Re: [OM] Aurora Borealis over Lake Superior

[Chuck Norcutt]

I issue my own accolades for a superb shot.  But I am curious about the 
choice of f/5.6 on the 24/2.8.  With the emphasis on short exposure 
times opening up another stop would have made a significant difference. 
The only things that need to be rendered sharp are the stars.  Was it 
your judgement knowing that lens that f/2.8 or f/4 would have introduced 
visible aberrations into the image?
Chuck Norcutt


On 10/9/2016 11:38 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 10/8/2016 9:04 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> > http://zone-10.com/d1/node/239
> >
> > Aurora Borealis over Lake Superior.
> Ah, glad you are sharing it more widely. I felt special to get the file,
> but frustrated viewing it on my little netbook+ and my ability to
> respond promptly and very much to the list is on again - off again as we
> travel.
>
> It does look excellent, as far as I can see on this screen, and I look
> forward to seeing it at home in three weeks.
>
> Coincidentally, I  received a few days ago from Ctein an Aurora Borealis
> shot taken in Yellowknife. Very different looking. I wouldn't choose one
> over the other. The higher latitude one does have greater apparent height.
>
> Your approaches to exposure were quite different:
>
> UP - Canon 6D, Olympus OM Zuiko 24/2.8. ISO 6400, 20 seconds, F5.6
>
> Yellowknife - Olympus OMD E-M5mII, 4 sec, f/1.4, ISO 800 with the Leica
> 12mm f/1.4 ASPH
>
> Roughly the same effective FL, but quite different in exposure choices.
> I imagine he had a brighter subject, and, of course, a faster lens that
> he had tested to perform well wide open, so could use both lower ISO and
> shorter exposure.
>
> Spectral Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/