Nutters with Cameras - f&c style.

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,131
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
I was on TV , The BBC Travel show. We bumped into the BBC crew at the fish smokers (Whitby) and got talking after a while they asked us if they could film us, It was so hard not looking at the camera especially when the rest of the photographers wanted us to look straight down the lens ! Over the years we have been in quite a few newspapers, a couple of art gallery's and now on TV , It must be my good looks !
You'll have to let us know when it is on.......erm are you a fish smoker? I used to use tobacco :LOL:
 
Messages
970
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
As far as I know it's still on BBC Iplayer , I'm not a fish smoker but used to supply a guy up the road with various wood shavings/saw dust when I cut up my winter wood (for my wood burner), he always gave me a few samples mainly meat/sausages and they were really nice I have to admit.
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,131
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
As far as I know it's still on BBC Iplayer , I'm not a fish smoker but used to supply a guy up the road with various wood shavings/saw dust when I cut up my winter wood (for my wood burner), he always gave me a few samples mainly meat/sausages and they were really nice I have to admit.
You have two walk in\walk on by....... parts (y)
 
Messages
4,667
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
H'mm Asha said that as well, but it doesn't seem right i.e. f16 @ 1/100 for ISO 100 film as it doesn't take into account for the moon low down or high in the sky.....so I used Brian's rule i.e. take a spot reading and as it's more like snow (well looking thru' the view finder) and add two stops to what the reading says.
Anyway I missed the best time for a shot as I fell asleep....... @ 10:30 it was low in the sky, fell asleep woke up at 4 am and it was low in the sky again, so a nutter with a camera, in a dressing gown, in the front garden..... taking photos @ 4 am. o_O:rolleyes:
1/60 at f5.6 at iso 100 by spot meter Brian. That doesn't mean it is right , but it is the result I just got now it's dark.
 
Messages
4,271
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I have also just been outside with my Soligor one degree spot meter and with a low bright moon almost full and clear sky,the reading was:

1/60 @f5.6 ISO 200, so one stop difference(slower) to Peter,but,in his part of the world not surprising.
 
Last edited:

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,131
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
So guys as Punch would say "that's the way to do it" if taking shots of the moon......so exposure for the moon as advised on the net i.e. f5.6 to f11 @ 1/125 to 1/250 must be for a very clear night, moon overhead? and away from a city.
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,850
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
Blimey, with all this prevarication and debate I think it would probably be quicker to go there and take some photos like Neil Armstrong did! :giggle:
I've already been in touch with Gromit;)…......He's happy to rebuild a spaceship with Bri so long as he's not used as a workbench again:LOL:

Don't forget the crackers Bri! :D
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,131
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Well if royal fail hasn't lost my film.....then you could be amazed at my latest shots OR all have another laugh at my failures :(
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,131
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Well if royal fail hasn't lost my film.....then you could be amazed at my latest shots OR all have another laugh at my failures :(
Well my spot reading of the moon treating it as a kodak grey card could be a crap idea as maybe the rule is:- you can only take a spot reading of something lit by the sun? and not pointing the camera indirectly at the sun (moon reflecting the sun) o_O
So from filmdev have the shots now and have no idea what is going wrong as only massive fiddling in Photoshop (to get some crappy detail) which would suggest under exposure :eek::rolleyes:
Oh well the next try would be to try speeds from 1 sec to 1/250
R1-00621-0016-600px2.jpg R1-00621-0016-600px.jpg
 
Messages
4,573
Edit My Images
Yes
I think those are perhaps more Louis Armstrong than Neil Armstrong, Brian. ;) I'll have to upload that slide of the moon I took when I was 16, so you can get your own back and poke fun me for a change. :giggle:

Joking aside, without seeing the negatives I think they're probably overexposed rather than underexposed? The detail seems burnt out rather than too dull?
 
Last edited:

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,388
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
maybe the rule is:- you can only take a spot reading of something lit by the sun?
Actually you can use a spot meter on objects illuminated by artificial light; and the moon, not being itself luminous, is lit by the sun. As Mr Badger said, the results look very overexposed, as though you'd based the exposure on the frame contents, and the meter tried to make the dark sky a mid grey.
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,131
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Actually you can use a spot meter on objects illuminated by artificial light; and the moon, not being itself luminous, is lit by the sun. As Mr Badger said, the results look very overexposed, as though you'd based the exposure on the frame contents, and the meter tried to make the dark sky a mid grey.
...if I can see the moon tonight I'm going put the 300mm lens plus 2xs converter on my Nex 3 (without breaking it) and see what results I get bracketing. ...erm maybe moon shots and fireworks should be left to digi gear o_O:rolleyes:
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,850
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
...if I can see the moon tonight I'm going put the 300mm lens plus 2xs converter on my Nex 3 (without breaking it) and see what results I get bracketing. ...erm maybe moon shots and fireworks should be left to digi gear t you've just posted?:rolleyes:
What focal length did you use for that shot that you've just posted?
 
Messages
4,573
Edit My Images
Yes
Here you go Brian, my attempt from about 38 years ago (complete with specks of dust!). Not very sharp, most likely due to the rickety old tripod I was using and the fact the split screen focus aid would have been black due to the cheap 3x teleconverter and manual aperture f/6.3 Soligor 400mm I was using on my Canon A1, but considering it was slide film I don't think I got the exposure too far out.

I was most likely using stopped down AE metering to cope with the small aperture the lens and 3x converter was giving me. Judging by the three or four less successful slides that accompanied this one, there was some bracketing either side involved too. Try not to laugh too hard at it!

 
Last edited:

ChrisR

I'm a well known grump...
Messages
9,250
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I have also just been outside with my Soligor one degree spot meter and with a low bright moon almost full and clear sky,the reading was:

1/60 @f5.6 ISO 200, so one stop difference(slower) to Peter,but,in his part of the world not surprising.
So 1/100 @f/8

Then 1/200 @ f/11 for ISO 200 film... Looney 11 working our fine fo Inverness!
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,850
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
Then 1/200 @ f/11 for ISO 200 film... Looney 11 working our fine fo Inverness!
which is what was suggested back in posts 165 and 166;)

Is anyone else getting the feeling that we're going round in circles?:banghead::LOL:
 
Messages
4,573
Edit My Images
Yes
which is what was suggested back in posts 165 and 166;)

Is anyone else getting the feeling that we're going round in circles?:banghead::LOL:
To be honest, I don't think anyone ever took a photo of the moon. It would be far too difficult and beyond modern technology and those photos that exist were all done in a studio in Area 51. ;) Only joking. :ROFLMAO:

Hang on, back in a minute, there's someone at the door.....
 
Last edited:

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,388
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Is anyone else getting the feeling that we're going round in circles?

And that, ladies and gentleman, is precisely what nutters with cameras do. I place my valise in a comfortable bed (aka rest my case).
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,131
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Well on the Nex 3 with 600mm..................... I just adjusted the shutter speed until the moon looked right for exposure (it was low down and yellow) and it was 1/200 but it doesn't say what the aperture was but iso was 400, so I have no idea how the camera worked it out:rolleyes:.
Shot propped up through an open window and tried to hold it steady as best I can.
DSC01353-600.jpg

So what have I learnt? well I can't find out how to set the Nex for shutter speed and aperture (on manual) to transfer to a film camera but it looks like I'm over exposing the negs and will have another go with the T90.
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,388
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Possibly there's some exif data floating about somewhere that would tell you the aperture and shutter speed.
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,388
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Seriously, look up how Ansel Adams determined the exposure for "Moonrise over Hernandez". That will give you the brightness of the moon in easily understood terms:

I was at a loss with the subject luminance values, and I confess I was thinking about bracketing several exposures, when I suddenly realized that I knew the luminance of the moon—250 c/ft2. Using the Exposure Formula, I placed this luminance on Zone VII; 60 c/ft2 therefore fell on Zone V, and the exposure with the filter factor o 3x was about 1 second at f/32 with ASA 64 film.

Edit to add: And @ChrisR mentioned this some way back.
 
Last edited:

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,388
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Possibly you noted down the aperture that you had set (manually)? It's the same with the exif from the a7rII, since the camera can't read the aperture, and I should have realised that when I made the suggestion.
 
Messages
4,573
Edit My Images
Yes
Put your T90 on spot, expose for that, and bracket 1/3 stop either side for 6 shots, or 1/2 stop for 3 shots either side. Keep meticulous notes on the settings you've used for which shot, and refer to those when looking at the results.

If you're a Clanger's whisker off getting the exposure right after that then give it up as a bad job and take up embroidery or needlepoint! :whistle:
 
Last edited:

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,131
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Possibly you noted down the aperture that you had set (manually)? It's the same with the exif from the a7rII, since the camera can't read the aperture, and I should have realised that when I made the suggestion.
Well the non digi lens was not stopped down manually to f8 to f11, so the Nex 3 might have worked out the exposure with the lens wide open at f5.6 and losing 2 stops because of the 2xs adapter.
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,850
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
In theory :D.....it seems you'all watching tv instead of taking a shot of the moon ;)
If this saga continues, I may well expose a LF frame purely on the moon just to prove to myself that my belief of the luminosity relating somewhere close to looney F/11 is somewhere close to correct exposure.

Let's think about this logically,
I now possess no kit with TTL metering not that I relied on it an awful lot anyway as I have been ucky to be able to judge fairly accuratly differing light levels without the need of a meter, TTL or otherwise.

Just by looking at a relatively bright scene, I would have thought that the average tog ( who shoots fairly regularly) would be able to give a reasonably accurate assesment of the aperture and shutter speed required to expose correctly for that luminosity at any given film speed without the aid of a meter.

I am seriously struggling to understand why this is causing such difficulty...Nailing exposure may take a few attempts but to get somewhere close isn't imo hard to do, in fact you've proved it with the shot you've taken this evening with the Nex albiet the camera did the calculation and not you!

If I had a really long lens and a LF kit to use it with, and the moon was visible, I would be outside now shooting it…..that was the idea I had earlier when I asked about what focal length you were using.

Even with my longest 300mm ( equivalent 100mm ) lens on LF, I may give it a go.
Ok so it'll be a pin prick of light on a 5s4 sheet of film but scanned at 9600 and cropped right down, even without IQ, it is possible that the exposure will show itself to be correct or incorrect, as the case may be.

Enough of my waffle......
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,850
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
Well the non digi lens was not stopped down manually to f8 to f11, so the Nex 3 might have worked out the exposure with the lens wide open at f5.6 and losing 2 stops because of the 2xs adapter.
which would give an exposure based somewhere near to looney F/11 …..would it not???!!!
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,388
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just attempted to work from Ansel Adam's exposure; if I haven't made a slip, and with a little rounding, I make it as giving the exposure as around 1/250th at f/11 on ISO 400.
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,850
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just attempted to work from Ansel Adam's exposure; if I haven't made a slip, and with a little rounding, I make it as giving the exposure as around 1/250th at f/11 on ISO 400.
et voila we've gone around yet again with Florence, Dougal and Dillan on the Magic Roundabout to arrive close to what was suggested on page 5 of this thread!
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,388
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
And I'm still puzzled why, given the moon is simply a lump of rock illuminated by the full sun, the exposure of (assuming ISO 400) 1/400 at f/16 isn't a good starting point. Going from f/16 to f/11 means an exposure time of 1/800; but since this would make the moon mid grey, we give a couple of stops more, resulting in 1/200 at f/11.
 
Top