aurora first attempt

[staci]

looks different on pbase, but here it is:



kit lens, f4, 20 seconds, iso200

I think I missed most of the action, but at least it was finally clear tonight and I saw something. It was dying down by the time I got out there with the camera and tripod. I was trying different settings, but the lights kept changing so much; I don't think I will be any better off next time. Thats my house and chimney at the bottom left.

I'll keep at it, and hopefully have something better by the end of winter. Once the river freezes, I will try some pictures down there, so the sky isn't obscured by trees.

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci

 

[rockhopper-fan]

A very nice first attempt. I wish we'd get aurora here but if it happens once or twice a year we're lucky. Why did you shoot at iso200? I'd be tempted to shoot at iso400 or 800 myself.
But then again I have yet to experiment with night-pictures

 

[PaulCowan]

It's a beaut of a pic.

For rockhopper's info, to capture an event like an aurora which is a diffuse, moving, changing, glow I think you would want a reasonably long exposure. Increasing the ISO would cut back on the exposure time and therefore reduce the range of effects that were captured. A bit like photographing waterfalls, I suppose. It is, in fact, a "waterfall" of hydrogen nuclei down a magnetic field.

I might be wrong about the effect of different shutter speeds, it would be interesting to be able to experiment ... trouble is, you need to be in high latitudes to do it!

Paul

A very nice first attempt. I wish we'd get aurora here but if it
happens once or twice a year we're lucky. Why did you shoot at
iso200? I'd be tempted to shoot at iso400 or 800 myself.
But then again I have yet to experiment with night-pictures

 

[RATPhoto]

looks different on pbase, but here it is:



kit lens, f4, 20 seconds, iso200

I think I missed most of the action, but at least it was finally
clear tonight and I saw something. It was dying down by the time I
got out there with the camera and tripod. I was trying different
settings, but the lights kept changing so much; I don't think I
will be any better off next time. Thats my house and chimney at the
bottom left.

I'll keep at it, and hopefully have something better by the end of
winter. Once the river freezes, I will try some pictures down
there, so the sky isn't obscured by trees.

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci

Very nice. Looks like you got the exposure about right. I can see Taurus the bull through the aurora. It does look like the picture is very slightly out of focus.

--
For a small gallery of 300d pictures, see:
http://ratphoto.home.comcast.net/
They were taken with the EF-S 18-55 kit lens as well as a 70-200 F4L.

 

[Max Leung]

Only using an aperture of F4 makes the image quite soft (and the trees blurry!). Try stopping down to F8 or more, maybe increase the ISO to 400 as well. You may need to use a longer exposure though.

Hopefully that will bring the trees more into focus, or perhaps you can try manual focus on the trees, and rely on the deeper DOF to keep the whole seen in focus. Hmm I guess that's a long way of saying "focus at the hyperfocal distance point".

 

[Bob the Printer88467]

rockhopper-fan wrote:

I think that he hit it right on the nose really. I would have used ISO 100 or 200 myself, with perhaps a 30 second exposure. Remember, aurorae are very diffuse, and the buttery smooth exposures at ISO 100 and 200 are a benefit.

By the way, I checked my replacement DR out last night and did several exposures at 30 seconds and f22 with the lens cap on and it virtually matched the performance of my original DR (the one that developed a warped shutter) with zero hot/warm pixels at 100 and three very lukewarm (under 90 luminance on a scale of 0-255) pixels at 200. 400 on up got more warm pixels of course with most of that being noise.

Regards

Bob the Printer

Misc A70 pix
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bdolson/a70/misc.html

 

[michiganbirder]

looks different on pbase, but here it is:

What a cool image Staci- lucky you to live where you can watch these wonderful auroras. We see them now and then here in Michigan, but nothing quite this dramatic very often. I think it's a great first attempt and am looking forward to more

 

[Bob the Printer88467]

Looks good Staci! Keep up the good work!

I refered to you as a 'he' in another message on this thread, but I guess you're really a 'she', based on the spelling of Staci??

Being up there in Alaska really gets you a lot of aurorae activity I guess!

Regards

Bob the Printer

Misc A70 pix
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bdolson/a70/misc.html

 

[staci]

A very nice first attempt. I wish we'd get aurora here but if it
happens once or twice a year we're lucky. Why did you shoot at
iso200? I'd be tempted to shoot at iso400 or 800 myself.
But then again I have yet to experiment with night-pictures

Just trying different things. That was the best aurora of the bunch. I was out for half an hour and took 20 pictures.

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci

 

[staci]

For rockhopper's info, to capture an event like an aurora which is
a diffuse, moving, changing, glow I think you would want a
reasonably long exposure. Increasing the ISO would cut back on the
exposure time and therefore reduce the range of effects that were
captured. A bit like photographing waterfalls, I suppose. It is, in
fact, a "waterfall" of hydrogen nuclei down a magnetic field.

I would like to try shorter speeds to try to capture detail, especially if there are curtains. This was a more plain band (well, except for the magenta), so I don't mind the longer speeds.

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci

 

[staci]

I think that he hit it right on the nose really. I would have used
ISO 100 or 200 myself, with perhaps a 30 second exposure. Remember,
aurorae are very diffuse, and the buttery smooth exposures at ISO
100 and 200 are a benefit.

I was going to try them all, but the lights died down when I was on 200 before I had tried longer exposures with higher apertures. I haven't tested my camera, but I have seen a red pixel a few times.

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci

 

[staci]

Very nice. Looks like you got the exposure about right. I can see
Taurus the bull through the aurora. It does look like the picture
is very slightly out of focus.

Heh, you should see the ones I accidentally took at minimum focus. I couldn't see a thing the viewfinder, just a very, very, dim band. I was trying to get the house, but in alot I got way too much driveway, and missed getting more sky.

Thanks for identifying Taurus. I was looking at my book trying to figure it out, and wasn't successfull.

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci

 

[staci]

Only using an aperture of F4 makes the image quite soft (and the
trees blurry!). Try stopping down to F8 or more, maybe increase the
ISO to 400 as well. You may need to use a longer exposure though.

Would have tried it had they not died down.

Hopefully that will bring the trees more into focus, or perhaps you
can try manual focus on the trees, and rely on the deeper DOF to
keep the whole seen in focus. Hmm I guess that's a long way of
saying "focus at the hyperfocal distance point".

I just turned the ring all the way. I couldn't really see anything in the viewfinder. The blurriness could also have been caused by me jumping up and down to keep warm too close to the tripod.

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci

 

[staci]

What a cool image Staci- lucky you to live where you can watch
these wonderful auroras. We see them now and then here in
Michigan, but nothing quite this dramatic very often. I think it's
a great first attempt and am looking forward to more

Thanks, I have been keeping my eye out for them. Its just hard because you never knkow when they will be active, and then it could be for just a few minutes. Its been cloudy lately, so I am happy to have seen something. When it is consistently clear when its gets cold, I am not sure if I am going to chance the camera. I haven't decided how low I will go, yet.

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci

 

[staci]

I refered to you as a 'he' in another message on this thread, but I
guess you're really a 'she', based on the spelling of Staci??

that is correct, c'est moi:

Being up there in Alaska really gets you a lot of aurorae activity
I guess!

and plenty of darkness to see them!

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci

 

[RATPhoto]

I refered to you as a 'he' in another message on this thread, but I
guess you're really a 'she', based on the spelling of Staci??

that is correct, c'est moi:

Being up there in Alaska really gets you a lot of aurorae activity
I guess!

and plenty of darkness to see them!

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci

Oye! I get frostbite just looking at that picture 8).
--
For a small gallery of 300d pictures, see:
http://ratphoto.home.comcast.net/
They were taken with the EF-S 18-55 kit lens as well as a 70-200 F4L.

 

[DRG]

I just turned the ring all the way. I couldn't really see anything
in the viewfinder. The blurriness could also have been caused by me
jumping up and down to keep warm too close to the tripod.

Many lenses, including Canon's lenses, focus "past" infinity when the ring is turned all the way. It's to ensure that focus at infinity remains possible even with dimensional changes in the lens due to temperature variation. This is probably why the image is slightly OOF.

David

 

[staci]

Many lenses, including Canon's lenses, focus "past" infinity when
the ring is turned all the way. It's to ensure that focus at
infinity remains possible even with dimensional changes in the lens
due to temperature variation. This is probably why the image is
slightly OOF.

Thanks, I will try to experiment during the day to try to find the right spot. This time of year our temperatures are the same "day" to "night".

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci

 

[staci]

Oye! I get frostbite just looking at that picture 8).

Took that with my trusty 505V. I certainly won't be using the dreb at that temperature with its mirror and shutter. Maybe through the window. I don't know how it will be with outdoor sports with my breath causing condensation and ice on the viewfinder. I'll miss live preview. I didn't have any problems with the aurora because it was on the tripod, and too dark to see anything anyway.

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci

 

[Max Leung]

Only using an aperture of F4 makes the image quite soft (and the
trees blurry!). Try stopping down to F8 or more, maybe increase the
ISO to 400 as well. You may need to use a longer exposure though.

Would have tried it had they not died down.

Yeah...finicky things aren't they! Taking pictures of cats is easier!

Hopefully that will bring the trees more into focus, or perhaps you
can try manual focus on the trees, and rely on the deeper DOF to
keep the whole seen in focus. Hmm I guess that's a long way of
saying "focus at the hyperfocal distance point".

I just turned the ring all the way. I couldn't really see anything
in the viewfinder. The blurriness could also have been caused by me
jumping up and down to keep warm too close to the tripod.

LOL...it's nice and sunny here in Calgary now. It's springtime again!

--
http://www.pbase.com/staci