AT Shot of the Day Thread

[zCypher]

Thanks for the compliments. It still feels like cheating.... LOL.

I'm really super random where I post - I have stuff on my own website, but I rarely update it. I post stuff on flickr, but it's not always my best.

Honestly, I've probably posted more stuff on this thread than any of my other options.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/coustier

added/followed, really nice stuff. i hear you about the varying places and such, i got lost in Flickr myself, a lot of the stuff I scroll through on my page i'm like "meh", but it also kinda adds as an additional free backup layer thanks to the free terabye, can't argue with that.

I have been giving 500px a whirl lately, and it seems like a really neat site more actively tailored to the photography community. They have a market place, and seem to do more to get you some visibility. If you aren't already a member, you should at least check them out.

 

[zCypher]

I headed out to the closest dark sky preserve to Montreal tonight, despite that it was -20 and 5 hours round trip drive time at night hehe. Now I have a better idea of what I need and what I need to do. Didn't get much though this time around, though I guess it could be worse!

... I recommend not fiddling with settings on an unfamiliar tripod at -20c

sigh. this is the gallery of one of the people that got me obsessed with trying star photography: https://500px.com/javiermartinezmoran

 

[thestrangebrew1]

^ Some pretty shots! I just ordered a cheapo tripod from Amazon to practice with along with some filters etc.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

I took this photo Christmas night at an old friend's house.

 

[Raduque]

Such talented photographers. I feel very outclassed posting in here.

Pumpkin on my front porch at the beginning of snowfall. Taken 12/27.

 

[CuriousMike]

Today I had the opportunity to use my circular polarizer.

I've tried using it before at the beach ( during mid-day light ), and really didn't like it. I just felt that I was continuously creating an un-even exposure ( I couldn't line it up. )

Well, for waterfalls they can work.

Here's the before/after it was installed.
You can also enjoy my transition to Manual mode and my underexposures...

 

[Brainonska511]

I've been ever so slowly working my way through shots I took in London back in October of 2015: here are 2 from the British Museum.

The British Museum: The Great Court

Japanese Demon Dogs

 

[zCypher]

Love that museum shot with the 10-22 Brainonska511, awesome!

 

[Brainonska511]

Love that museum shot with the 10-22 Brainonska511, awesome!

Thanks. I took so many photos when I went to London and only recently have I started making a more concerted effort to get through them. I picked up the 10-22 about 2 years ago, but this was really the first time I put it to any heavy use. It was a great walking around lens and made for great shots like that.

Old Royal Naval College

 

[Aharami]

One from latest engagement session

 

[thestrangebrew1]

Took this on Saturday night. It's not a good picture, but I had to play a lot with my settings to get a clear image of the moon without it looking like a ball of white blur. Sort of proud of myself for figuring it out on my own.

 

[CuriousMike]

Took this on Saturday night.

Not bad. Gotta work on the focus a bit.

The trick with the moon is the exposure is just like a daylight exposure.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

Thanks for the tip! I used a 75-300mm 1/200 at f11 for this one. The urge to spend on a better telephoto is strong right now lol

 

[zCypher]

Thanks for the tip! I used a 75-300mm 1/200 at f11 for this one. The urge to spend on a better telephoto is strong right now lol

I can relate to this feeling. When I first started to shoot with my kit lens (18-55mm), I was dying to buy a big zoom so I could shoot the moon hehe. But yeah the trick is really to realize that the moon is a light source, and take a few test shots to figure out the focus if you're not having any luck with just focusing close to infinity (if your lens has that). Stopping down to f/11 (or wherever the sweet spot for that lens is) is OK.

If you're still having a lot of difficulty nailing the focus, see if you can focus on another light source within the frame. Use the LCD's live view on your camera instead of the optical viewfinder if that helps. Use it to zoom in to the frame and adjust focus while zoomed in before taking the shot.

Also, does your lens have vibration reduction (VR)? In some circumstances, disabling it can help when shooting on a tripod. At those shutter speeds it probably doesn't matter though.

 

[CuriousMike]

Remember the 1/focal length rule.

In your example, you used 1/200th, but probably should have used 1/300 (which would be 1/500)

I've found, even with Image Stabilization, that 1/focal length help me get sharper shots.

Also, for the moon only, you probably don't need more than f/8... The moon is "flat", ergo you don't need a lot of depth of field. The f/8 would have shot your shutter speed up to 1/500 ( check my exposure math ) using the same ISO.

If you were trying to shoot a flower and the moon and have both in focus, then a smaller aperture would be necessary. ( Or, a more realistic example would be landscape photography where you want a near rock and distant mountain range in focus.)

 

[thestrangebrew1]

Thanks for the tips! Also, no VR on my lense. I got a cheap remote from Amazon that works well with the camera on a tripod that I've been using.

 

[CuriousMike]

Thanks for the tips! Also, no VR on my lense. I got a cheap remote from Amazon that works well with the camera on a tripod that I've been using.

If that was shot on a tripod (which I recommend), then ... well... errr...
You shot it at an aperture that should be sharp.
I assume the tripod was stable.

That just doesn't seem as sharp as it should be.

 

[thestrangebrew1]

If that was shot on a tripod (which I recommend), then ... well... errr...
You shot it at an aperture that should be sharp.
I assume the tripod was stable.

That just doesn't seem as sharp as it should be.

This was the original. I just cropped it when I zoomed in.

 

[Nohr]

Took this on Saturday night. It's not a good picture, but I had to play a lot with my settings to get a clear image of the moon without it looking like a ball of white blur. Sort of proud of myself for figuring it out on my own.

That's a great start. I remember my first moon pics looking like a spotlight. I agree with zCypher's tip about using live view to focus. You'll get sharper results with that method.



A male black-chinned hummingbird waiting out winter in central California.

 

[zCypher]

Damn nice hummingbird shot Nohr, i'm jelly!

Here's a black and white snap from my wandering around tonight with the 105mm:

 

[zCypher]

Couldn't help but put my ultra-wide back on for a quick snap when I saw canal lachine this afternoon:

 

[Red Squirrel]

If that was shot on a tripod (which I recommend), then ... well... errr...
You shot it at an aperture that should be sharp.
I assume the tripod was stable.

That just doesn't seem as sharp as it should be.

I find for telephoto lenses having 2 tripods helps too, as having a single connection point gives it a bit of movement which can blur the image. If you have one connected to camera and one connected to lens there's less movement. That's how I took the one with the cell tower that I posted not too long ago.

 

[CuriousMike]

Smartphone photography... all the kids are doing it.

 

[EOM]

Couldn't help but put my ultra-wide back on for a quick snap when I saw canal lachine this afternoon:

Did you edit the colors in post? The way the bold green on the graffiti draws your eye down from the left where the orange sign is and the cloud pattern......nice. i like this shot and the composition!

 

[zCypher]

Did you edit the colors in post? The way the bold green on the graffiti draws your eye down from the left where the orange sign is and the cloud pattern......nice. i like this shot and the composition!

Thank you! and oh yes, i most certainly edited this as I do 99% of the time hehe. Using Lightroom, this one has a bit of added "clarity" and "vibrance", and I used the adjustment brush to brighten the snow and the buildings and the side of the canal a little bit while not blowing out the sky detail or water. The out of camera shot looks much more flat and dull - since the light was basically shining towards the camera I had to choose between getting nice sky detail or buildings detail. Shooting in RAW let's you pull out a surprising amount of shadow detail without ruining the picture unless you went overboard with too low of an exposure or the conditions were just too extreme.

Since you're curious, here is the dull original converted from the RAW capture with no edits: