Nutters with Cameras - f&c style.

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,591
Name
Asha
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.
Pretty much relates to a white snow scene then which confuses the h'll out of meters and requires compensation.
I can see easily enough the need for similar with the moon.
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,175
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Perhaps it comes from using manual cameras and/or light meters and/or exposure tables: you get a feel for what's going on, and how to adjust things.

Edit to add: and if this thread doesn't revert to topic - photos of photographers using film cameras - I'll jolly well post one Sue took of me 3 years ago, which won't be a pretty sight. You have been warned.
 
Last edited:

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,591
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
My last posting on this topic, well for this evening anyway, is that having taken a courtesy look at moon photos on TP ( fair enough they are on digital kit) shows that when the exif detail is calculated backwards to take account of convertors etc, the results typically come within the looney F/11 or looney F/8 range.

@excalibur2 Bri the light from the moon is the same for digi or for film so unless you end up with a calculated shutter speed that falls into reciprocracy, there is no reason whatsoever for your film attempts to require anything different in settings to the digi guys.
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,019
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Well just to confuse you'all:- the lens will be set at f11 with 2xs converter and 200 iso film and the T90 on spot reading of the moon ( moon not above) works out...... the shutter speed should be 1/20 sec.
Well taking away the converter and the shutter speed would be 1/80 and add a stop because the meter is fooled as the moon is more white than Kodak grey and we end up with 1/160 at f11 for iso 200..which is sunny 11.
So as someone said we are going around in circles...ok I'll take the blame. :coat:
 
Messages
4,229
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
So 1/100 @f/8

Then 1/200 @ f/11 for ISO 200 film... Looney 11 working our fine fo Inverness!
Not sure that is correct,surely if you want to have a smaller aperture then you need more exposure so 1/60 would become 1/30 would it not.
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,591
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
if you want to have a smaller aperture then you need more exposure
This is true so based on @ChrisR figure of 1/100@F/8, he would indeed need more exposure thus 1/50@F11

Like most photographs there is no fixed exposure value for the moon, just guidlines to get in the ball park.

It looks like Bri has now seen the light ( of the moon!:LOL:) and come to realise the Sunny/ looney F/8 or F/11 is close enough so hopefully this saga, not unlike the F4 saga, can be put to rest.

As for me, I'm gunna take up knitting as it's less finger work than all this typing!:ROFLMAO:
 
Messages
4,039
Edit My Images
Yes
This is true so based on @ChrisR figure of 1/100@F/8, he would indeed need more exposure thus 1/50@F11

Like most photographs there is no fixed exposure value for the moon, just guidlines to get in the ball park.

It looks like Bri has now seen the light ( of the moon!:LOL:) and come to realise the Sunny/ looney F/8 or F/11 is close enough so hopefully this saga, not unlike the F4 saga, can be put to rest.

As for me, I'm gunna take up knitting as it's less finger work than all this typing!:ROFLMAO:
I'm seriously thinking about planting wolfbane and hoping for a Lon Chaney Jr come-back tour!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIPvljWfH00
 
Last edited:

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,019
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
This is true so based on @ChrisR figure of 1/100@F/8, he would indeed need more exposure thus 1/50@F11

Like most photographs there is no fixed exposure value for the moon, just guidlines to get in the ball park.

It looks like Bri has now seen the light ( of the moon!:LOL:) and come to realise the Sunny/ looney F/8 or F/11 is close enough so hopefully this saga, not unlike the F4 saga, can be put to rest.

As for me, I'm gunna take up knitting as it's less finger work than all this typing!:ROFLMAO:
Well from my end was confusion as I suggested to eliminate all variables (e.g. position of the moon in the sky, murky or clear conditions etc) and to treat the moon as dirty snow to get an equivalent Kodak grey card spot reading, but no one actually said "that's a good\best way to do it"...and end of story.
So the thread was prolonged as we have three answers to get the same results:- theory, sunny\looney f8\f11, and spot reading on the moon.
 

RaglanSurf

Forum Idiot'13/14 <span class=poty>FPOTY'17</span>
Messages
10,552
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
One thing I don’t understand is why there are upwards of 80 posts about taking a picture of the moon in the “Nutters with cameras” thread. It’s not like there’s even a shot of Brian trying to take a picture of the moon.

I think Brian should have his own thread, or maybe even his own section.
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,019
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
One thing I don’t understand is why there are upwards of 80 posts about taking a picture of the moon in the “Nutters with cameras” thread. It’s not like there’s even a shot of Brian trying to take a picture of the moon.

I think Brian should have his own thread, or maybe even his own section.
It's a tradition to go off topic :D Anyway I must be a nutter persisting in taking shots of the moon and fireworks when there are hundreds of great shots on the net. o_O
 
Messages
2,218
Name
Des
Edit My Images
Yes
Yep, far too much mooning in this thread.

It has reminded me that I found a pic taken on the Edinburgh meet, years ago. I must scan it and post it in here.
It was taken in very low light and I'm sure that's why it's blurry - nothing to do with the fact we were in the pub for hours, sheltering from the rain.
 
Messages
1,540
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
9,079
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Not sure that is correct,surely if you want to have a smaller aperture then you need more exposure so 1/60 would become 1/30 would it not.
Yes it appears I'm talking complete b... rubbish!

Meanwhile, here's some expired Ektachrome showing what might possibly be @RaglanSurf , definitely NOT photographing the moon! Colour cast a mile wide, though...

1510DPMX Ekta nutter.jpg

Pentax MX
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,175
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Defo not Nick, he wouldn't need to bend his legs!:exit::LOL:
Well, it was in post #56, page 2 (just to prove I'm awake).
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,591
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
Talking of nutters, does anyone recognise this torch lit in a blacked out room, very heavily cropped 5x4 frame of one of the f&c crowd?

I'm personally amazed that anything of any use actually registered on the negative !

Sans titre-2.jpg
 
Last edited:

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,175
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Present in body but not in mind?

October 18th, 2014, Arundel.

I have a few more showing people, but I've refrained :)
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,175
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
The outside photo was taken by Swanbourne Lake, and the inside one from the cafe in the High Street.
 
Top