This is a diary of sorts- a description of the slow learning curve for a film user trying to make a switch to serious digital photography without (yet, anyway) buying or learning the various Photoshop products.
I took a lot of pictures of the lunar eclipse in February using my Pentax K10D digital SLR. They seemed terrible and disappointing, with a few exceptions.
When I took the photos, I used the RAW+ option on the Pentax digital SLR, which captures RAW and JEPG images simultaneously. This feature is clearly a very good idea, except not so useful when one knows nothing about processing RAW files (which are the raw data from the camera's CCD chip, not processed or compressed by the in-camera computer).
So, I've finally begun my first, very primitive, experiments in processing RAW files, and I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. My only problem was that I took the picture so long ago that I can't remember what it should look like from a white balance/color balance perspective, so maybe this isn't supposed to be yellow-orange, though I know that the moon did take on that color for many of the shots, especially immediately before, after and during the full eclipse. Let's just say it is dedicated to The Neville Brothers.
Anyway, the image is far superior to whatever I came up with by editing the JPEGs, correct color balance or not.
I used the Pentax software for editing the RAW file, exported to JPEG, and then cropped in Picasa.
Here are some technical details:
| Camera: | Pentax K10D |
| Exposure: | 0.004 sec (1/250) |
| Aperture: | f/22 |
| Focal Length: | 200 mm |
| ISO Speed: | 400 |
| Exposure Bias: | 0/10 EV |
| Flash: | Flash did not fire |
| X-Resolution: | 72 dpi |
| Y-Resolution: | 72 dpi |
| Software: | Picasa 3.0 |
| Date and Time: | 2008:04:20 19:50:22 |
| YCbCr Positioning: | Co-Sited |
| Date and Time (Original): | 2008:02:20 20:21:48 |
| Date and Time (Digitized): | 2008:02:20 20:21:48 |
| Metering Mode: | Pattern |
| Color Space: | Uncalibrated |
| Sensing Method: | One-chip colour area sensor |
| White Balance: | Manual |
| Focal Length In 35mm Film: | 300 |
| Subject Distance Range: | Distant |
| Unique Image ID: | ec75a4f6510ccad94ba97ca76289ef6e |
| Compression: | JPEG |
| By-Line (Author): | Picasa 2.7 |
| Image Width: | 636 pixels |
| Image Height: | 383 pixels |
The details may raise some eyebrows, including mine. I think that the moon had to be bright white for me to capture it at these exposure settings, so I had better re-do the white balance... You might be wondering why I was using ISO 400, not 800 or 1600. Well, first, the exposure was clearly OK because the moon must have been bright at this stage. Second, I still wasn't familiar enough with the relatively new camera to set the ISO the way I wanted to in the dark! So I think it was on an auto-EV setting and picked 400. I had set it to 800 manually before going outside, but somehow reset it without knowing how (I had lightweight gloves on, so who knows which buttons I might have pressed accidentally).
I did NOT use the proper technique for this camera, which would have been to use the self-timer, because that apparently locks the mirror before exposure and minimizes camera shake caused by the mirror flipping. I hadn't read that part of the manual or guidebook yet (I really like the Magic Lantern Guide for the Pentax K10D
). Also, my tripod is lousy, which hadn't seemed to be a problem before, but it was here: not rigid enough and hard to pan.Copyright © 2008 James K. Bashkin
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 20
Thanks for posting this to BEST ORIGINAL PHOTOS, ART AND WRITING FOR 2008.
Oh, and one more thing. The next time you take shots of the full moon, try shooting in b&w. I've found that this produces a far superior photo.
My eyesight has really dropped off in recent years and I had some trouble with the dark and the small markings, but now I know where everything is by feel and wouldn't have any trouble changing settings. I was just reading a little about astrophotography and everywhere I looked echoed what Roy said about shooting with the lens wide open (smallest possible aperture or F-stop, which in this case would have been 5.6, I believe). I guess I needed a young and intelligent assistant, with good eyes, to make sure I didn't mess things up. My 15-year old is getting into photography, but not yet from a technical perspective.
Thanks again!
We Comment Back
We want to let you know that your content is important to us!
And we gave your content a 10. If you allowed ratings!
This is FEATURED in Artistic Minds® Gather Group.
WE are, of course, looking forward to seeing more of your Articles here!
Blessings ~
René
Thanks for sharing it with us.
I am not so smart (about photography, anyway, as the pros here on gather will certainly confirm- I can almost hear them now). I made multiple errors in taking pictures of the eclipse: not being familiar enough with my new camera, being a little nervous and hyper about taking the shots because it was cold outside and I was struggling with exposure settings, and more. For example, believe it or not, it was dark outside! If I had been smart, I would have locked the mirror up on each shot, brought a flashlight with red transparent plastic over the lens so it wouldn't kill my night vision but I could see the camera's controls, realized how to reset the ISO value (I really was new to the camera!), taken my gloves off more so I would hit the buttons I was trying to hit, and realized that my aperture was at least occasionally peculiar (though I used some settings in manual mode that were recommended in the morning paper for different stages of the eclipse, but I don't have the article to check my work against anymore).
Also, I used a zoom telephoto lens, not a faster, fixed focal length lens: I don't have one, but I actually do have a telescope! However, I did not have the right adapters to connect my camera to it (though it might have magnified too much for good eclipse shots, showing only portions of the moon). I've been picking up adapters on eBay and am now ready for some night sky work again. I probably need a 90-degree view-finder adapter so my neck survives the attempt (this makes it easier to look through the viewfinder when a camera is pointed up at the sky, or down at ground level, vs. the normal viewfinder)
I do have a large set of exposure-bracketed photos of the eclipse captured as RAW files, so once I process them all this might be worth another brief note with some conclusions to help people trying to break through the "digital barrier". I can probably go + or - quite a few stops on each image with the bracketing and RAW processing combined.
These image processing methods only work if a camera saves RAW files, and many do not. But, I've started to read "The Complete Raw Workflow Guide" by Philip Andrews (focal press), and I think it will help me a lot with the processing side. "Gimp" is free, open source software that is like Adobe Photoshop, or parts of Photoshop, but I'm not too swift using it yet.
On a positive note, I haven't taken too many terrible photos lately, though I'm still struggling difficult conditions like low light in large rooms, even after getting my hands on a pretty fast (low F stop, large aperture) 50mm lens (the problems arise at school events for my kids and at my older son's classical guitar concerts- I can't use flash except during applause, etc.). I need to use my tripod, or a better tripod, much more often! And I need to remember to switch the camera's shake reduction off when using the tripod, and back on when I'm not... A lot for one brain in the heat of the moment...
Thanks for the feedback!
The night (or morn) I wrote that I got my camera out and the instructions and set them right by my computer. They are still sitting there. Also, It's only digital. I actually got big ideas a couple of years ago and put some money into a good camera. The kind you have to adjust ... took 3 rolls of near black film and sold it on ebay :)
I need to remember which symbols are for what & I'll be in competition with you :)
You're in my favorits now so I won't forget you.
I read your page (part way) on chemestry. For some odd reason, conservative as I am, I decided to read your stuff with a more open mind. I've felt the need for listening that way anyway for some time ... just to be sure I'm not being closed minded. I don't know whether the page changes but it must since it is following news articles. Thanks for giving the links.
If I get my act together about publishing the whole series of moon shots, following the eclipse all the way though, we'll have a chance to go over many technical errors of mine that may be useful for other beginners/amateurs to see. I have in-camera JPEG and RAW data for every exposure. Unfortunately, none of the images is as sharp as I would like, no matter what the exposure issues, and I suspect this is due to a combination of camera shake (from not locking the mirror up) and maybe the optical quality of the zoom lens I used vs. a long, fixed lens. The lack of image sharpness is a bit de-motivating regarding processing the whole batch, however.
Thanks for the comment and for your concern about my technique!