Post your eclipse pics here!

[finnbay]

Yeah, except you found room for an extra one!

[yakfisher]

It looks like we were out snapping at about the same time. I don't think it was quite as cold down in the urban heat dome. To tell you the truth though I have no idea what the temp was, I was all wrapped up in polyester and down with calm winds I hardly noticed the cold. I was too busy trying to figure out what I needed to be doing, at least I got lucky a few times.

[Pyrex]

Those pics are unreal!!! Everyone did a great job on them, I like the sequence pics, put it all into perspective, NICE WORK !!!

[Dbl]

Honestly I've looked at more than a few photography sites today at eclipse photos and I have not seen anything that was done as well as this collective group. Great work by all. It is nice to see everyones different sequence shots as well. We all shot the same subject just cool ways to show the event. Big hand to everyone!!!!

[yakfisher]

One more from I salvaged from the trash bin, I got the moon and the planets.

f8, .80 sec, ISO 800, EV -1, 78mm, tripod w/ remote

[finnbay]

Okay, this is about as far as I can take it!

Just a bit of overkill!

[Dbl]

I like it!

[mountaindew]

I was at the SouthCentral MN section and post this same picture there.. shiner2367 told me about this post about eclipse. I didn't know!

Here's mine..

Hope I'm not too late posting the picture!

Is it good? Let me know if I can improve it...

[Steve Foss]

Marc, I think that's just great. Best I've seen, IMO. The times really create a great effect. Nice work!

[mountaindew]

Thanks! I've just gotten into photography about 2 months ago. I just bought a Canon 40D camera with a 100-400mm 5.6 lens. I'm still learning. I have alot to learn!

Thanks.

[finnbay]

Very nicely done mountain dew! I like how you arranged the partials around the total.

[mmeyer]

You might be learning but it looks like you're a fast learner!! That is really a great collection. I like the times also.

[Dbl]

Marc I think it looks great, as others have said I really like how you added the times. Great job, spend some more time over here I guarantee you will pick up some great tips and ideas.

[yakfisher]

That's nice, I was planning to go through my pictures and do something like that too, I just haven't been able to sort through then all. You should be placing that on your wall somewhere.

[jwhjr]

Great pictures everyone, I especially like the sequence shots!

[dockothebay]

The pictures and compilations here have been spectacular - What a talented bunch of people - Thanks for sharing.

I learned a ton that night - mostly about what do to differently next time. I'm going to post 2 shots that I'd like some advice about -

In this first one I was happy to capture the planet and star - I think the shutter speed was too slow so it isn't very sharp. Canon 30D; Shutter speed 4.5 sec ISO 400 f/16 130 mm (Tameron 28-300mm lens)tripod & remote I set everything on manual and probably should have trusted the camera to do some of the thinking for me! I cropped this one quite a bit and then that blue star right in the middle showed up!

In this one I'm really disappointed in the gray color - I love the creamy lite color most of you captured - was the shutter speed was too slow, the f stop too high???? Maybe I can try to photoshop a more pleasing color. Same camera ISO 400; f/16; 1/500 sec; 300mm; spot metering

So anyway - thanks to all you regulars for the advise at the outset - these aren't great pictures - but they are MINE and I probably would never have tried if I hadn't been reading this forum - the California relatives were impressed, they're easy!

Maybe in 2010......

[Dbl]

Jackie,

First thanks for sharing your work. I think you've done well. The first shot is yes the result of motion blur due to the rotation of the earth. Shutter speeds really needed to be less than 1 second to reduce that. So you could have just raised your ISO and or lowered your f-stop. This would give you a higher shutter speed and reduce the motion blur.

The blue star you have that showed up is called a hot pixel. One of the issues with digital camera sensors. Most every digital camera has them, you just don't generally notice them until you start using long exposures....for instance at night. Nothing to get concerned about they are easy to clone out in most imaging programs. Canon can do a remap of your sensor but within time they will show up again.

The second shot is a bit underexposed. I believe when the moon was in that same phase I was shooting at at least one to one and half stops less than you were. This should be very easy to correct in your post processing as well. You are well within exposures that are fixable.

With a little experience in post processing you will see your results really improve. Of course you first have to have images from the camera that are very close and you do here. Thanks for posting, these are a great addition to the shots posted.

[finnbay]

Dan,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in addition correcting exposure with post processing (well within the limits of this photo)but I think a little warming would help as well. If shot as a jpeg, a color correction may do this. That would also help to get the color you are looking for.

[dockothebay]

Thank you both very much - I'll play with exposure and the color correction and see what happens -

[LEECH21]

Awesome pics fellas!

[mountaindew]

Thanks guys, for your replies! Sorry I haven't replied sooner. Was away from my computer, working outside the last 2 days.

AWSOME pictures! I went back and looked at the pictures on the lunar. WOW! Lots of talented people here! Great photos. I can't believe it..it's great! Dan, finnbay, an all you guys GREAT job!

Dan, I think you might be wrong about the hot pixel, on the blue star...I know what you mean by hot pixel, but it's not. But in this case I think it's planet Saturn! I read somewhere that it could be visable to the naked eye, and it was supposed be next to the moon around the time of the lunar.

Reason I think it's not a hot pixel..look at the picture post of yakfisher. I could see the 2 stars and it's in very similiar place as dockothebay's picture. Do you see them? And look at the Saturn..I'm pretty 99% that's Saturn. Can anyone else confirm it?

dockotthebay, I think you should have stayed in slower shutter speeds to capture the creamy color look. I'm still learning this.. so bear with me. I've tried all kinds of setting on my camera. I went and reviewed on my computer to see what looked best and compared the settings.

This is what I got for the first 4 of the moon that I posted the picture of the moon....

TV (Shutter speed) - 1/250 Second

AV (Aperture Value) F5.6

Exposure Compensation - +2/3

ISO Speed 100

An then the creamy look..I had to slow down the shutter speed because I couldn't have enough light coming in through my lens in that setting. So I lower the shutter speed to capture more light. I had to use the remote button for that, so no motion blur. Here are the settings I did for the last moon...

TV (Shutter speed) - 1 Second

AV (Aperture Value) F10

Exposure Compensation - 0

ISO Speed 320

Shoot all pictures in RAW!! More control in processing!

I've learned a great deal that night too. In fact it was my first time to shoot in the dark.

Marc

[dockothebay]

I've been working on a few changes and have been able to improve that early eclipse shot considerably with temperature and exposure changes, thanks for the advise!

I think that Saturn is on the lower left section of my picture and appears white - I was able to see it with my (cold) naked eye and it was pretty bright and white. The positioning is slightly different than that in Yakfisher's shot - maybe I'm farther south? I am on the east side of the cities. I am always amazed at the difference in the positioning of the sun/moon/stars when we travel from home to the cabin 3 1/2 hours north.

I haven't been shooting in RAW (yet) - one more change to make! Thanks again everyone for all the suggestions.

[Dbl]

mountaindew, it definitely is a hot pixel. Saturn was very visible to the naked eye and was located to the lower left. I've seen enough hot pixels, both my cameras have them. In fact you can see Saturn plainly as docothebay said in her shot, the blue pixel is directly to the left of the moon. Saturn was white in color as well. In Jackie's photo you can also see the movement of Saturn and the other star to the upper right. The blue pixel has no movement. I actually had to clone out 3 or 4 red and blue pixels from my shots, all hot pixels.

The creamy look you are referring to is actually caused by the earths rotation and slower shutter speeds. In order to capture a sharp photo you need to keep your shutter speed high. If you need more light you can raise your ISO and or open up your aperture. The shutter speed you need is related to how big of lens you used. On my lens anything less than 1/4 sec shutter speed caused blur. If you were shooting with a shorter lens you could get away with a slightly longer shutter speed.

All of my posted shots are from JPEG's. RAW is a great format to use and definitely has advantages. I shoot mainly JPEG because I shoot high volumes of shots and don't want to take the extra time of processing. When I have more time I use RAW. My camera actually will shot both JPEG and RAW at the same time to separate cards so I can shoot one card with RAW shots. I didn't even open my RAW eclipse shots. The bottom line is shoot what ever makes you happy.

[mountaindew]

Dan,

I looked at the pictures some more...the more I see it, the more I think you're right. To tell you the truth, I didn't know what hot pixel was till you explained. You're right.

I know I could have increased the ISO but I was worried that I'd get a grainy outcome. I decided to stick with lower ISO range between 100-400 ISO. I guess I should have taken a couple of shots in the higher ISO. The lens I used were Canon EF 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 IS USM lens...I should have incressed the ISO a tad more, to get more sharpness?

Yesterday I just got new lens I got from hsolist. I'm so excited to try it out. Man, is it sharp! It's Canon EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 lens. I wonder if using those lens would have helped because it allows more lights into those lens? But it'd be sharper image? But then again it wouldn't be as close as the 400mm?

I guess I'd have to wait till 2010 to try it again....

I DO have alot to learn. Photography always has been my passion. I just hope my wife doesn't toss me out of the house after buying those lens! Now that I found this site...it's great! Full of photographers who will give me advice and tips, I've got alot of pictures to show you!

[Dbl]

mountaindew, which by the way is the "nectar of the gods" my favorite beverage! Your camera will produce very nice results at 3200ISO I shoot all winter long indoors at 1600 ISO and 3200 ISO and I can tell you that with proper exposure you will produce very nice results. Especially if you use a bit of noise reduction software. Increasing the ISO as I mentioned above would give you a faster shutter speed which would have helped with the motion blur caused by the spinning earth.

You used the right lens for the shot, the 70-200 is a bit on the short side for moon shots, although there are some very nice results posted here with that lens. The 70-200/2.8 is a very good lens, one of Canons best zooms. Every Canon sports shooter I know has one in their camera bag. It also is a favorite with wedding and portrait photographers. You will not be disappointed in your results with this lens.