The moon ...

Willy Dangle · Feb 2, 2015

sebtucknott said:
Inspired me. Ended up being one of the most difficult photos I've ever taken.

Screaming baby with me
Too big for my lens (24mm) needed a fish eye
Had to make it from 6 shots!

Almost worth it in the end!

View attachment 62670

Well done succeeded where I failed. Would be interestings in what settings you used?

Ferring Marine · Feb 2, 2015

Barrel of Fun said:
From a friend...

Just seen an identical photo taken by one of the comely barmaids at the Tudor Close in Ferring - only her's was better...............
No light pollution along here you know - street lights haven't been introduced yet and never will.

sebtucknott · Feb 2, 2015

Willy Dangle said:
Well done succeeded where I failed. Would be interestings in what settings you used?

Something like ISO250 f9 30sec with a tripod. Took 6 images to get the full photo, overlaid and blended in Photoshop.

Used a canon 7d with 24-70mm 2.8L @ 24mm manual focus.

I used to have a 15mm 180 fish eye, that would have been perfect.

I was surprised how "wide" the image needed to be. Even tried my 18-135 on 18mm and could still bearly get the whole ring in one shot.

Ferring Marine · Feb 3, 2015

sebtucknott said:
Something like ISO250 f9 30sec with a tripod. Took 6 images to get the full photo, overlaid and blended in Photoshop.

Used a canon 7d with 24-70mm 2.8L @ 24mm manual focus.

I used to have a 15mm 180 fish eye, that would have been perfect.

I once saw 198 fish eyes in September - they were Mackerel, Gurnard and Black Bream.
Shame we came in to Ferring beach before the 100'th.

Laughing Gravy · Feb 3, 2015

View attachment DSC_4019.jpg

Just took this in Saltdean. Nikon D7100 Tokina 11-16mm @ 11mm F6 iso 100 15 sec

Very Difficult to take :thumbsup:

Triggaaar · Feb 3, 2015

Ooh that ring's big. Decided just to go for the moon:

Laughing Gravy · Feb 3, 2015

Triggaaar said:
Ooh that ring's big. Decided just to go for the moon:

View attachment 62675

Great shot :thumbsup:

Triggaaar · Feb 3, 2015

Laughing Gravy said:
Great shot

Thanks. Uncle C has a better one on the photography thread, but he's cheated with the use of practice.

Goldstone1976 · Feb 3, 2015

Thanks for the photos. Snowing heavily in Cambridge; so not much to see here :nono:

horshamite · Feb 3, 2015

Thanks for the heads up on this. I was just off to bed north of Horsham in the countryside so no light pollution so went outside to look. Wow, looked like a massive hole in the sky. Was getting cloudy and 'ring' was too large for my little camera but I've uploaded one to give an idea. I'm sure there'll be better photos of it but this is what I saw. Never seen anything like it. Now for some cocoa, it is bl**dy freeeeeeeeeeeeeeezing outside.

fat old seagull · Feb 3, 2015

ExmouthExile said:
Did you know you caught Jupiter in that shot as well? The bright star at 8 o clock

Damn, I just missed that. Took the dog out, but not until quarter past eight!

Willy Dangle · Feb 3, 2015

sebtucknott said:
Something like ISO250 f9 30sec with a tripod. Took 6 images to get the full photo, overlaid and blended in Photoshop.

Used a canon 7d with 24-70mm 2.8L @ 24mm manual focus.

I used to have a 15mm 180 fish eye, that would have been perfect.

I was surprised how "wide" the image needed to be. Even tried my 18-135 on 18mm and could still bearly get the whole ring in one shot.

Many thanks, just shows I was way off.

Norman Potting · Feb 3, 2015

Mrs P told me to go and look and I therefore braved the elements in my dressing gown and was duly impressed. A big :bowdown:

to those of you who took such fab photos of this phenomenon - any astronomers able to enlighten as to the correct term for this?

sebtucknott · Feb 3, 2015

Willy Dangle said:
Many thanks, just shows I was way off.

Settings are always dictated by the subject, lighting conditions and settings available to you.

Always start with the most "important" setting to get the desired photo. In this case I wanted to use a high (narrow) aperture, F9, to ensure as much of the image is in focus (low aperture reduces depth of field, which is desirable in close ups/portraits, high aperture the opposite) also a narrow aperture causes the "staring" around lights which looks cool too!

I then wanted the best quality photo as possible so chose a low ISO, ideally the lowest the camera goes (100ISO). High ISO increases sensor sensitivity but loses quality.

This left me with shutter speed to get enough light to expose the image. The needed to be around 45sec but my camera only goes to 30sec and I don't have a camera release. Also didn't want to faf with blub mode. This meant I had to compromise and increase my ISO slightly to 250 and use 30secs.

As I was using 30sec shutter speed I had to use a tripod.

I used 24mm to give the widest zoom.

I used autofocus at the start to focus the foreground then switched to manual focus so that when moving the camera to new positions the focus didn't change. Also the auto focus would have not worked on the black sky.

I hope that helps!

Greg Bobkin · Feb 3, 2015

sebtucknott said:
Thank!

Was real tough, the ring was far bigger than it seamed to the naked eye.

Wish I still had my fish eye!

Stunning shot. Is that from the Toll Bridge in Shoreham-by-Sea?

Triggaaar · Feb 3, 2015

sebtucknott said:
Also the auto focus would have not worked on the black sky.

What do you mean? You wouldn't have focused on the sky, you'd have focused on your subject.

sebtucknott · Feb 3, 2015

Greg Bobkin said:
Stunning shot. Is that from the Toll Bridge in Shoreham-by-Sea?

Yes it was. Was the closest area with less street lights and a more interesting foreground.

Triggaaar said:
What do you mean? You wouldn't have focused on the sky, you'd have focused on your subject.

As I had to take 6 shots to make up the overall shot there were a few photos that only had the sky and a small part of the ring. The would have made it difficult to get an auto focus. I also prefer to switch to manual focus when stitching shots so that the focus remains constant for each photo.

Birdie Boy · Feb 3, 2015

sebtucknott said:
Yes it was. Was the closest area with less street lights and a more interesting foreground.

As I had to take 6 shots to make up the overall shot there were a few photos that only had the sky and a small part of the ring. The would have made it difficult to get an auto focus. I also prefer to switch to manual focus when stitching shots so that the focus remains constant for each photo.

Unfortunately I did not look up and notice the moon last night when I was out! I have an 8mm fish-eye as well!

Was the moon hazy to the eye, like in your photo? Just wondering if you could have got more detail from it. Auto-focus doesn't normally work on the moon. You need to manual focus using the LCD on your camera zoomed in 10x. This one I took back in October, ISO200, FL 200mm, SS1/200 & F11.

clungemeister · Feb 3, 2015

Laughing Gravy said:
View attachment 62674

Just took this in Saltdean. Nikon D7100 Tokina 11-16mm @ 11mm F6 iso 100 15 sec

Very Difficult to take

classic "crysoprastic halo".......and some nice shots too... :thumbsup:

Triggaaar · Feb 3, 2015

Birdie Boy said:
This one I took back in October, ISO200, FL 200mm, SS1/200 & F11.
View attachment 62687

That's fantastic. What camera was that with?

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

The moon ...

New member

New member

Active member

New member

I'm a ****

Well-known member

I'm a ****

Well-known member

We Got Calde in!!

Now Saltdeanite.

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Silver Seagull

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Share this page