Wez
(K=14339) - Comment Date 12/3/2007
|
Ive got the same shot somewhere on this hard drive taken with the same lens, though is a very cheap Tamron 70-300.
I was surprised by my results, and craters are certainly visible but its not the quality of that posted for sure.
|
|
|
|
Doyle D. Chastain
(K=101119) - Comment Date 12/3/2007
|
The string you refer too was not a photo of Earth's moon Dave. It was posted with other, equally dubious shots by Hakan, http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/107564.html (who has removed everything). It was a moon of Saturn, I think. Frankly, I'm seriously unimpressed with the submitted shot . . . but I can't say whether it's possible or not. Certainly glass quality would be an issue . . . This was mine shot handheld with a 70-300mm:
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1195469.html
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Dave Arnold
(K=55680) - Comment Date 12/3/2007
|
Yeah Doyle, I have shot that same moon many times. I can easily see the contrast of the craters in yours and my shots... but to actually capture the relief of the craters and "mountains", with a 300 mm lens, I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
(K=185110) - Comment Date 12/6/2007
|
By the looks and quality of those photos, they might very well be downloaded from NASA - see: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/.
These images not copyrighted, as they've already been paid for by the US tax payers, so free to use. Still, that doesn't mean you can post them as your own on UF. NASA requires to be credited as source.
Cheers,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
Derk Jager
(K=865) - Comment Date 12/11/2007
|
Here is a NASA shot, http://k43.pbase.com/u47/gbachmayer/large/30604422.Moon.jpg,
which is certainly of much higher quality. Doyle's handheld shot proves that you can get that close. Because it is a half moon the lighting on it comes from the side which gives us the texture, the high relief. So, I really think that he could(?) have shot it, my dear Watson.
Regards,
Derk
|
|
|
|
Michael Olsen
(K=258) - Comment Date 12/12/2007
|
I tend to agree with Derk here, the raking light produced by not shooting at full moon adds tons of detail to the crater profiles. Additionally it looks like a filter was applied post processing, looks like the oil painting effect in photoshop or similar.
If you want to achieve higher quality you can stack several exposures and get a higher level of detail, a technique often used in astro photography. I can't say whether that was used on the above picture, but actually I'd expect better quality than that on a 300mm lens when stacking the images.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 12/12/2007
|
quality also depends on the quality of the tripod used, scatter light from terrestrial sources, etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
Stan Pustylnik
(K=6768) - Comment Date 12/12/2007
|
Don't know. I was able to get really nice shot of moon with craters visible by using 70-210mm and 2X teleconverter. Shoting in RAW, cropping and dobbling in size in photoshop. [IMG]http://stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com/photos/203405446-L.jpg[/IMG]
|
|
|
|
Stan Pustylnik
(K=6768) - Comment Date 12/12/2007
|
Sorry, my shot is here: http://stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com/photos/203405446-L.jpg
|
|
|
|
Paul Schofield
(K=5970) - Comment Date 12/12/2007
|
I was impressed when I found this site some time ago. Some great images taken with a webcam, a short telescope and free software.
http://www.robertreeves.com/webcam.htm
|
|
|
|
Stan Pustylnik
(K=6768) - Comment Date 12/13/2007
|
Paul, this website has some astonishing images! Wow!
|
|
|
|
Dave Arnold
(K=55680) - Comment Date 12/13/2007
|
And granted... the guy was using a TELESCOPE. Not a 300 mm lens in his backyard as he claimed when he entered this photo in a contest. Even people who "defended" his image said something like "I can get this shot with a 500mm and 4X tele-converter so I believe him". Sorry, but a 500 with a tele-converter or a camera attached to a telescope does not compare to a 300 mm lens.
I've shot many a moon pictures with my 300mm lens, on a tripod, from the middle of nowhere (so no city light interference) and taken those photos to PS and worked and worked and worked with them trying to get a ridge to even slightly show up... and it just cannot be done. Yes, I can plainly see the varying shades of craters but to get an actual relief photo??? No, I don't think so.
It really doesn't matter to me. It just galls me to see people making claims that you and I know are impossible. Like this, from the same web site in yet another contest, trying to get people to believe he actually shot this close-up of an eagle on his beach balcony. Yet, for everything that is wrong about this picture, people are "oooing and ahhhing" over it, actually believing he shot it as it sits.
|
|
What's wrong with this picture?
|
|
Stan Pustylnik
(K=6768) - Comment Date 12/13/2007
|
Dave,
Pentax 10K has great sensor that will produce great detail, and if shot was be made in RAW, detail pulled from shade result could be even better, Of course 300mm lens should be good one.
Certainly this is not a 100 original uncropped version, but maybe 100% zoom crop(Actual pixels).
I personally see very strong artifacts in the image. Only couple craters look real, rest of moon detail - artifacts. Don't see anything fantastic. My friend with Panasonic FZ-18 got even better result using my tripod and camera timer.
Stan
|
|
|
|
Michael Olsen
(K=258) - Comment Date 12/14/2007
|
Dave, that eagle shot is hilarious 
|
|
|
|
Stan Pustylnik
(K=6768) - Comment Date 12/17/2007
|
I posted my moon shot made with Minolta Beercan (70-210mm) + 2X Tamron.
Total focal lengh - 210 X 2 = 410. This is crop from Actual Pixels view.
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1385715
Pentax K10D should produce 1.5 larger moon at Actual Pixels, because it has more megapixels.
|
|
|
|
Michael Schuier
(K=4804) - Comment Date 2/27/2008
|
I don't really think the quality of the shot can say it is his original or not. I would never presume to be an astrophotographer, but These are four photographs I took with just my Celestron 8" and a point and shoot camera. Although you can not see deep ridges with this, with a mounted camera on my telescope, or just some photoshop work I believe it would be easily possible to get much better pictures. The photos I am submitting are nearly full resolution, the one in question, is very small and may only be a very small part of the original photograph. I have seen many Astro photos on this website and others. the ones that you must be MOST weary of are the ones of nebulas, galaxies, and other distant objects that are near or perfect clarity. With an 8'' telescope, in the North Hemisphere, with a mounted camera, are still only about the size of a dime. Because of atmospheric gases, most planets look rather blurry. I am not saying beautiful photos are not possible, but you need a big telescope, a long exposure, and photoshop to pull out color that is not visible to the naked eye, only a long exposure. Attached are my photos of the moon with a point and shoot and a 8'' telescope.
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=774641
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=748039
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=742740
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=612834
I hope this helps, Michael
|
|
|
|
Dave Holland
(K=13074) - Comment Date 4/30/2008
|
Dave, that photo of the moon looks pretty amateur to me. I believe it could have been taken with the equipment listed -- it's nowhere near the quality of a NASA photograph. Oversharpening artefact suggests that the original file was pretty blurred.
Most people who shoot their first moon forget that the moon is in bright sunlight. So, use something close to the sunny f16 rule. I use the oft quoted "mooney f11 rule", which goes like this. Shoot at f11, set shutter speed to roughly equal the ISO you are using. Most people overexpose the moon and blow out all the detail.
Remember to use Mirror Lockup, and a tripod with a remote release. You get dramatically better quality if you pay attention to technique issues. Of course it helps to have really good glass, a windless and cold evening, and little jetstream turbulence overhead.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Eric Richard
(K=2987) - Comment Date 5/4/2008
|
I agree with Dave that the original picture is could of been done with a 300mm. I too do not think the original picture is that great especially as far as clarity. Dave is correct in that if you use a tripod, mirror up, and self timer or remote then your results will be much better.
Here was my first attempt with a 70-300mm nikor lens...
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1394658.html
Later, here is an attempt with a 50-500mm Sigma...
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1422344.html
|
|
70-300mm nikor
|
|
Eric Richard
(K=2987) - Comment Date 5/4/2008
|
On further note, I agree with Derk's comment - "Because it is a half moon the lighting on it comes from the side which gives us the texture, the high relief." Here is another shot I took with a sigma 50-500 which the light is coming from the side. This helped show the details of the craters.
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1421184.html
|
|
|
|
Mary Brown
(K=71879) - Comment Date 7/28/2008
|
This is late for a post to this thread, I know, but I thought I’d jump in regardless. I well remember Hakan and his pictures as I was one who went into detail regarding the ‘authenticity’ of his postings. This shot is not his style as he, at least, posted accurate pictures (except his July Moon series). This image is, most definitely, not an original taken with the listed equipment, nor any other. The person probably started with an image from his camera, but then took considerable time and effort to turn it into an ‘unreasonable facsimile’ of our nearest celestial neighbour. Any backyard astronomer/lunar observer will immediately see this as the horrible distortion that it is. There are misshapen Lunar Maria; inaccurate shadows with respect to the relative positions of the Moon and Sun; so called ‘craters’ that reflect neither the correct topography of the Moon nor their shape as impact craters.….... To post this stating it is an original shot is absurd and an insult to our beautiful Moon. It’s okay to not be knowledgeable about our Moon or enjoy spending hours observing it(as I do), but it’s not okay to claim this is an acceptable representation.
MAry
|
|
|
|
