• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Moonrise

Chris Calohan II

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
11414520344_7e69702814_o.jpg


Moonrise: Chris Calohan​
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Awfully brave for a name of a photograph, Chris! Yet you pulled this off. Did you take any more that night?

I do like the repeat of the lampposts with their curve as if they too might hold some invisible moon. The dark under the bridge is a nice balance. I wonder about the cut of lamp. I'd have cheated and repaitired it but that's why it's your picture.

Asher
 
M

Maris Rusis

Member
The perspective in this picture looks strange and maybe wonderful.

To get such a big moon needs a long focal length lens. A working rule is the diameter of the moon's image on the sensor is the lens focal length divided by 100. If the sensor received (say) a 5mm diameter moon image then the lens focal length is a whopping 500mm!

To get so much of the bridge in the picture with a 500mm lens one would have to image the bridge from a long distance away. But then the light standards are all virtually the same distance from the camera and would look the same size anywhere in the frame. But they don't. There's big ones and smaller ones.

I've just read Doug Kerr's post on the strange perspectives offered by telecentric lenses. Is something similar going on here?
 
Tom dinning

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I blew this up to see if it was a stitch up job and found a few dust bunnies.

Its a great effect, none the less, and a superb backdrop for it. Or is that foredrop? I get the feeling there's an odd man out waiting for his own moon to turn up. He's a bit lonely out there at the edge of the frame. Don't you hate Groupy Lamp Posts.
 
Cem_Usakligil

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Hi Maris,

Maris Rusis said:
The perspective in this picture looks strange and maybe wonderful.

To get such a big moon needs a long focal length lens. A working rule is the diameter of the moon's image on the sensor is the lens focal length divided by 100. If the sensor received (say) a 5mm diameter moon image then the lens focal length is a whopping 500mm!

To get so much of the bridge in the picture with a 500mm lens one would have to image the bridge from a long distance away. But then the light standards are all virtually the same distance from the camera and would look the same size anywhere in the frame. But they don't. There's big ones and smaller ones.

I've just read Doug Kerr's post on the strange perspectives offered by telecentric lenses. Is something similar going on here?
Click to expand...
Thanks so much fro bringing this simple rule of thumb to our attention. I have done some math and came up wıth a factor of 110 instead of 100 but it is not a significant difference. It also depends on the distance of the moon to earth on a particular place and time. Anyway, if we take 100 as our departing point, this particular image results in a zoom length of around 200-250mm since the moon is roughly 1/15th of the image width. Assuming this was taken with a 35mm sensor, that is. And also assuming that the final image was not cropped. If all holds true, then the prespective I am seeing here is in line with a 200mm lens being used.
 
Doug Kerr

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Maris,

Maris Rusis said:
The perspective in this picture looks strange and maybe wonderful.

To get such a big moon needs a long focal length lens. A working rule is the diameter of the moon's image on the sensor is the lens focal length divided by 100. If the sensor received (say) a 5mm diameter moon image then the lens focal length is a whopping 500mm!

To get so much of the bridge in the picture with a 500mm lens one would have to image the bridge from a long distance away. But then the light standards are all virtually the same distance from the camera and would look the same size anywhere in the frame. But they don't. There's big ones and smaller ones.
Click to expand...

If we are seeing the full frame here, the full-frame 35-mm equivalent focal length of the lens involved here is about 220 mm.

Based on the relative heights of the lamp standards, if the width of each roadway of the bridge is 30 feet, then the shot would seem to be taken from a distance of about 60 feet from the near side.

But that all doesn't seem to quite work out with the apparent horizontal extent of the field of view.

I'll try this again when I am awake.

Best regards,

Doug
 
Cem_Usakligil

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Tom dinning said:
See how we all go for explanation instead of enjoyment.
Who gives a ****? Its a picture worth looking at.
Click to expand...
Who said that I didn't enjoy it or didn't look at it Tom? To me, the explanation and enjoyement are not mutually exclusive. Au contraire, I enjoy something even more if I can explain it. ;)
 
Tom dinning

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Cem_Usakligil said:
Who said that I didn't enjoy it or didn't look at it Tom? To me, the explanation and enjoyement are not mutually exclusive. Au contraire, I enjoy something even more if I can explain it. ;)
Click to expand...

They are not mutually inclusive either, Cem. I know its to your contrary. Thats why I said it. :)
 
Chris Calohan II

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
Cem_Usakligil said:
Hi Maris,


Thanks so much fro bringing this simple rule of thumb to our attention. I have done some math and came up wıth a factor of 110 instead of 100 but it is not a significant difference. It also depends on the distance of the moon to earth on a particular place and time. Anyway, if we take 100 as our departing point, this particular image results in a zoom length of around 200-250mm since the moon is roughly 1/15th of the image width. Assuming this was taken with a 35mm sensor, that is. And also assuming that the final image was not cropped. If all holds true, then the prespective I am seeing here is in line with a 200mm lens being used.
Click to expand...

28-300 Nikkor on a D800, 210mm F/16 @ 1/10 ISO 320 Cem gets the cookie and glass of milk for being the closest. Good calculations!
 
Chris Calohan II

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
Tom dinning said:
I blew this up to see if it was a stitch up job and found a few dust bunnies.

Its a great effect, none the less, and a superb backdrop for it. Or is that foredrop? I get the feeling there's an odd man out waiting for his own moon to turn up. He's a bit lonely out there at the edge of the frame. Don't you hate Groupy Lamp Posts.
Click to expand...

Going in for a sensor cleaning on the 23rd. Nasty little buggers.
 
Chris Calohan II

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
Asher Kelman said:
Awfully brave for a name of a photograph, Chris! Yet you pulled this off. Did you take any more that night?

I do like the repeat of the lampposts with their curve as if they too might hold some invisible moon. The dark under the bridge is a nice balance. I wonder about the cut of lamp. I'd have cheated and repaitired it but that's why it's your picture.

Asher
Click to expand...

If you look at the rise of the post above the lampshade, to add to that distance plus give it some breathing room would have significantly changed the aspect of the crop ratio significantly. I've gotten to where I don't like cropping all that much with the 35mm sensor. That's also why I left the lone sentinel to the far right, though insomuch as to keep a delicate balance. In addition, there were some large hydro cables in that same vicinity which would have required more cloning than I like in a frame.

It's much like worrying over centering the moon between the light standards. To me it would have created that overused cliche' of typical moon shots. It wasn't necessary to garner the impact of the monochromatic color scheme, nor to draw the eye into the frame.
 
Chris Calohan II

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
In this one, I did "cheat" as I was trying a rapid sequence 5 exposure HDR but even as fast as I shot, the moon moved just enough to cause a significant ghosting issue. So, I stole the moon from the previous shot, made it a bit larger (ok, a lot larger), worked around the light standard, did some cloning, etc. and made a nice "tourist" shot which will sell like hell in the local tourist traps, thus providing me with the income I need to support my photographic habit.

I should note this bridge is four lanes across on both sides with emergency lanes left and right, thus making it 12 lanes wide. This is done for emergency evacuation for hurricanes.

This shot occurred just after the sun dropped into the Gulf of Mexico and obviously just as the moon was rising, thus the title.

11414646253_21b5b27f3a_o.jpg


Sunset, Moonrise: Chris Calohan​
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I'm interested in how Doug can use **** and **** and get away with it, while Tom cannot! ****!!

I'll tried it, although I don't usually utter such words, of course:

**** off

**** off Tom!

Doesn't work for me!
 
Jerome Marot

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
You are a naughty boy, Doug. You will copy the sentence "I shall not swear on OPF" eight thousands two hundred and three times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top