ZapperZ's Great Outdoors Photo Contest

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
730 replies · 191K views
Oh, that's so cute :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Went for a stroll with the 400mm this weekend, here's a few pics:

[PLAIN]http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/8796/dsc6470t.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/1189/dsc6472x.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4438/dsc6476w.jpg

It's not ideal for small, nervous animals- they move too fast, and the lens is not particularly agile: big, heavy, manual focus. It's much more suited for stationary objects. Telephotos compress the image in depth- the opposite of retrofocus (wide angle) lenses, and so they render rows of objects particularly well:

[PLAIN]http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/2912/dsc6477.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/7132/dsc6503b.jpg

What's also nice about this lens is the potential to exploit the depth of field: for the squirrel image, the DOF was approximately 1 inch (the nose is out of focus while the body is in focus).

Really, the lens needs to work with objects about a mile away- at f/2.8, the hyperfocal distance is 6200 feet. This means wide-open spaces or cityscapes.

There was one clear night for viewing, here's a crop (800mm f/5.6, 1/10s, ISO 100) showing Mizar A & B which are separated by 14 arcseconds:

[PLAIN]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/9981/dsc64471.jpg

I counted 12 pixels between the two.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crescent moon last night:

[PLAIN]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2646/dsc66152.jpg

100% crop:

[PLAIN]http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7186/dsc66151.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saturn and Titan (I think) at 300%:

[PLAIN]http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6958/dsc6751.jpg

And (a piece of) the moon again...

[PLAIN]http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/5785/dsc6749k.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Getting intimate with Baraboo Quartzite on a lovely Sunday afternoon (pictures obviously not taken by me):

mrads8.png
i6h381.jpg


2jfx64m.jpg
179tds.png
f554rl.png


13z3mgy.png
 
Last edited:
Japanese flowering Cherry Trees (backyard) full bloom, before sunset, medium wind:

2l9428h.jpg



14si22s.jpg



30ifdk7.jpg



29o3a0h.jpg

Wind blurred blossoms in back, nice effect...

33oigls.jpg



s1ncra.jpg



2iaphkp.jpg



Rhody... :wink:
 
Last edited:
rhody said:
Japanese flowering Cherry Trees (backyard) full bloom, before sunset, medium wind:...

Beautiful. Now I want one. How long does it take to get a tree blooming like that. i.e. What is their growing rate. I'm too lazy to research it right now...too many beers maybe.
 
dlgoff said:
Beautiful. Now I want one. How long does it take to get a tree blooming like that. i.e. What is their growing rate. I'm too lazy to research it right now...too many beers maybe.

Don,

These trees are about 26 years old planted 30 feet apart, their foliage spreads to a diameter of about 20 feet, which makes for a nice natural fence from the neighbors houses. When I put them in the ground they were only about 10 feet tall and they didn't blossom till about the 4th or 5th year if I remember correctly, blooms last about two weeks or so, then I mow them over twice for three mowings and all the petals are absorbed in the soil, no raking. I warn you, do not plant near your house the roots spread and seek moisture. They can attack your foundation, or water pipes, like whispering willows. I have had to trim the same kind of tree in front because of that, it kind of has a bansai look to it now, will post a picture of it soon. The roots can do a number on your mower too, so plan on raising and lowering the deck of your tractor and use a trimmer. They are pretty tough, lived through a hurricane, class 2+ about 12 years ago, and withstood an onslaught of japanese beatles. That's it, have another beer on me, hehe.

Rhody... :approve:
 
rhody said:
These trees are about 26 years old planted 30 feet apart, their foliage spreads to a diameter of about 20 feet, which makes for a nice natural fence from the neighbors houses.

Well, I won't plant any since I probably won't live long enough to see them full grown like yours. :biggrin:

I warn you, do not plant near your house the roots spread and seek moisture. They can attack your foundation, or water pipes, like whispering willows.

I know what you mean about problem roots. Years ago I planted a apricot tree that didn't survive but I left the root stock (plumb root) to grow into a tree that I now really regret. Damn thing puts up new tree starts 100 feet away. I keep threatening to cut it down but even so, I'll be fighting the root system for years.
 
Gokul43201 said:
Getting intimate with Baraboo Quartzite on a lovely Sunday afternoon (pictures obviously not taken by me):

You mean you couldn't find the stairs on the other side of the cliff :biggrin:?
 
Gokul43201, I like climbing mountains, but not that vertical, looks nice and easy though. Was it your first time?

I love Japanese cherry trees, Rhody. Lovely pics, they'd do a good backgrounds. :smile:
 
My organic-gardening neighbor zipped down on a golf-cart with his daughter this afternoon to bring us a new tree. He was digging up shoots and suckers from a beautiful Japanese lilac, and picked out the one with the best root-structure to bring to my wife and me. Now, we have to figure out a good place to put it. It can't be planted in the front garden where our peach or cherry trees are, because Japanese lilacs are quite susceptible to winter damage. The fruit trees have wintered a lot of ice and snow shedding off the roof (with some damage) but this candidate needs a quiet place to live.
 
turbo-1 said:
My organic-gardening neighbor zipped down on a golf-cart with his daughter this afternoon to bring us a new tree. He was digging up shoots and suckers from a beautiful Japanese lilac, and picked out the one with the best root-structure to bring to my wife and me. Now, we have to figure out a good place to put it. It can't be planted in the front garden where our peach or cherry trees are, because Japanese lilacs are quite susceptible to winter damage. The fruit trees have wintered a lot of ice and snow shedding off the roof (with some damage) but this candidate needs a quiet place to live.

Pictures ?

Rhody... :smile:
 
rhody said:
Pictures ?

Rhody... :smile:
As of now, it is a sapling with no redeeming features. I'll try to get out back on his property to get a picture of his tree. It is beautiful.
 
lisab said:
You mean you couldn't find the stairs on the other side of the cliff :biggrin:?
If only I had a tiny fraction of your wisdom ...

drizzle said:
Gokul43201, I like climbing mountains, but not that vertical, looks nice and easy though. Was it your first time?
Not my first time rock climbing. But perhaps the first time with someone that had a camera.
 
Gokul43201 said:
Not my first time rock climbing. But perhaps the first time with someone that had a camera.

If memory serves me well last time you got black eye and bruised ribs. This time you get the pictures. You are getting better.
 
Here are a few shots of the Japanese cherry in front, trimmed a ton of branches this spring, truck now has a bonsai type look and it is raining petals in the wind, looks like snow, kind of cool... you can see the petals in the third picture...

10i9yjd.jpg



verwd2.jpg



11uhlir.jpg



14xjz1g.jpg


Rhody... :cool:
 
*Click*- gotcha!

[PLAIN]http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5987/slide1uo.jpg

The joke's on me- turns out I have been using Saturn as a guidestar for a couple of months, wondering why the star was always so aberrated...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JNBirDy said:
Took this shot of a tree near my house last summer.

4864248701_5a4a0436d7_z.jpg

Wow, that's really beautiful!
 
This is the river Dinkel in the eastermost part of the Netherlands. Been on expotition there today, but I couldn't find the north pole.

313newo.jpg


Those steep sandy banks are for some just a heap of dirt - or for others a biotope for kingfishers and damselflies, yet for geologists it's a revealing open book, covering the last 25,000 years including the last glacial maximum, which is what and why?

A close up of another part of the bank.

2q9dpvo.jpg


Just a pile of sand?

A earth-scientist friend however needed half an hour to explain what we are seeing here.
 
JNBirDy said:
Took this shot of a tree near my house last summer.

4864248701_5a4a0436d7_z.jpg

JN,

Nice composition and moment to hit the shutter, was this by chance, or do you take pics before sunset, etc... ? Were you in burst mode perhaps ?

Rhody... :wink:
 
Went for another stroll with the 15mm yesterday- trees remain excellent subjects:

[PLAIN]http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8392/dsc7325.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/9707/dsc7331j.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/6980/dsc7375j.jpg

and the perspective-warping ability of the lens was put to good use here:

[PLAIN]http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/3760/dsc7341.jpg

I find the uneven lighting to be a distraction, I wanted to capture the shape of the brick wall- maybe on an overcast day I'll stop by to get a 'finished' image.

A landscape:

[PLAIN]http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/7554/dsc7358.jpg

Because the hyperfocal distance for this image was 3 feet, *everything* in the image is in focus. Also, the way the lens accentuates blue at the edges helps emphasize the sky.

Finally, a few "problem" images, and I'd appreciate any thoughts/ideas- I found a HDR (High Dynamic Range) plugin for ImageJ and wanted to try it out. In case you are not familiar with the idea of HDR, it's a relatively new image processing algorithm that (among other things) 'converts' a set of 7-9 bit dynamic range images to a single image that more closely matches human vision (12 bits which can slide over a total of 24 bits):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

I took bracketed images of two high-contrast scenes, but was not happy with the results at all for two reasons.

First, since I didn't use a tripod, the bracketed images were all displaced from each other resulting a big blurry mess (I know some programs can correct for this, but I'm a big fan of free software).

Second, the plugin let's me operate on a single image, but the results were very disappointing- I'm not sure how to describe the results as anything other than "metallic". It could simply be that I'm overprocessing the images, I'm not sure.

This set of images shows my best attempt at using an HDR routine- the first is straight from the camera, the second my best attempt at HDR processing on a single image

[PLAIN]http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6052/dsc7368.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/183/rgbd.jpg

With my rotten eyes, it's tough for me to tell, but the processed image seems to be too red in the shadows. Here's the result of combining bracketed images:

[PLAIN]http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3769/rgb2.jpg

The color balance is better, but the leaves are blurry (motion artifacts), and the sky is totally blown out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy Resnick said:
[PLAIN]http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/183/rgbd.jpg

With my rotten eyes, it's tough for me to tell, but the processed image seems to be too red in the shadows.

It is completely red for me :eek:

HDR with anything that moves (trees, water) is always problematic. I did some testing in the past and decided one needs a well selected object for good effects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since the 400mm isn't agile enough for flying birds, I was hoping to try and catch another type of bird:

[PLAIN]http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/293/dsc74492.jpg

IIRC, this was a 1/320s exposure at ISO 100.

This was tough- even though the rate it moves across the frame is much lower than (biological) birds, it's moving at a decent clip and the viewing angle is very inconvenient. Also, even though the contrails are high-contrast, the plane is very low contrast with the sky. Two or three iterations of contrast enhancement and lowering the gamma helped pull the plane out of the background while not blowing out the exhaust trails.

[PLAIN]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/1526/dsc74491.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it at 400mm, or with the converter? And is the bottom one 1:1 crop?
 
sorry- yes, it was taken with the 2x converter, lens wide open (800mm f/5.6), and the bottom is a 1:1 crop.

Here's the full frame, unprocessed:

[PLAIN]http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4400/dsc7449r.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another good night of seeing last night- here's two photos of Saturn, one overexposed (ISO 1600) to show Titan, the other (ISO 100) shows the ring's shadow:

[PLAIN]http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/407/dsc7590y.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4291/dsc7591q.jpg

And a shot of Mizar A & B- they are separated by 14.5".

[PLAIN]http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/3295/dsc7599h.jpg

Mizar A is clearly non-spherical; it's not clear if that's lens aberration or atmospheric aberration.

All images taken at 800mm f/5.6, 1/10s exposure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow. It doesn't make much sense to try to get any pictures where I live, but I may try while on vacations. I never thought it makes sense to even try astrophotography with standard lens.