A friend gave me a heads up that the full-moon was going to be arriving and that it might be a good way to practice night photography and the use of negative space in my frame. The moon, the stars, and the aurora were all on my hit list and the moon was the last to be tried so I jumped on it. However, I caught it a bit too late in the night. You can see how little of the frame the moon takes up at 9pm--even at 300mm which is extremely zoomed in. Catching it just after it rises of course is best because it is largest ... which of course isn't possible in complete darkness yet because we still have too much daylight in October. But, I did learn a few other things that I can use next time:
1) at such a long focal length the remote shutter release (which I did find Nikon brand for only $27 locally) is essential. Even at fast shutter speeds, you do not want your hand anywhere near the camera and this is mostly because
2) you need a very sturdy tripod with a long focal length, which I do not have, especially when the moon is high like it is here (say maybe 60 degrees above the horizon). I was holding my tripod to keep it from tipping onto myself. I ran into the same problem with the aurora (even though then I was using a much lighter lens and a longer exposure). And not only does the tripod need to be sturdy to prevent camera shake but it needs to have a decent ball head for extreme upward rotation if you want to catch things high in the sky.
Auora vs Moon. Although (generally) for the aurora you use a long exposure and the shortest focal length money can buy (wide angle if you can) and for the moon you use short exposure and the longest focal length you can get your hands on, the remote shutter release is ideal for both. And I'm glad I decided on the one that plugs into the camera instead of the true remote so I am able to stay behind the camera at all times (plus not have to deal with two batteries). Another difference between the two types of night photography is that the aurora requires manual focus completely. It is not possible to focus on the aurora automatically or manually. You really need a bright light on some trees in the foreground for a focal point or to focus on infinity. The moon is bright enough however that you can auto focus on it and then switch the lens to manual mode to lock it into place while you work on the correct exposure. Like any frame with a lot of black, to capture the detail on the moon, the photo must be underexposed and in this case more stops than I could keep track off. I am curious to see if I catch the moon on the horizon if I can get away with only a couple of stops of underexposure. The aurora on the other hand may be overexposed or longer exposed because this can capture more detail and movement.
I really needed this challenge to get me excited again. If w
e have clear skies again tomorrow, I'm going to get the kids in bed as early as I can and try to catch the moon earlier.
e have clear skies again tomorrow, I'm going to get the kids in bed as early as I can and try to catch the moon earlier.We are far from studying negative space. Actually, we've been talking about abstraction, perspectives, angles, and patterns. I took most of my photos for this assignment at an appliance junk yard. But, I would've liked to do something like this. I have a feeling this landscape was pieced together. But, if it wasn't it sure has all of the elements we've been talking about. The shape of the dandelions in the foreground mimic the shape of the full-moon and the clouds create many more repeating bubble around the moon. The bright colors of the grass at night make it abstract even though the perspective from ground level and the anchor or the mountains gives it a realistic feel. My favorite perspectives are those that have a real element to them. A kid looking down at the art he just made. A photo of the sky the includes a bit of the foreground or at least clouds. A photo that makes you feel like you're there. I don't really identify much with photos that don't provide a sense of scale or have some realistic element to them. I guess I don't see the purpose of the effort necessary to create the art unless the brain can eventually relate the image to something it know. Because of the digital editing software available you see a lot of photos that are over-saturated to create either an unrealistic effect or a photo that looks better than real life. I am not a fan of this. I think you can catch good enough light with a camera and over-editing is cheating. I'll end at that. If you were reading, hopefully you stopped before this last paragraph :) It is part of my latest journal assignment on angles and preferences.
