Posted by Derek Sedillo on January 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Ok,
This is the brightest full moon of 2009! So if you have ever had the desire to try some night landscapes there is plenty of available light to illuminate the foreground right now.
Just use the right arrow to move thru them. I can't post an image yet since I am limited to one per week right now. But you can get the idea from the link.
Derek
Posted by Bryan Pezman on January 9, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Well, if it werent for the hellish high winds here in SoCal, I'd love to do a night shoot over in Joshua Tree but man oh man the Santa Anas will be howling this weekend. Ah well, take some great shots for us Derek!
By the way, how long do you usually expose your night shots at? And what ISO and apature?
Posted by Derek Sedillo on January 9, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Hi Bryan,
That was part of what I was testing on Wednesday night. I found that 25 seconds @ISO 800 was sufficient with the amount of the light the moon was producing. Also the majority of shots were @f5 and pretty wide 17-25mm my full frame 5D II. The wider you go the less apparent the star movement becomes over a given period.
Tommorrow night will actually be the brightest night. Last month at full moon I was getting away with ISO 640, 35mm @f4-f5. You can still take decently lit shots up to around 5 days after full moon. So wait for the winds to die down a bit and then give it a go. Remember for these types of shots which are non-star trails you only need 20-30 seconds. So it could even be taken in between bigger gusts.
Derek
Posted by Eric Good on January 10, 2009 at 1:09 AM
Very nice! I love the way you are able to keep the star details nice and crisp... that really makes these night shots for me. Or unless they are really very long ss and use creative star movement. I particularly like number 8 out of the sequence for its composition.
By the way, do you notice a faint border (haziness) about a 1/4 to 1/2 inch along the inside frame of your images? Or is my monitor going on the fritz? I probably need to calibrate my monitor and check the contrast. I just noticed this when looking through this collection of images... weird!
Posted by Derek Sedillo on January 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Yes Eric, I did notice this when I was processing them. It is not your monitor. It turns out I had a sticky film of salt water on my lens which is never good.
Secondly and the one which really bugs me the most is that these photos were taken close to wide open. And unfortunately the 17-40L does not perform well in the corners unless stopped down to at least f8. So for these types of wide open shots I really need a WA lens which performs better toward wide open like my Zeiss 35-70/3.4. I'll probably pick up another manual lens like a Zeiss or Zuiko prime.
I did clean the lens and used it again last night. Edward Nunez and I went out to and shot around the Santa Cruz area. I am processing the images now and they look somewhat improved. But I do realize the limitations of this lens especially with my 21mp 5D II.
Derek
Posted by Mike Ryan on January 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Hi Derek
I like your night shots. The stars really add to the overall scene. I will be heading up to the Mendocino coast tonight for a little January coastal camping so I will some night shooting a try. I'm wondering, are the last couple shots from Natural Bridges?
Posted by Derek Sedillo on January 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Thanks Ryan,
Yes, those are from last night. We shot Shark Tooth in Davenport and Natural Bridges in SC. I will add some more as I process them.
Make sure and keep your exposures under 30 seconds to avoid trails unless that is goal. I look forward to seeing your images from Mendocino. The clear skies along with full moon should provide you good night conditions.
Derek
Posted by Eric Good on January 12, 2009 at 1:24 AM
Thanks for the explanation Derek... glad I don't need to fiddle with my monitor too much. I do need to recalibrate though. I do shoot with a 17-40L on a 5D at work and do notice a bit of corner softness fully wide, but I've never seen that uniform haziness along the edge of the frame. Yet I nearly always shoot at a minimum f10 to keep a good amount of DoF. Anyways that's interesting to hear the lens' limitations.
~Eric
Posted by Derek Sedillo on January 12, 2009 at 2:26 AM
Yeah, The haziness was in part due to the salt spray. The images I normally shoot with it stopped down are better. However the corners as well as front to back focal plane sharpness are not really close to my Zeiss interms of sharpness.
I know a lot of pros and serious amatuers using this lens with the same findings. Some have gone to alternatives such as Zeiss, Zuiko or Nikon adapted to Canon. One finally switched entirely to Nikon. I like Canon enough to stay and really enjoy the 5D II. But their wide end lens offerings need some improvement. I bought the 17-40L knowing this going in. So I wasn't expecting perfection thats for sure. However I would like to pick up a prime which does better wider open across the frame - say from f4-f8. Zeiss is making a ZE line for Canon which should prove interesting.
Discussion
8 repliesThis is the brightest full moon of 2009! So if you have ever had the desire to try some night landscapes there is plenty of available light to illuminate the foreground right now.
I took some initial shots a couple of nights ago just to experiment with settings and my new WA lens. I'll be going back tonight and will post more shots later. Here are some from Wednesday:
http://landandseaphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/7049912_hqPLs#451535796_z4Gkx-A-LB
Just use the right arrow to move thru them. I can't post an image yet since I am limited to one per week right now. But you can get the idea from the link.
Derek
By the way, how long do you usually expose your night shots at? And what ISO and apature?
That was part of what I was testing on Wednesday night. I found that 25 seconds @ISO 800 was sufficient with the amount of the light the moon was producing. Also the majority of shots were @f5 and pretty wide 17-25mm my full frame 5D II. The wider you go the less apparent the star movement becomes over a given period.
Tommorrow night will actually be the brightest night. Last month at full moon I was getting away with ISO 640, 35mm @f4-f5. You can still take decently lit shots up to around 5 days after full moon. So wait for the winds to die down a bit and then give it a go. Remember for these types of shots which are non-star trails you only need 20-30 seconds. So it could even be taken in between bigger gusts.
Derek
By the way, do you notice a faint border (haziness) about a 1/4 to 1/2 inch along the inside frame of your images? Or is my monitor going on the fritz? I probably need to calibrate my monitor and check the contrast. I just noticed this when looking through this collection of images... weird!
Secondly and the one which really bugs me the most is that these photos were taken close to wide open. And unfortunately the 17-40L does not perform well in the corners unless stopped down to at least f8. So for these types of wide open shots I really need a WA lens which performs better toward wide open like my Zeiss 35-70/3.4. I'll probably pick up another manual lens like a Zeiss or Zuiko prime.
I did clean the lens and used it again last night. Edward Nunez and I went out to and shot around the Santa Cruz area. I am processing the images now and they look somewhat improved. But I do realize the limitations of this lens especially with my 21mp 5D II.
Derek
I like your night shots. The stars really add to the overall scene. I will be heading up to the Mendocino coast tonight for a little January coastal camping so I will some night shooting a try. I'm wondering, are the last couple shots from Natural Bridges?
Yes, those are from last night. We shot Shark Tooth in Davenport and Natural Bridges in SC. I will add some more as I process them.
Make sure and keep your exposures under 30 seconds to avoid trails unless that is goal. I look forward to seeing your images from Mendocino. The clear skies along with full moon should provide you good night conditions.
Derek
~Eric
I know a lot of pros and serious amatuers using this lens with the same findings. Some have gone to alternatives such as Zeiss, Zuiko or Nikon adapted to Canon. One finally switched entirely to Nikon. I like Canon enough to stay and really enjoy the 5D II. But their wide end lens offerings need some improvement. I bought the 17-40L knowing this going in. So I wasn't expecting perfection thats for sure. However I would like to pick up a prime which does better wider open across the frame - say from f4-f8. Zeiss is making a ZE line for Canon which should prove interesting.
Derek