ZapperZ's Great Outdoors Photo Contest

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around sharing and appreciating outdoor photography, particularly highlighting scenic locations like Moxie Falls and Bash Bish Falls. Participants share personal experiences and memories associated with these places, noting the increase in visitors and the beauty of nature. Photographers showcase their work, including stunning images of waterfalls, autumn landscapes, and foggy scenes, sparking admiration and encouraging others to contribute their own photos. Technical discussions arise regarding photography techniques, such as bracketing for exposure and scanning slides to digital formats. The thread fosters a sense of community among nature lovers and photographers, with a focus on the beauty of outdoor environments and the joy of capturing them through photography.
  • #351
For Andre- cheers!
[PLAIN]http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/7487/montagegj.jpg (1/3 size, nasty jpeg compression artifacts, no green flash here, either)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #354
Andy Resnick said:
For Andre- cheers!

(1/3 size, nasty jpeg compression artifacts, no green flash here, either)

oops- I meant 1/30 scale. Here's a 1:1 crop of the final frame-

[PLAIN]http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9158/dsc93001.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #355
Milky Way:
[PLAIN]http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/9995/resultofdsc9559.jpg

I took 6 or so 10 minute exposures with the 15mm, wide open ISO 100, and added them together. A couple Air Force fellows have been flying all night; you can see them here (50% scale) as the red dots:

[PLAIN]http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/464/resultofdsc95592.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #356
Another great night- the clouds moved off right after sunset, and a thunderstorm stayed right off the coast:

Milky Way:
[PLAIN]http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9127/dsc9867y.jpg

Thunderstorm (thanks to KrisOhn for the idea)

[PLAIN]http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/1363/dsc9883x.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/6933/dsc9884x.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #357
Hey, c'mon.

I'm a science nerd.

What does the term "outdoors" mean?
 
  • #358
Since there a few of us trying astrophotography, I thought I'd share how I turned this image:

[PLAIN]http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8072/beforehy.jpg

into this:

[PLAIN]http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/4625/afterja.jpg

The original image is a jpg straight off the camera, and was taken at ISO 1600 for 3 s (IIRC, I don't have the EXIF handy)- there's some contrast, but there's also a high background and a lot of noise from the ISO setting.

First, I split the colors into individual images, giving me 3 8-bit greyscale images, which I then converted to 16-bit images. This means I now have access to an additional 65280 grey levels by amplifying the signal. To maximize the new dynamic range, I squared the grey values of all the pixels. As opposed to simply multiplying by a constant, squaring the values increases the contrast. The next step is to reassemble the color image, but the images must first be converted back to an 8-bit image. My program (ImageJ) simply uses whatever 8-bits are being displayed, and provides a control window to allow me to adjust the brightness and contrast of the displayed image. Then, when I convert the image to 8 bits, the program replaces the actual 16-bit value with the displayed 8-bit value. Simply color combine the images and you're done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #359
WOW, Andy! That's fantastic!
 
  • #360
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #361
Dembadon said:
WOW, Andy! That's fantastic!

sourlemon said:
andy, your pictures are awesome! I really like your editing.

Thanks! I'm teaching myself photo-editing, and heve been trying a *lot* of different methods (most of which don't do anything substantial) so hopefully I can save someone else the time and frustration.
 
  • #362
Lucky shot of the ISS tonight- I over-exposed all the other attempts (everything happens too fast to adjust on the fly- I accidentally set the exposure on a much fainter star) but got this one just as the station entered the Earth's shadow (which accounts for the reddish hue). At least there's no motion blur.

[PLAIN]http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4199/dsc0174pc.jpg

Image specs: 400mm f/2.8, 1/160 s, ISO 1600.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #363
Get a grip!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #364
Andy Resnick said:
Since there a few of us trying astrophotography, I thought I'd share how I turned this image:...

Wow, that is awesome. I've been trying to do some astrophotography lately but I just can't seem to find the time.

What camera/lens was used to take those shots?
 
  • #365
Astronuc said:
Get a grip!
After watching Alex Hannold free solo the half dome in three hours, overcoming his fear at one point, and observing his quiet unpretentious demeanor, I have no doubt he could easily fire walk and face any other extreme challenge of his choosing. Amazing, he is so calm, Chris Sharma may have him for inverted tech aid climbing and for sheer force of will Reinhold Messner's solo of Mount Everest stands unmatched to this day, but this young man is in another category altogether. Thanks Astro, interesting to watch, reflect, and comment on.

Rhody... :cool:
 
  • #366
Topher925 said:
Wow, that is awesome. I've been trying to do some astrophotography lately but I just can't seem to find the time.

What camera/lens was used to take those shots?

That one was taken with an 85mm f/1.4 lens, wide open for 5s, ISO 400. Here's a 1:1 crop showing the trails and a visitor:

[PLAIN]http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9503/dsc0062ak.jpg

Orion (M43) is coming into view now, so I hope to get a few good shots over the next few months. If I lived somewhere with less light pollution I'd probably turn into a vampire... :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #367
Anyway, back down to outdoors Earth

Finally took some time to assemble the panorama shot I made on a hike last month.

It's 5 regular shots taken in portrait format at 18mm, sewed together.

28u0daw.jpg


It's "Etang rond", the remains of a cirque glacier at the Mont Vallier in the Pyrenees, elevation of spot where the picture is taken about 2100 meters.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/Panorama%20mt-vallier.JPG is a (much) larger version.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #368
That reminded me... I have some stitched panoramas from Croatia, I still plan to post vacation pictures one day.

Tor-panorama-thumbnail.jpg


and the huge version (you have been warned, 5MB). This is Jelsa on Hvar island, as seen from Tor - old tower, built somewhere in 4th century B.C. (although I have heard also a version stating it was built in 16th century). This is almost 360 deg.
 
  • #369
Nice Borek

meanwhile, I did some post processing on the RAW's and dropped an original size result http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/Panorama%204.JPG . It's the biggest picture I made so far 11067 x 5789 pixels. Warning too: 16,219 kb
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #370
Tor panorama that I posted is originally twice wider (26156 pixels), I just cut down on the size.

Not that you miss much - original is not sharp enough to justify the size Obviously my way of taking pictures doesn't work with EOS 7D autofocus. Perhaps in automatic modes it tends to focus on close objects, and infinity is out of focus. Alternatively, something bad happened to the lens, or it needs microadjusting. I need to do some testing.
 
  • #371
Borek said:
Tor panorama that I posted is originally twice wider, I just cut down on the resolution.

Not that you miss much - original is not sharp enough to justify the size Obviously my way of taking pictures doesn't work with EOS 7D autofocus. Perhaps in automatic modes it tends to focus on close objects, and infinity is out of focus. Alternatively, something bad happened to the lens, or it needs microadjusting. I need to do some testing.
Probably need to stop down for DOF/sharpness and keep the exposure time (manually) about average what you'll need for the panorama.
 
  • #372
turbo said:
Probably need to stop down for DOF/sharpness and keep the exposure time (manually) about average what you'll need for the panorama.

Not so easy. At 24 mm and 8 DOF shouldn't be a problem, as hyperfocal distance is around 4 meters (say 12 feet). Exposure 1/100th, lens with stabilization, so chances of picture being shaken are minimal as well, besides, it would happen on some pictures only - but there is a systematical problem with all pictures. First plan is perfect, but infinity is not.

I need to investigate.
 
  • #373
Borek said:
Not so easy. At 24 mm and 8 DOF shouldn't be a problem, as hyperfocal distance is around 4 meters (say 12 feet). Exposure 1/100th, lens with stabilization, so chances of picture being shaken are minimal as well, besides, it would happen on some pictures only - but there is a systematical problem with all pictures. First plan is perfect, but infinity is not.
I have read that using image stabilization when using a tripod can have unintended effects, but maybe that was for my 100-400. Wide-angle lenses should have less of that kind of problem.

Edit: Please post what you find out. I have not had great luck with panoramas, though my gear is pretty good.
 
  • #374
That was without tripod, I had already a lot of gear to carry and it was hot.

I am not using IS when using tripod (that is, unless I forget to switch it off). Especially when shooting movies - picture floats to sides, slowly in one direction, than back and again.
 
  • #375
Did you micro adjust the lens? Which lens is it anyway?

I micro adjusted the lenses on infinity, the 18-55mm is on +5
 
  • #376
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, not microadjusted - that can be a problem. I have to try to take pictures focusing in live view mode, microadjusting doesn't matter then.

Still, I don't think small error should matter with a large DOF.
 
  • #377
Borek said:
Not that you miss much - original is not sharp enough to justify the size Obviously my way of taking pictures doesn't work with EOS 7D autofocus. Perhaps in automatic modes it tends to focus on close objects, and infinity is out of focus. Alternatively, something bad happened to the lens, or it needs microadjusting. I need to do some testing.

turbo said:
Edit: Please post what you find out. I have not had great luck with panoramas, though my gear is pretty good.

I'm not sure what the original problem is (the posted image looks great!), but I'd be interested in any results. I also have a hard time with panoramas using wide-angle lenses, but I assumed it was because I don't rotate about the nodal point.

Edit: oopsy, I meant 'entrance pupil' instead of 'nodal point'- here's a good discussion:

ttp://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/NoParallaxPoint/TheoryOfTheNoParallaxPoint.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #378
Andre said:
Anyway, back down to outdoors Earth

Finally took some time to assemble the panorama shot I made on a hike last month.

It's 5 regular shots taken in portrait format at 18mm, sewed together.

Very nice! Are you using a stock Canon program to stitch the images?
 
  • #379
I am using Hugin.

But the problem is not with panorama, problem is with (almost) every single picture I took
 
  • #380
Andre said:
Anyway, back down to outdoors Earth

Finally took some time to assemble the panorama shot I made on a hike last month.

It's 5 regular shots taken in portrait format at 18mm, sewed together.

It's "Etang rond", the remains of a cirque glacier at the Mont Vallier in the Pyrenees, elevation of spot where the picture is taken about 2100 meters.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/Panorama%20mt-vallier.JPG is a (much) larger version.
Nice picture as always Andre. I have a bunch to go through from my vacation but here's one.
7108reduced.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #381
That's a cold place for a summmer holiday, Borg, but a really nice pic.

Borek, It looks like you may indeed have problems with your lens, which can't be micro adjusted. If it clearly underperforms compared to the 100mm L then maybe contact the manufacturer.

Andy, I'm using Panorama maker 4 of Arcsoft that came with the Panasonic TZ7, which is miles ahead imo compared to the custom software of Canon. Almost fully automatic and I never had to tweak anything.

Turbo, For a good panorama, make sure to have all shots totally manual, all with the same ISO, white balance, aperture, shutter, and focal distance and take a wide overlap, like 1/3 of a frame, keeping the camera perfectly level. A tripod seems mandatory, however, bringing one would have been very impractical during that hike. Moreover, the narrow trail on the steep rock would not even give room for a tripod, so I did it free hand, using the built in artificial horizon.
 
Last edited:
  • #382
Borek said:
I am using Hugin.

Andre said:
Andy, I'm using Panorama maker 4 of Arcsoft that came with the Panasonic TZ7, which is miles ahead imo compared to the custom software of Canon. Almost fully automatic and I never had to tweak anything.

I should put up a pic showing my problem- if I have a chance today I'll put it up. Basically, when I use a short lens, perspective error makes successive images totally un-match-up-able. That is, lines that are parallel in one image are highly converging/diverging in the next. I guess one solution is to simply use a longer lens and take more images...?
 
  • #384
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #385
Andy Resnick said:
I should put up a pic showing my problem- if I have a chance today I'll put it up. Basically, when I use a short lens, perspective error makes successive images totally un-match-up-able. That is, lines that are parallel in one image are highly converging/diverging in the next. I guess one solution is to simply use a longer lens and take more images...?

Sure go ahead.

For solutions, these are thumbnails of the 6 original shots, made with 18 mm moderate wide angle. 29mm equivalent on a full frame SLR. I used RAW so I could correct the lens errors before stitching

zwi0z8.jpg


See the ample overlap to minimize distortion errors
 
  • #386
The Chinese have "the investigation of things", Aborigines have "walkabout", and we can go outside and see, hear, smell, touch, . . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #387
First clear night in a month- here's the Fickle Finger of Fate pointing at Cassini:

[PLAIN]http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/4152/dsc08841f.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #388
Jupiter's come into view now:

[PLAIN]http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/9980/dsc09522o.jpg

Are these some of the moons? (some trickery was used here...)

[PLAIN]http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1492/dsc0948.jpg

Orion is visible in the early morning now- my practice shots are awful, hopefully I'll have something worth posting during the next few weeks...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #389
Here's a better shot of Jupiter and the Galilean moons:

[PLAIN]http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/79/dsc1016b.jpg

From the bottom left is (I think): Ganymede, Io, Europa, and Callisto.

800mm f/5.6, ISO 100 1/40s (Jupiter), ISO 400 1/6s (moons). Fortunately, the forecast is for good weather the next few days because I left my diffraction grating at work- I'd like a chance to image the spectra.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #390
good viewing at 2am- here's the Trapezium cluster in Orion with A, B, C, and D resolved:

[PLAIN]http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/5494/dsc1029h.jpg

The nebula itself has been more difficult- even at full aperture, ISO 6400, I still need to expose for a couple of seconds to see anything:

[PLAIN]http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2013/dsc1035y.jpg

and it comes out blue instead of red. This is straight off the camera, any of the background subtraction tricks I've tried so far severely degrade the image. The smaller reflection nebula M43 is barely visible as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #391
Andy Resnick said:
Here's a better shot of Jupiter and the Galilean moons:

[PLAIN]http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/79/dsc1016b.jpg

From the bottom left is (I think): Ganymede, Io, Europa, and Callisto.

800mm f/5.6, ISO 100 1/40s (Jupiter), ISO 400 1/6s (moons). Fortunately, the forecast is for good weather the next few days because I left my diffraction grating at work- I'd like a chance to image the spectra.
Nice. In space physics lab way back when, I had to photograph Jupiter and it's moons in order to determine the periods of the moons. Unfortunately, it was just black and white and Jupiter was a bit fuzzy.

During another lab, I did get to observe Saturn with a 14-inch reflector, but I didn't have a camera set up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #392
Astronuc said:
Nice. In space physics lab way back when, I had to photograph Jupiter and it's moons in order to determine the periods of the moons. Unfortunately, it was just black and white and Jupiter was a bit fuzzy.

During another lab, I did get to observe Saturn with a 14-inch reflector, but I didn't have a camera set up.

Thanks! Back in the day, I was lucky to see Shoemaker-Levy smack into Jupiter through a (IIRC) 12"- no camera then, either...

The joke is (for me anyway) is that finally, after years of study and careful assembly of a modern high-performance imaging system, I can finally duplicate an observation made in the 1500s :)
 
  • #393
Ok- here's something Galileo couldn't do- image the spectrum (composite image)

[PLAIN]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3522/dsc11051.jpg

Jupiter's spectrum:

[PLAIN]http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2639/plotofdsc1105.jpg

does look somewhat different from saturn (upper) and Porrima (lower):

[PLAIN]http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/332/spectra51.jpg

The two moons are too dim; I'll try again later. Note- the wavelength axis of the spectra is reversed from the image.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #394
That's great, very interesting, Andy!
 
  • #395
lisab said:
That's great, very interesting, Andy!

Thanks!
 
  • #396
The clouds parted momentarily this evening to reveal the full (99.1%) moon, which deserves a full-color closeup:

[PLAIN]http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2703/dsc11422.jpg

and a 1:1 crop-

[PLAIN]http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8729/dsc11423.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #397
Wow.

Time? ISO? f-number?

I guess it is 800 mm at work? That is, 400 times 2?
 
  • #398
Andy, your moon is now my desktop background pic :approve:.
 
  • #399
That's a fantastic shot, Andy!
 
  • #400
Borek said:
Wow.

Time? ISO? f-number?

I guess it is 800 mm at work? That is, 400 times 2?

lisab said:
Andy, your moon is now my desktop background pic :approve:.

Dembadon said:
That's a fantastic shot, Andy!

Thanks, all!

Image data- 800mm f/5.6 (yes, 400mm + 2x tele), used wide open. ISO 100, 1/250s exposure. If you would like the high-resolution image (1750 pixels on a side), PM me.
 

Similar threads

Photo Contest - Into The Great Wide Open (4/4-4/10)
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
VOTE Photo Contest - Are We Having Fun Yet?
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
VOTE Photo Contest - A Sight For Sore Eyes
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top