Canon 60D Users, Unite! (2)

babel_fish wrote in post #12955494
Hey Corey, sorry for the hasty first post. I did check my log and all I could find was a skipout, that didnt tell me much.

EDIT: I think you fixed it, whatever divtag you edited seems to have worked. Thanks.

Sorted for me as well!

.Davis. wrote in post #12955490
Wow is this tough, but I think I succeeded considering this crop is about 15% of the original sized picture

Hi Davis, moon shots can be tough. I hope you had your 70/200 on a tripod Try a slightly faster shutter speed, you wont get so blown out. Also, make sure you are using your 10X magnification on the 60D viewscreen to fine focus

babel_fish wrote in post #12955519
Hi Davis, moon shots can be tough. I hope you had your 70/200 on a tripod Try a slightly faster shutter speed, you wont get so blown out. Also, make sure you are using your 10X magnification on the 60D viewscreen to fine focus

HA, yessir, it was on a tripod. It was a tough balance between exposure because I wanted the detail in the craters on the right side. I also did use the 10x magnification to focus as best as I could. It's a rental lens, and I've got another 5 days with it, I'll hopefully get some more before I have to return it!

.Davis. wrote in post #12955527
HA, yessir, it was on a tripod. It was a tough balance between exposure because I wanted the detail in the craters on the right side. I also did use the 10x magnification to focus as best as I could. It's a rental lens, and I've got another 5 days with it, I'll hopefully get some more before I have to return it!

I love your moon shot, it's fantastic!

I'm waiting in the mail for this: http://agenaastro.com …gital-camera-adapter.html

Once it gets here I'm going to attach to my Celestron NexStar 8SE for some astrophotography.

Mancry wrote in post #12955455
Great post, and thank you for responding with what appears to be no offense (<3), but, I have to say that you shouldn't be offended (if you are, and just masking it). It's not the picture, nor the photographer that is being insulted when I say watermarking hurts the product. It's the watermark itself, which isn't anything but a generated font (sometimes a logo) slapped on the photograph in, what, 2 seconds or less?

In my "opinion", it hurts the picture. It'd be similar to adding in a high frequency beep in one of my songs to let someone know it's me doing it, or, in the intro saying "This song is brought to you by Aker!". I wouldn't find offense if people found it annoying, after all, it has nothing to do with the creation and is purely a product of me wanting to be associated with it, rather, then it being it.

To me art comes through us, much like how the Greeks thought a Genius was something living in your room or body (ie; it wasn't you who was talented, nor was it you who was awful, your art and ability was at the consequence of your Genius, hence, you could not attach ego to your work, nor misery) and we as people often get in the way 'of' art. We like to make it a product of us, rather, then a product of the world around us.

no worries man, not offended in any way. but your assumption that a sig/watermark only takes 2 seconds to be slapped should not be blanketed on everyone. i'm sure it's true for some, but speaking for me it's not. the position, size, color and sometimes font style i put into consideration.

for me, art is me. it's what i see, the world has nothing to do with my art, because if there is something in the world that i don't like in my pictures I change it. if it did, every other artist around me would be doing the same thing. the only time i got in the way of art was when i was to busy thinking what the world would think of my art, where in the world would my art fit. i agree that to some, their art is driven by the world around them. i on the other hand, believe artist, from poets, musicians, painters, dancers, writers, photographers, help shape the world just as much as the world shapes them.

mondayshift wrote in post #12955564
no worries man, not offended in any way. but your assumption that a sig/watermark only takes 2 seconds to be slapped should not be blanketed on everyone. i'm sure it's true for some, but speaking for me it's not. the position, size, color and sometimes font style i put into consideration.

for me, art is me. it's what i see, the world has nothing to do with my art, because if there is something in the world that i don't like in my pictures I change it. if it did, every other artist around me would be doing the same thing. the only time i got in the way of art was when i was to busy thinking what the world would think of my art, where in the world would my art fit. i agree that to some, their art is driven by the world around them. i on the other hand, believe artist, from poets, musicians, painters, dancers, writers, photographers, help shape the world just as much as the world shapes them.

And your photography is great, regardless of my distaste for watermarks. You have some tremendous shots, would love to pick your brain on how you got such clarity in them.

babel_fish wrote in post #12955494
Hey Corey, sorry for the hasty first post. I did check my log and all I could find was a skipout, that didnt tell me much.

EDIT: I think you fixed it, whatever divtag you edited seems to have worked. Thanks.

Mancry wrote in post #12955497
Sorted for me as well!

PHEW!! Thanks guys for letting me know about that! I have had my site hacked once before and it wasn't fun to fix it. Thanks to you 2 my site lives to see another day LOL!

Mancry wrote in post #12955549
I love your moon shot, it's fantastic!

Thank you!

.Davis. wrote in post #12955672
Thank you!

it's a pretty good. and it's not as easy as i thought it would be at first.

.Davis. wrote in post #12955527
I wanted the detail in the craters on the right side.

Totally. That is deff. the money shot.

The highly contrasted areas of craters on the right side make up the "Lunar Terminator". Most long focal length Lunar Photography is geared towards picking up named craters in this region, while they bask in the division of light and dark. Essentially, soaking up contrast and creating Definition. ..Its a wonderful object to photograph at any focal length

Voowwww . there are fantastic photos here. Some of them can be easily distributed as wallpapers. Nice job guys

S.n.a.f.u. wrote in post #12954720
damn back to no camera i have to unjoin the 60d peeps, bed broke and wife forced a return so she can get a good nights sleep... beauty rest is over rated!

Wow. That sucks.

Getting the hang of video mode, just playing around a bit with aperture and ISO..getting some nice results. Still struggling with getting good exposure with pictures though. Is it normal that when I take a picture, that the sky looks completely white? When I put the settings on Auto it looks better, I'm just retarded I think

Alpha Moth wrote in post #12956385
Getting the hang of video mode, just playing around a bit with aperture and ISO..getting some nice results. Still struggling with getting good exposure with pictures though. Is it normal that when I take a picture, that the sky looks completely white? When I put the settings on Auto it looks better, I'm just retarded I think

Have you read the manual?