Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.
Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.
Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.
Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.
Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
by rathalian on Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:39 pm
Hi Guys,
The following is a shot taken @ 150% size (raw original) and have saved as jpg format.
Shot specs:
F/8
Shutter Speed: 1/400
ISO 400
focal length 200mm
no filter
shaky hands  (next comes the tripod)
spot focus
Taken with a 28-200mm Nikon G type lens (I'm thrilled with this lens so far !)
Post processing - sharpen pass/image rezise 150%.
As there is a 1.5x multiplier effect am I correct in saying the true focal length is 300mm ?
Feedback would be much appreciated 
Last edited by rathalian on Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
rathalian
- Newbie
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:19 am
- Location: Brisbane
-
by NetMagi on Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:47 pm
Great shot. I shot the moon for the first time last weekend at 300mm on a tripod and I think your shot came out better.
Here's mine:

-

NetMagi
- Member
-
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:45 am
- Location: Jim Thorpe, PA, US
-
by rathalian on Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:52 pm
Is that @ original size Netmagi ?
What 300mm lens ?
Looks like a tad more light might do the trick
I set the spot metering to 6mm and it locked in instantly.
-
rathalian
- Newbie
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:19 am
- Location: Brisbane
-
by NetMagi on Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:11 am
That is original size (full pixels)
The lens was Sigma 70-300 APO II
I didn't use the metering. I just guessed at the exposure and then fine-tuned after reviewing the first shot on the LCD.
I did lighten it a bit though, the LCD was deceiving and I could have gone another full stop. In the past I've been VERY happy with the sharpness of this Sigma for the $$$, but your shot looks much sharper.
-Rich
-

NetMagi
- Member
-
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:45 am
- Location: Jim Thorpe, PA, US
-
by Nnnnsic on Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:28 am
I think, NetMagi, that you've essentially gotten closer with yours, however it's a hell of a lot less sharp than rathalian's.
They're both quite good images, all in all.
-

Nnnnsic
- I'm a jazz singer... so I know what I'm doing
-
- Posts: 7770
- Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:29 am
- Location: Cubicle No. 42... somewhere in Bondi, NSW
-
by sirhc55 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:11 am
Great shots guys - I’ll leap in with mine as well, if you don’t mind

Chris -------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
-

sirhc55
- Key Member
-
- Posts: 12930
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10
by rathalian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:28 am
Ouch - now I want to be sick
What were the details of that shot ?
-
rathalian
- Newbie
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:19 am
- Location: Brisbane
-
by sirhc55 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:39 am
Chris -------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
-

sirhc55
- Key Member
-
- Posts: 12930
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10
by NetMagi on Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:23 am
rathalian wrote:Ouch - now I want to be sick  What were the details of that shot ?
yeah our shots pale in comparison 
-

NetMagi
- Member
-
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:45 am
- Location: Jim Thorpe, PA, US
-
by Nnnnsic on Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:50 am
I thought I'd post my quick effort tonight.
I only realised that I was at the wrong ISO setting when I'd brought the gear back inside... Doh!
Shot on the 80-400VR at 400mm, 1/3200, F5.6, ISO 400, handheld because the monopod didn't reach the ground!!!

-

Nnnnsic
- I'm a jazz singer... so I know what I'm doing
-
- Posts: 7770
- Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:29 am
- Location: Cubicle No. 42... somewhere in Bondi, NSW
-
by Eunosdriver on Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:25 am
Ooh - can I play ?
500mm mirror lens, 1/500" (after a few guesses, as no metering available), tripod, ISO 200
Pete
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those who understand binary, and those who don't
-

Eunosdriver
- Newbie
-
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:55 pm
- Location: St Albans, England
by BBJ on Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:18 am
Ok i will share mine as well taken ages ago when i forst got my 80-400 VR taken at 400mm handheld.

D3,D2x,D70,18-70 kit lens,Sigma 70-200mm F2.8EX HSM,Nikon AF-I 300m F2.8, TC20E 2X 80-400VR,SB800,Vosonic X Drive,VP6210 40 http://www.oz-images.com
-

BBJ
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 3651
- Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:49 pm
- Location: Mt Gambier South Australia-D70-D2X
-
by Killakoala on Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:49 am
Here ya go. Mine from last year when we had a nice bright full moon. It's my favourite moon photo that i have taken. D70 and 500mm F8 + Tamron 2x TC. F8 @ 1/30.

Steve. |D700| D2H | F5 | 70-200VR | 85 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 28-70 | 10.5 | 12-24 | SB800 |Website-> http://www.stevekilburn.comLeeds United for promotion in 2014 - Hurrah!!!
-

Killakoala
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 5398
- Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:31 pm
- Location: Southland NZ
-
by Nnnnsic on Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:29 am
Fark.
Okay, now who has the Sigma 300-800?!
-

Nnnnsic
- I'm a jazz singer... so I know what I'm doing
-
- Posts: 7770
- Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:29 am
- Location: Cubicle No. 42... somewhere in Bondi, NSW
-
by KerryPierce on Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:21 am
Nnnnsic wrote:Shot on the 80-400VR at 400mm, 1/3200, F5.6, ISO 400, handheld because the monopod didn't reach the ground!!!
That's a pretty good shot for hand held.  Sounds like you need to either get a longer monopod or stand in a hole. 
-

KerryPierce
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:20 pm
- Location: Detroit, MI
-
by sirhc55 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:48 pm
Amazing collection of moon shots - well done to everyone 
Chris -------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
-

sirhc55
- Key Member
-
- Posts: 12930
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10
by rathalian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:28 pm
Nice one guys - thanks for the replies !
I was talking to a mate last night who is into telescopes heavilly.
Given my interest in photographing the heavens as well as earlthy persuits I think my 28-200 will be ok for now and I'll look at investing the money that could go on an additional telephoto into a proper Meade or Celestron telescope as apparently the D70 is perfect for deep space photography
I noticed someone was using a teleconverter x2 adapter - are these things worth it ? I noticed on ebay they are going for about $400 for the lens I have ($which only cost $450..hmmm).
-
rathalian
- Newbie
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:19 am
- Location: Brisbane
-
by nigels on Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:21 pm
Hi guys,
My 2 cents worth, enlarged 500%, taken with 70-300 Sigma
regards
Nige
-

nigels
- The Joker
-
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:17 pm
- Location: Bathurst NSW D70 and Love it
by Killakoala on Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:35 pm
Just goes to show how good the SIGMA glass really is (paging Gary).
I would have sworn you were in a spacecraft 100 miles above the lunar surface to take that one

Steve. |D700| D2H | F5 | 70-200VR | 85 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 28-70 | 10.5 | 12-24 | SB800 |Website-> http://www.stevekilburn.comLeeds United for promotion in 2014 - Hurrah!!!
-

Killakoala
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 5398
- Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:31 pm
- Location: Southland NZ
-
by sirhc55 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:37 pm
Nigel (The Joker) you will blow Gary away with this shot - such brilliant acuity unless one closes their eyes 
Chris -------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
-

sirhc55
- Key Member
-
- Posts: 12930
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10
by Manta on Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:41 pm
I think that big crater in the middle was made by the impact of the last Sigma lens Gary had in his hands....
-

Manta
- Former Outstanding Member Of The Year
-
- Posts: 3815
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:49 pm
- Location: Hamilton Qld
-
by nigels on Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:58 pm
Hehehehe,
Gary, eat your heart out.
Nige
-

nigels
- The Joker
-
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:17 pm
- Location: Bathurst NSW D70 and Love it
by Oneputt on Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:24 pm
I may have posted this before, but..............

-

Oneputt
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 3174
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:58 pm
- Location: Stuck in traffic Maroochydore.
-
by rathalian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:11 pm
nigels wrote:Hi guys,
My 2 cents worth, enlarged 500%, taken with 70-300 Sigma
regards Nige
Nigels - what sigma lens is that one - the APO II ?
I was seriously considering that earlier
-
rathalian
- Newbie
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:19 am
- Location: Brisbane
-
by nigels on Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:17 pm
G'day,
Lens worth at least $20,000
Nige
-

nigels
- The Joker
-
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:17 pm
- Location: Bathurst NSW D70 and Love it
by leek on Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:19 pm
nigels wrote:My 2 cents worth, enlarged 500%, taken with 70-300 Sigma
Hi Nige... When you say enlarged 500% - How did you enlarge it?
That shot is b^**$y amazing, but then the sky up in Bathurst is probably a lot clearer than it is down here in the smoke...
-

leek
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:46 pm
- Location: Lane Cove, Sydney
-
by Nikkofan on Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:20 pm
Question for now (8:12 pm Sydney time) - Has anyone looked outside and seen the moon tonight? It is AMAZING! But this isn't my topic herein - I've just tried to literally "shoot the moon" , as they say, but with very little success. I've tried a number of different combos, starting with the F8 / ISO 400 / 400 shutter speed you used, Rathalian, but no good. I'm trying with a tripod, D70 of course, and Tamron 70 - 300 lens. I notice some of you guys are shooting with 70 - 300 Sigmas, but mine aren't getting your results. All shots look pretty good in small, but when I blow them up, they're blurry and lose detail.
How did you guys get those amazing shots??? I feel such an idiot asking you guys who just blithely post such brilliant shots but I can't seem to get the same shots. What am I doing wrong? Please can I enlist some HELP - before the moon disappears tonight, hopefully!
Thanks!
-
Nikkofan
- Member
-
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:50 am
- Location: Sydney's Beautiful South
by rathalian on Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:35 pm
This is an interesting site - lots of moon pics through digital with their associated settings - out tonight for more learning !
-
rathalian
- Newbie
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:19 am
- Location: Brisbane
-
by Nikkofan on Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:03 pm
rathalian wrote:This is an interesting site - lots of moon pics through digital with their associated settings - out tonight for more learning !
Sorry? Is there supposed to be a link here?
-
Nikkofan
- Member
-
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:50 am
- Location: Sydney's Beautiful South
by HappyFotographer on Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:19 pm
My turn.....
used the settings as listed in first post.....handheld with the tamron 70-300...set at 300 I believe.
Deb

"Sometimes when you are sad Poko, it's good to hug the monkey."
-

HappyFotographer
- Member
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:58 pm
- Location: Mnt Riverview Blue Mountains - Nikon D70
-
by Manta on Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:16 pm
Oneputt wrote:I may have posted this before, but..............
Ahaa..I wondered when the Oneputt signature shot would come out in this thread. The Bigma strikes again!
This is such a great shot John and well worth dragging out every now and then to remind us newbies why we're here picking people's brains.
For those who want to see a different view of Oneputt see <a href=http://www.d70users.net/viewtopic.php?p=59374#59374&sid=f2c8e454f4cb4d747b8310191224cfb6>this thread</a>
-

Manta
- Former Outstanding Member Of The Year
-
- Posts: 3815
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:49 pm
- Location: Hamilton Qld
-
by sirhc55 on Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:31 am
OnePutt - that is one awesome pic 
Chris -------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
-

sirhc55
- Key Member
-
- Posts: 12930
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10
by leek on Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:23 am
leek wrote:nigels wrote:My 2 cents worth, enlarged 500%, taken with 70-300 Sigma
Hi Nige... When you say enlarged 500% - How did you enlarge it? That shot is b^**$y amazing, but then the sky up in Bathurst is probably a lot clearer than it is down here in the smoke...
OK...OK... I just realised myself... I've been had... Nice one Nige...
-

leek
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:46 pm
- Location: Lane Cove, Sydney
-
by Justin on Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:06 pm
Here's my moon shot... Ithink I need a better lense and a photoshop course?

D3 | 18-200VR | 50:1.4 | 28:2.8 | 35-70 2.8 | 12-24 f4 picasaweb.google.com/JustinPhotoGallery "We don't know and we don't care"
-

Justin
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:32 pm
- Location: Newtown, Sydeny
-
by Ordinary K on Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:52 pm
ahhh... what the heck. Here's mine:
- base images were shot on film tho' (from memory, moon shot: Provia ISO100, 1/30s, f8 500mm catadioptric, tripod). Can't wait to drop that cat onto a dSLR (repeats mantra: mortgage first, mortgage first, mortgage first, ...)
rathalian wrote:Hi Guys, ... As there is a 1.5x multiplier effect am I correct in saying the true focal length is 300mm ?
ahhh, no.
('True') focal length of a 200mm lens is ... 200mm. Always. Focal length is an attribute of the lens, not the sensor.
Whack that lens onto:
 a compact digicam and it'll be a super-tele (~800mm equivalent in 35mm)
 a d70 and it's a long tele (~300mm 35mm equiv)
 a 35mm camera and it's a medium-long tele (~200mm - d'oh!)
 a medium-format camera and it's a short tele (~120mm? equivalent in 35mm)
 a large-format camera and it's a standard lens (~50mm? equivalent in 35mm)
Personal opinion: Comparing dSLR focal lengths to the 35mm equivalents is a sign that the dSLR business is still in its infancy. We won't be doing it in ten year's time.
cheers
K
-
Ordinary K
- Newbie
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:06 pm
- Location: South Hobart
-
by Manta on Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:07 pm
leek wrote:leek wrote:nigels wrote:My 2 cents worth, enlarged 500%, taken with 70-300 Sigma
Hi Nige... When you say enlarged 500% - How did you enlarge it? That shot is b^**$y amazing, but then the sky up in Bathurst is probably a lot clearer than it is down here in the smoke...
OK...OK... I just realised myself... I've been had... Nice one Nige...
This seems to be happening to you with increasing regularity John. Perhaps some mental USM needs to be applied?! 
-

Manta
- Former Outstanding Member Of The Year
-
- Posts: 3815
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:49 pm
- Location: Hamilton Qld
-
by christiand on Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:13 pm
hi everyone,
here is my noom shot:
Cheers
CD
-

christiand
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 1989
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 1:36 pm
- Location: Tuggeranong, ACT - Canberra
by sirhc55 on Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:21 pm
CD - everyone else is shooting the moon and you are shooting the noom 
Chris -------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
-

sirhc55
- Key Member
-
- Posts: 12930
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10
by leek on Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:33 pm
Just as a matter of interest:
On the drive home this evening, facing east, I experienced a very large (almost full) moon low in the sky... As is sometimes the case the moon looked about 3 times as big as it does when high in the sky...
I know that this is an optical illusion, but is it also artificially magnified such that a shot through a (e.g.) 300mm lens would appear equally larger than one shot of the moon when it is high in the sky???
Any definitive answers out there???
-

leek
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:46 pm
- Location: Lane Cove, Sydney
-
by mic on Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:44 pm
Leek, I know if the Moon is low over the Horizon, it gets magnified by the atmoshere due to the increased smog & crap down low. As it rises higher the sky the air is thinner & clearer so it doesn't magnify as much.
Thats even if it is inverted as well.
Mic 
-

mic
- Retired Egg Flipper
-
- Posts: 2167
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:33 pm
- Location: Glen Waverly VIC
by christiand on Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:45 pm
I have been told by a verified source that the moon illusion exists!
The illusion happens in the following way:
A moon coming up on the horizon, if seen amongst or amidst other objects such as trees, hills etc seems to be several times larger than the moon being high in the sky.
I remember driving up a hill, on the crest of that hill I saw a humongous moon! , naahhh apparently an illusion.
If the moon is high in the sky and no other objects known by size to humans are near it, the moon seems to be much smaller.
Cheers
CD
-

christiand
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 1989
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 1:36 pm
- Location: Tuggeranong, ACT - Canberra
by Gordon on Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:47 pm
leek wrote:Just as a matter of interest: I know that this is an optical illusion, but is it also artificially magnified such that a shot through a (e.g.) 300mm lens would appear equally larger than one shot of the moon when it is high in the sky???
Any definitive answers out there???
take the photos and you will see that it is actually smaller on the horizon, because its a distance equal to the radius of the Earth further away from you than when overhead.
The atmosphere can distort it when its low on the horizon (because you are looking through the equivalent of 40 atmospheres there!) but it doesnt increase the overall size. Mostly it squashes it flatter.
I have plenty of moon pics though the telescope, but none with the D70 yet (that I can think of offhand) ... maybe one of these days I'll get around to doing one, does 2440mm @ f/5.4 sound good?
Gordon
-

Gordon
- Member
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:04 pm
- Location: Loomberah/Siding Spring Observatory
-
by christiand on Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:53 pm
Hi Gordon,
"does 2440mm @ f/5.4 sound good?" , yes please.
Cheers
CD
-

christiand
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 1989
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 1:36 pm
- Location: Tuggeranong, ACT - Canberra
by bimborocks on Wed May 25, 2005 10:35 pm
dragging up an old post here but i took a pic of the moon tonight - first attempt.
pic was taken with 70-300mm nikon ED lens. ISO 200 and shutter 1/500
tripod consisted of my car roof and a block of wood
cheers
James
-
bimborocks
- Member
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:43 pm
- Location: Newcastle, NSW
Return to Image Reviews and Critiques
|