight. And it was really cold in the middle of February!
http://www.matthewchase.com/bryce/p2252019.htm

A car on the side of a mountain. This is actually a composite of a few seperate shots, as I never did get the flashes just right in a single frame (you can see each individual "pop" if you look at the other shots).
http://www.matthewchase.com/oldbrokencar/44033b.htm

I haven't been doing many night shots lately...need to get out and start doing it again.

[ron chappel]

OK!!
Finally i have some examples.Not very big or high quality though

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2656719

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2656716

These aren't taken under "identical" conditions.As can be seen,the sun and moon weren't in the same positions and the moon pics were taken under overcast conditions which gave them a slight amber tint,increased saturation and reduced contrast.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2656704

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2656713

In these two the movement of the branches can be easily seen

[Cadwell]

Why do you Brits call flashlights "torches"?

:P

Because the ones sold in this country don't flash all the time so calling them flashlights would be silly (and inaccurate) ;)

[ron chappel]

Hmm those images didn't want to show :x

They will open like a link though :)

[LittleG.]

Hmm those images didn't want to show :x
They will open like a link though :)
Hey Ron, didn't know you were a photonetter!! :wink:
Interesting comparisons there. Surprisingly on the 2nd sample there is more glare on the moonlight shot..... or perhaps a bit overexposed for the whites of the painted wood?

[toddb]

I think you lose out on the appeal of moon light shot when it's that exposed but it's cool to see that you can almost get the same pictures with moon light.

[ron chappel]

[quote="LittleG."]
Hey Ron, didn't know you were a photonetter!! :wink:
[quote]

Yep :wink:
That's the first big site i found when i got on the internet.
I still hang 'round the forums there because the technical subjects get interesting and there are some VERY good photographers .I still regard it as my 'home' even though i'm more often here now.
This forum is rarely unfriendly and,lets face it,is MUCH easier to use for non computer nerd types.

I like your pic! Too many use cartoon avtars,it's good to see the well done self portraits that some have.I must do better with mine one day ,instead of the boring one i have :oops:

[Rayz]

That's an extraordinary attempt, Ron, to simulate the effects of daylight with moonlight. These shots would be a good advertisement for Canon, you know, something along the lines, "Our DSLRs have such low noise, you can take pictures in moonlight that look as though they were taken in daylight. See if you can pick the difference :D ."

Ray

[LittleG.]

I like your pic! Too many use cartoon avtars,it's good to see the well done self portraits that some have.I must do better with mine one day ,instead of the boring one i have :oops:
Thanks Ron. So time for you to use that self-timer button? :wink: