Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On 4/8/07, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> The effects of the atmosphere on contrast and edge contrast can be
>> largely overcome with post processing, making much more detail visible.
>> http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wilcox/Moon.htm
>>
>
> LOL! I'm glad you had some fun with that! It out-Mooses the Moose, I'd say.
>
It was fun. Rather easy, really, compared to many more subtle images.
> I appreciate what you share here as a product of your thought about
> photographing the moon and the inherent difficulties that poses. I
> never really thought about the moon being difficult to photograph in
> virtue of atmosphere, but of course that's got to be an issue. But
> maybe it's not as big a deal as it seems. Compared to a long-lens
> shot in the Smokies, for example, perhaps a shot of the moon actually
> cuts through less affective atmosphere?
>
Likely true in many circumstances, but like shooting across the Bay from
my hills, the problem is obvious to the eye, where it is usually not
with the moon.
> In any case, I'll hang on to the original if that's all right. :)
>
Hey, it's your image, I just borrowed it to have a little fun. :-)
>
> Yeah, I agree absolutely. I have always struggled with vibration
> control with long lenses on the OMs.
>
You just aren't using big enough ones. Put the Tokina 150-500/5.6 on a
sturdy tripod and it outweighs the camera so much that it isn't much
affected. :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|