Forums › Forums › Farktography General Chat › This week’s contest › 04-18-12 – Sun in Frame
- This topic has 94 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by orionid.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 28, 2012 at 1:13 pm #2646ElsinoreKeymaster
Photos that include the fully or partially visible sun. Difficulty: Reflections and sunbeams are not enough. While the sun can be partially obscured (as by clouds or trees or a subjects head) it has to be visible.
Theme suggestion kudos to to U-Man–thanks!
April 5, 2012 at 3:18 pm #45983ravnosticParticipantOh, hai! I just noticed this had been scheduled. Glad I bought that solar filter for the telescope! (though in truth, unless we get some kick-arse sunspots started stat, the images are rather dull).
April 5, 2012 at 4:56 pm #45984orionidParticipantOh, hai! I just noticed this had been scheduled. Glad I bought that solar filter for the telescope! (though in truth, unless we get some kick-arse sunspots started stat, the images are rather dull).
Damnit Jim. I was hoping I was the only one with that thought.
Wish I’d have had that thought three weeks ago when the mega spot that was visible through welding glasses and all the prominences were out.
April 5, 2012 at 11:43 pm #45985ravnosticParticipantSolar prominences, I’m told, are difficult–the sun has to be blown way out to get them; modifying that and a good clear sun frame in post seems the way to go (at least with my filter), which isn’t allowed of course. Thus far it’s been moot; even when 1450, I think it was, just came round the rim, it had already lost it’s energy.)
But we’ll try, try again.
April 12, 2012 at 8:29 pm #45986hunchesParticipantI’m a little concerned about this contest.. I have a Canon PowerShot S5 IS and right at the beginning of the manual it says “Do not point the camera directly at the sun or bright light sources. Doing so could damage the camera’s CCD or your eyesight.” Is this just a cover-your-ass liability statement or am I really at risk of hurting the camera (eyes? who needs eyes anyway? :p)?
From what I’ve read so far, SLRs are relatively safe because of the internal mechanics as long as the shutter speed is kept short, but I haven’t been able to find out if my camera is a “true” SLR.
Any advice is appreciated.
April 12, 2012 at 11:56 pm #45987ravnosticParticipantI think it probably depends on the situation, hunches. Everyone takes pictures of sunrises and sunsets, and I’m sure to no (or extremely little) ill effect, at wider focal lengths. On the other hand, zooming into 300mm and shooting the sun makes that ball of plasma a lot bigger and then focuses all that light onto the sensor–I’ve done it with my DLSR to no ill effect at setting like f/32 1/4000sec @ ISO 100–but I wouldn’t make a habit of it often!
But this technical question might be better answered by our more technical mods, who have zen master skills and knowledge compared to me.
April 13, 2012 at 12:14 am #45988KestranaParticipantIf you’re concerned about shooting into the sun, you can always use a filter of some sort to give your camera some protection. It can be a piece of colored glass or plastic, pantyhose or other translucent material or an actual polarizer or sun filter. Of course your results will be “abstract” of a sort depending on your filter but that’s my 2 cents.
April 13, 2012 at 12:15 am #45989KestranaParticipantIf you’re concerned about shooting into the sun, you can always use a filter of some sort to give your camera some protection. It can be a piece of colored glass or plastic, pantyhose or other translucent material or an actual polarizer or sun filter. Of course your results will be “abstract” of a sort depending on your filter but that’s my 2 cents.
April 13, 2012 at 12:40 am #45990orionidParticipantHere’s the general rule:
50mm is more or less WYSIWYG for 35mm. Smaller sensors like a p&s will be a shorter focal length. Most APS-C is 35mm native. If the sun is the center of your subject, and you’re using some sort of metering mode, you’ll be fine at your natural length or less. If you’re shooting longer than the native length, you’ll want to stop down manually or use energy rejection (ie a neutral density filer). More than twice the focal length, and you have to use energy rejection.
Also, beyond just the sensor, you want to use energy rejection at anything over 100mm. At that level of magnification, you’re likely to have solar energies focused on the edge of an intermediate piece of glass which will end up melting the glue and ruining the lens at best and bursting your lens into flame at worst. It’s hard to give exact numerical data, but know that the more focal length you have, the more shade you want. a 16x (4-stop) NDF will be absolutely plenty for anything landscape or scenic. When you get into higher levels of energy rejection, the scale shifts from stop or times-factors to an exponential scale. Welding glass starts at shade 5 which is roughly equal to 16 stops and is not good for looking at the sun with bare eyes or anything above 100mm. If you want to go above 100mm, shade 10 is a minimum, and shade 14 is recommended. Likewise with your bare eyes.
Aluminized mylar (potato chip bag) actually makes a decent ERF if doubled over. Just check for pinholes before pointing your lens at the sun with it.
April 15, 2012 at 1:15 am #45982emiliogtzParticipantI was planning on doing one of those shots where the sun is huge in the frame, with a silhouette of a person in front of it. My longest focal length is 200mm and I know is not enough. Any suggestion on what should I be shooting with, 400, 500mm? Maybe I can borrow a tele converter from a friend, I believe it’s a 1.7x, but I don’t know if it will cover my need.
April 15, 2012 at 8:26 am #45991orionidParticipantI was planning on doing one of those shots where the sun is huge in the frame, with a silhouette of a person in front of it. My longest focal length is 200mm and I know is not enough. Any suggestion on what should I be shooting with, 400, 500mm? Maybe I can borrow a tele converter from a friend, I believe it’s a 1.7x, but I don’t know if it will cover my need.
How huge are you looking for? The deeper your focal length, the tighter your aperture needs to be to keep your depth of field so that the sun and your subject are both focused.
April 15, 2012 at 10:08 am #45992ravnosticParticipantI was planning on doing one of those shots where the sun is huge in the frame, with a silhouette of a person in front of it. My longest focal length is 200mm and I know is not enough. Any suggestion on what should I be shooting with, 400, 500mm? Maybe I can borrow a tele converter from a friend, I believe it’s a 1.7x, but I don’t know if it will cover my need.
How huge are you looking for? The deeper your focal length, the tighter your aperture needs to be to keep your depth of field so that the sun and your subject are both focused.
Amen.
To me, it’s an angle formula question. The sun will be 1/2 degree, 30 arc seconds (give or take a couple) regardless. Your subject, then, needs to be far enough away to fit in that frame of view (regardless of how many pixels you fill in your frame). So we can use sines and cosines and such to determine that a six foot tall subject, to fit within the ‘frame’ of the sun, needs to be about 700 feet away, at least (nevermind getting the subject and sun to line up). On a horseback? (12 feet tall) 1400 feet away.
If you try it, use a f/stop setting 2-3 times your minimum, and shoot aperture priority; you should get a fine silouette if you focus infinitively.
It’s ironic that with a fine telescope, objects even 1/2 mile away come out blurred against a setting sun; sometimes, bigger isn’t always better. I’ll probably use one, but it’s either the sun is focused, or the landscape is; but not both.
I look forward to seeing your efforts!
April 15, 2012 at 12:26 pm #45993ennuipoetParticipantI need a clarification on the Sun may be obscured difficulty. I have a shot where the rising Sun is above the horizon but directly behind a building, the light is breaking around the building making it clear the Sun is up and in frame but not all visible as the big round ball of exploding gas.
(Better give the image so a clearer judgement is made:
http://freeversephotography.com/fark/IMG_2218.jpg
Is this within the parameters of the theme?
Gray See Ass!
April 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm #45994ElsinoreKeymasterThe way I interpret the theme, that shot (while gorgeous) wouldn’t qualify as the sun isn’t visible. The theme description says it can be partially obscured, but must be visible.
However, I’ve been known to overinterpret, so hopefully U-Man can give a more definitive clarification on what he’d like to see allowed/disallowed.
April 15, 2012 at 3:57 pm #45995KestranaParticipantI’ll also bow to U-Man‘s discretion but I would agree with Elsinore that there’s not enough sun visible in that shot for this theme.
/ennuipoet rushes to the Themes forum to suggest “Sun Behind Buildings”
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘04-18-12 – Sun in Frame’ is closed to new replies.