Shoot the Moon made simple... No Mumbo-Jumbo

Happy Wednesday from Prospect.

Here's the simplest description of how to shoot the moon.

I've recently viewed a lot of overly complicated how to's to shoot the moon. Everyone goes on about how hard it is to shoot.

It's simple. Don't shoot it as if it were night. It's high noon on the moon so shoot it as if it were the middle of the day.

Heck, you could probably shoot using the rule of 16 and get it. Or at least be close.

Original HighRes Jpeg (5616 x 3744). Canon 5D mark II, Canon 70-200 II f2.8,  ISO 320, f5.6 at 1/500th

High focal length will help for detail. 200mm plus will work, aperture should be at the lenses sweet spot (f2.8 lens is usually f5.6 or f8). Shutter should be no less than the focal length, 200mm = minimum 1/200th sec. ISO around your usual for daylight. 400 usually works well.

The shot you see in this post was shot at 200mm, ISO 320, f5.6 and 1/500th, hand held (no tripod, although it would't hurt to stabilize at that focal length.

I cropped in as much as possible afterwards to get my composition and converted to black and white. Done.

If you want this kind of detail with a night shot of skyline then you need to shoot two shots for correct exposure and marry them in your favourite editing software,

Thinks about it. That moon is at least 2 stops brighter than dusk. I mean it's high noon up there with the sun straight on the surface and reflecting at an acute angle to us.

Anyway, hope this helps, it did for me once I got the duh moment over with.

Photos below compare two f-stops (5.6 is the sweet spot for this one)

Enjoy, Derek

100% enlargement of original jpegs. f4.0 on left, f5.6 on right (sweet spot)

200% enlargement of original jpegs. f4.0 on left, f5.6 on right (sweet spot)

Chasing Tech or integration with analogue?

Good Friday from Prospect.

I want to start this post by saying one thing. I am and always will be a student of photography.

With that said I choose what I post as a statement that is always IMHO but built of the facts and experiences I compile.

Set-up for the shoot. I'm shooting Ilford PanF50. Gotta get it quick with those rain clouds looming.
Canon 580IIx through 36 inch umbrella as main light

So, todays piece. Allot has been said about the death of film and the wonders of digital photography. Without the maturity of digital photography I would not be where I am today in my craft. The cost associated with photography has always been high but until recently you needed a ton of money to move forward. You still need cash just some of it is far more affordable. Good glass and cameras come at a cost and if you aren't wealthy or a busy full time photographer it seems, at times, unjustifiable to invest that much money.

But with the growth of digital photography and the price reductions, due to that popularity, practically everyone can have decent gear. Especially with the resurgence of the range finder design of cameras (mirror-less they call it) . That's what a range finder always was, it has no mirror. ( A mirror is used in a SLR to reflect the image in the lens through a viewfinder. A range finder has  it's viewfinder separate from the lens plane so you don't see exactly what the camera will capture.)

What I want to point out is with all the available gear, we've found ourselves chasing the latest and greatest.  Which IMHO has pushed photographers into tech geeks and pixel pushers.

Mind you I love chasing tech. I am a geek when it comes to electronic toys and I can't get enough info about them. Doesn't mean I want what I see, I just appreciate the technologies themselves. 

Using a digital camera as the polaroid
to test exposure and comp (Canon G1x set to 6x6 format)
Manually set with hand held meter
(BW conversion with Silver FX 2 as Ilford PanF50)

(Side note: did you know that medicine is exploring the use of our new sensor technologies to correct many effects of macular degeneration. Yup, they are experimenting with transplant surgery to replace/enhance the human retina with the sensor technologies we use to capture images with our cameras…cool!)

Today, everyone needs that next new toy to be a great artist. Yes, great gear makes life easier and in many ways allows us to explore more creative avenues. But, and here it is, I believe it has watered down the true expression that is photography. Images express stories not pixels and sensors. I do believe the megapixel race is over. The sensor itself, how it processes the images we capture, has a bit more to go. But that's all about fine tuning. A 35mm DSLR at 12MP is more than enough for the average photographer. 21+MP is plenty for a professional full frame DSLR. Now don't get me wrong, higher MPs are great for HUGE reproductions, but as a whole we don't need them to resolve DMax and fidelity (larger sensors do that). Available B&W sensors don't need to deal with moire along with the new crop of Fuji sensors with the new pixel arrangements that eliminate pattern caused moiré. Funny, just like the ability of film. BTW, offset printing resolved the same patterning/moiré issues with line screens many years ago with the use of stochastic screening (random patterning of variable sized dots to generate a printed image) similar to Fuji's solution.

The photography industry has found a way to get us in this chase. Prior to digital photography you found a great camera that shot film. You saved for that great glass and used it until you wore it out. When you wanted the advantage of a new sensor, you switched out one film for another. And although the resolution was the same through the lens you picked a different ISO film for both sensitivity, grain size as well as colour balance (manipulated with on lens filters and tweaked in the darkroom). In case you don't see it, that drove the manufactures crazy. How could they sell you more stuff if that stuff just lasted? The only money making part was the consumable end…chemistry and film.

I am going to take a step forward and offer an opinion here. Film is not dead but in fact is the next great MEGA PIXEL sensor. Oh wait, it always was. I guess that's a step backward? I'm confused.

Here it is. All forms of photographic media can express the story telling I mentioned. If you've read any of my recent posts you'll already know that I've gone back to film. Not tossed out digital, but reintroduced film into my work flow. I feel that the love of photography for me has always been about the taking of images and telling my story with those pics.

The camera, for me, is my inspiration. The process of picking it up, studying my surroundings, observing the light, thinking of the subject matter and expressing the story with my camera in hand. It seems to make me a part of the moment. The act of taking the picture is just as important as processing and viewing the image I was after. Having that result appear before me only completes the experience. Hell, lets be honest, I just dig the sound of mirror slap and shutter action.

I guess my point is this. Stop chasing gear and bashing other mediums you don't use, I drive myself crazy when I chase new stuff. Just find what inspires you. That thing that drove you to a camera in the first place. Get your hands on that and go capture those stories.

Remember whats new is old and whats old is new. It's all good.

Thanks and enjoy, Derek

Accurate Metering for the right exposure.

Good Thursday from Prospect.

Today I want to extend a bit I touched on two posts ago. I'm referring to using an exterior meter to gain correct exposure.

You can see here what the correct exposure should be here.
All shots, except this one were shot with Canon EOS 5D mk1
with a Sigma 50mm f1.4 (best 50mm ever)

As I hinted, rather openly, incident light meters are the only way to accurately measure the light hitting your subject. Reflective meters, which reside inside todays cameras,  measure the light that has bounced back from your subject and assumes the brightest area is 18% grey. This is just the way these meters are engineered. Don't ask me why.

What then happens it compensates for that and setting that to white and usually over exposes the shot making it look like midday bright. When in fact the shot was taken late afternoon and overcast. The result may look pleasing but it's wrong.

So let me show you the difference between reflective meter readings and incident readings and their results. I have included a shot of my Sekonic L-398 studio meter with the resulting reading.

The camera gave me a reading of 2 stops brighter. I set the aperture and ISO in cement so the only change would be shutter speed. Film rules here.

Now my habit has always been to over expose by 1/2 to 1 stop for reversal film (I said usually, it goes back to film days when you couldn't chimp the shot and had to rely on your experience to get it right).

The shot of the meter shows my reading 20 feet away from the scene but is reading the available light reaching the subject.

Accurately exposed based on the environment
and time of day

You'll notice at ISO 50 we should be set at 1/3 stop open from 5.6 and 1/500th. The reflective meter gave me a setting of 1/125th for shutter.

Quick note here I've deliberately cemented the ISO at 50 to demonstrate the changes on a level playing field. ISO 50 is the slowest sensitivity I have ever shot film. As well my Hasselblad only has a max shutter speed of 1/500th which dictates I use slow film to stay inside the limitations of that shutter for outdoors. (It's great in the studio since, being a leaf shutter it syncs at all speeds).

The point here is, you may think the reflective meter shot seems okay but it's over exposed in relation to the true lighting of the scene. That shot left our grey in the foreground completely blown while the sekonic gave us a better balanced exposure we can use.

If you think this just isn't so then here's a challenge for you. Turn off your preview, stop chimpping, and just set your exposures manually by the built in meter in your camera and check them after you have shot all day. If you aren't upset with the results then let me know. Heck, even if you're unhappy with the days results let me know that too.

May look right but way too bright
for the time of day and lighting conditions.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Note: all the shots are as shot in camera as RAW, opened in photoshop camera raw, tags added and saved for web at 1920 px, long edge.

I hope this helps you make better shots. Enjoy, Derek

Aperture at f5.6,
underexposed but still usable.
It's easier to lighten the shadows then
recover blown high lights.