File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What do ya think? Shot this 1 hour ago. It was damed hard with the lighting.
Could I have done better without getting new equipment? I couldn't bring a tripod to that spot either, although if I HAD to I suppose I could, but it'd be a bitch.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S5200Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:10:25 18:35:25Exposure Time1/400 secF-Numberf/7.1Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/7.2Brightness7.6 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length63.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height1536RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> nokin !ozOtJW9BFA
I wish the moon was that big where I lived.
its the size of a button here.
>> Anonymous
>>85856
it helps that it's just above the horizon. Now that it's higher it doesn't look nearly as big.
But it's supposed to be huge tonight.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
another from today
I may post more later as I finish sorting through the crap

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S5200Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:10:25 18:59:35Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Brightness7.8 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length63.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1141Image Height855RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>85853
OH HAI
>> Anonymous
>>85888
how well would that stand up in the center of a muddy lake bed?
>> Anonymous
A tripod wouldn't have done much. You were shooting at 1/400sec which would eliminate all but the most michael j foxiest camera shake. Your camera is just too shitty to capture fine detail.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>85895
well it doesn't help that I was at full 10X zoom and it was twilight out. If it isn't obvious, I shopped the pic to look brighter. Here's the original. This is the brightest I could take while still being able to see the moon.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S5200Camera SoftwareDigital Camera FinePix S5200 Ver1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:10:25 17:27:15Exposure Time1/400 secF-Numberf/7.1Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/7.2Brightness7.6 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length63.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height1536RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownSharpnessNormalWhite BalanceAutoChroma SaturationNormalFlash ModeOffMacro ModeOffFocus ModeAutoSlow Synchro ModeOffPicture ModeManual ExposureContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffBlur StatusOKFocus StatusOKAuto Exposure StatusOK
>> Anonymous
actually I have a question...would changing the ISO have helped? I figure if it was higher it would be grainier, but at least it would be brighter.
Or would lowering it help? I thought 200 was low but there's a severe lack of detail, as a result maybe?
I'm still learning how ISO works.
>> Anonymous
>>85899
10x zoom is what? 300mm equivalent focal length? You still have plenty of shutter speed there and you could have opened up your aperture. Absence of tripod is no excuse for anything with this shot.
>> Anonymous
>>85856
>>85858
1. Where does OP live?
2. There's a point in the year where the moon is lowest in the sky, and therefore best to be shot (usually). In the northwestern quadrant of the globe, it was quite a few months back. I don't know what time it hits the others.

>>85895
I'm almost certain it's a noise reduction thing raping it. I've seen good results from Fuji cameras.
The crappiness looks like the wake of noise reduction, and the other shot (taken at ISO 100) looks much better.

Diffraction also might play a role. If I understand things correctly (and I could be completely wrong on this; optical theory is my weak suit when it comes to technical issues in photography), the smaller the sensing area, the larger the aperture diffraction begins to take a toll at, though this is fortunately balanced out by smaller sensors having more depth of field. I've heard most point-and-shoots actually perform best wide open, though the one I own (A Panasonic FZ-8) is sharpest two stops down. This all could be a flaw with the testing: most point and shoots don't shoot raw, and a larger aperture means less noise and hence less noise reduction.

OP, why did you shoot at ISO 200, 1/400th? Why not ISO 100, 1/200th? 1/200th is still an awfully fast shutter speed.

Regardless of technical issues, the first one is still a great shot, one of the best landscapes I've seen on /p/. The color's wonderful and it all seems to remind me somehow of all that contemplative old Japanese art. Resize it down to probably somewhere between 700-1000 pixels on its longest side, and it should display well on the web.

The second one is well-composed, but having everything in focus just doesn't work for it and it didn't turn out too well as a result.
>> Anonymous
>>85901
380mm is the maximum for this camera, according to dpreview.
>> Anonymous
>>85901
so if I opened the aperture and sped up the shutter, the moon would have come out alright?
I messed around and took many shots. Most were either over or underexposed. This was unfortunately the best I could do. Basically the problem was the brighter the picture, the more the moon couldn't be seen at all. The darker, the less detail in everything else in the picture.
I suppose there just wasn't a way with my equipment and I'm far too broke to buy anything.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>85904
I live in Massachusetts. I heard something on the weather that the moon is closest to the earth tonight more than any other night in the year, and it's 14% bigger than normal.
It's really that good? Thanks! Here's a resize.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S5200Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:10:25 20:34:10Exposure Time1/400 secF-Numberf/7.1Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/7.2Brightness7.6 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length63.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height600RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>85908
1. Lower your ISO. Small-sensor cameras are not happy with high ISOs, and you won't be happy with the results you get. In this case, it wasn't noise but the camera's noise reduction that killed it. Or some NR you did in post processing. Did you shoot RAW?

2. *Possibly* open up your aperture. Test out your camera and see where it is sharpest; balance that against the depth-of-field you want.
>> Anonymous
>>85908
Your equipment really was the limiting in achieving what you wanted. If you'd had a DSLR you could have shot in RAW which would have helped immensely in post-processing for adjusting the brightness of various parts of the image. You would also get significantly better sharpness. You could have also used a graduated neutral density filter to bring the exposure down only on the sky. But anyways, congratulations, you've managed to take a picture of something complex enough to actually benefit from having a better camera unlike 99% of the n00bs on here.
>> Anonymous
>>85909
I heard the same thing and saw similar results as this several months back on my local news in North Carolina. I guess it's one of those twice-a-year astronomical things.

I'll have to check out the moon if the clouds clear around here.

The resize looks good; try sharpening it. That might help some, or it might make it worse. Worth a try.
>> Anonymous
>>85911
It has a range between 64 and 1600, so I'll bring it down next time. Shooting in raw with this camera is an utter pain. The settings don't make it easy to do. I tried it once but I honestly didn't see the difference as being better.
I think I might have actually used a noise reduction mode though. I recall that it was a real bitch to keep still enough. I'd been hiking for a distance and I'm standing in mud.
>> Anonymous
>>85914
What channel were you watching? I haven't heard anything about it, but I mostly watch WRAL (I live in the Triangle).
>> Anonymous
>>86966
Heh, I live in the Triangle now, too, but when this was going on I lived in New Bern.

WCTI-TV was the station.