Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/03/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks for the info Howard sorry if I was hard on you. I shot it too that night and a few years later and it was not f16 rule for sure but very dark red. I was at iso 6400 and my shutter speeds less than recommended. As no film I don't think was iso 6400 I could say I got the shot but could not have in the days of film. At least that's how I felt at the time. On 3/17/15 4:39 PM, "Howard Ritter" <hlritter at bex.net> wrote: > Mark? > > Actually, blur due to the Earth?s rotation is not really evident in this > image. In 2 seconds, an object on or near the celestial equator (like the > Moon) will move through 30 seconds of arc, which is 1/60 of the Moon?s > angular > diameter. In the small image, this is a fraction of a millimeter. I cannot > detect this in my image even when viewed large. The image of the Moon is > rather poor, since it was taken with a relatively short FL (for an > astronomical object) of 400 mm, and focus was questionable, since modern > lenses seem not to need infinity stops any longer (except when they do). If > you look at the stars in the field, you?ll see that there is no ?trailing? > due > to the Earth?s rotation, which would affect them the same as the Moon. The > stars do not quite appear as points, probably again due to imperfect focus, > but they are round, indicating that the exposure was short enough that the > tiny amount of trailing was small compared to image imperfections. And in > any > case, I was not going for a high-definition image of the Moon?s face, but > of > the eclipsed Moon in a starry sky. You?re certainly correct that a good > image > of the Moon itself, filling the frame or even bigger, would have to be made > with a shorter exposure. Such images are usually made with telescopes on > motor-driven mounts that track celestial objects. But since the Moon is a > landscape in full sunlight when it?s not eclipsed, the f/16 @ 1/ISO rule of > thumb works. A camera @ ISO 400 on an f/8 telescope would need a shutter > speed > of about 1/800 sec for the un-eclipsed Moon, and the blur due to the > Earth?s > rotation without the motor mount would be then about 1/50 of a second of > arc, > equivalent to about 100 feet of distance on the surface of the Moon and > therefore totally invisible when viewed at any scale. > > I needed 2 sec @ f/8 and ISO 6400 because the darkest part of the fully > eclipsed Moon is dramatically darker than the un-eclipsed Moon, on the > order > of 1/10,000th as bright, a fact that is not obvious to the visual observer. > > As for the orbital motion of the Moon, it?s in the opposite direction to > the > Moon?s apparent motion in the sky due to the Earth?s rotation, but it's > negligible in any case. > > ?howard > > >> On Mar 17, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> >> wrote: >> >> 2 seconds an amazingly long exposure for the fast moving moon. >> The blur is plainly evident in the image even quite small. >> >> http://forums.popphoto.com/showthread.php?338537-Moon-minimum-shutter-speed >> >> >> On 3/16/15 5:13 AM, "Peter Dzwig" <pdzwig at summaventures.com> wrote: > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/