In my case at the Va/NC border, I was in a very rural area. Closest "city" to the north was probably 30-40 miles away.
The two images I posted one was 1/2 second, ISO 3200, f/2 and one at 4 seconds, ISO 1000, f/1.2
Once my eyes adjusted you could see very faint colors and the "waves/bands" of color. Very faint and nothing like captured.
coralnut wrote:
Where are you in OH that the aurora is visible? I went to the southern tip of Lake Michigan, looking straight up into skies that were unlit by the full length of the lake stretching North ... nothing. I'm thinking that in OH you can't be any farther north than I was. Unfortunately the globe maps I've looked at show that my area is a no-go, far below the line of visibility.
A question for those who posted the wonderful images on the preceding page -- Are you capturing images that aren't visible to the naked eye by using long exposures? Or you can you see what you're photographing?...Show more →
Thanks. Looking straight north from the bottom of Lake Michigan, I've got 200-300 of miles of open water, and the only cities are along the shores of it's 100 mile width. I was hoping this would give me a decent view but the light pollution must be worse than I had thought -- I'm not seeing anything by eye.
From my understanding, Friday night was "the" night. Last night was a bust. Better chance for tonight up your way. Not much hope for that event again this far south.
coralnut wrote:
Thanks. Looking straight north from the bottom of Lake Michigan, I've got 200-300 of miles of open water, and the only cities are along the shores of it's 100 mile width. I was hoping this would give me a decent view but the light pollution must be worse than I had thought -- I'm not seeing anything by eye.
Online said the Aurora Borealis would be visible last night so I picked the nearest dark sky I could find with a good foreground and north view. For an hour and 15 minutes I kept telling Barb I was seeing very faint greenish/yellow and magenta/red haze, but she reminded me my eyes aren't very good. The camera was no help at all, because it was imposing its "standard or natural" color profile, and thus it was stripping the faint color I thought I could see. While imaging, nothing I did seemed to make any evidence of the northern lights appear - until I used Photoshop's Curve dialog to make a global color correction (gray eye dropper clicked on a neutral part of the sky). Bam - that is what I thought I could faintly make out last night with flawed eyeballs. I don't know about the others, but the straight up one looks like what I was expecting.
D850 with the Zoom Nikkor 25-50mm f4 ais
Due north
Global adjustment - notice stars piercing the red
Straight up
Northwest
Global adjustment
A couple color IR with the 5DmkII and Nikkor 24mm f2.8 ais
The highlight of the night was a 2-3 year old wading with her father, and chasing minnows using flashlights and nets. As they approached us the little girl was telling her father "I am feeling very fragile right now." Which made me chuckle out loud ?(her father was amused as well). Then she told me about catching two little fish-eeees. So it wasn't a total loss.
Haven't posted here in quite a while as I haven't shot with my old Nikon lenses for a few years. Several of these were cross posted in the Fuji forum. After using my old Nikon 100mm 2.8 series E, I'm reminded what a wonderful, small, light, sharp lens this is.(not to mention inexpensive). Does anyone ever use this lens anymore? Also, one photo with the 24mm 2.8 ais.
While coming back to this forum and looking over recent pages, I'm saddened to read about the passing of Reagan. For years I've enjoyed his photos and his humor. My condolences to his family.
Virtually nothing visible to me eye either, a couple bands that looked like faint clouds, but the camera caught it. Probably will see if anything pops up tonight but looks too tame. As I understood Friday it was a 9 & 5 on the scale on George’s map.
James Markus wrote:
The highlight of the night was a 2-3 year old wading with her father, and chasing minnows using flashlights and nets. As they approached us the little girl was telling her father "I am feeling very fragile right now." Which made me chuckle out loud ?(her father was amused as well). Then she told me about catching two little fish-eeees. So it wasn't a total loss.
Glad you made it over here. I used to have the Series E 100/2.8. Everything about mine was perfect, except for the focus ring. Locked solid. I think the previous owner cross threaded the helical. I would have needed power tools to unlock it. I sold it for parts. Was a very nice lens at the one distance it worked at.
Coltrane wrote:
Haven't posted here in quite a while as I haven't shot with my old Nikon lenses for a few years. Several of these were cross posted in the Fuji forum. After using my old Nikon 100mm 2.8 series E, I'm reminded what a wonderful, small, light, sharp lens this is.(not to mention inexpensive). Does anyone ever use this lens anymore? Also, one photo with the 24mm 2.8 ais.
While coming back to this forum and looking over recent pages, I'm saddened to read about the passing of Reagan. For years I've enjoyed his photos and his humor. My condolences to his family....Show more →
kwoodard wrote:
Glad you made it over here. I used to have the Series E 100/2.8. Everything about mine was perfect, except for the focus ring. Locked solid. I think the previous owner cross threaded the helical. I would have needed power tools to unlock it. I sold it for parts. Was a very nice lens at the one distance it worked at.
Thanks for the comment in the Fuji forum. It's good to be back here. I actually have 2 copies of the 100mm 2.8 E, and my other copy has the same issue, the focus ring is frozen. Must have been a recurring issue with that lens.
SiMuMe wrote:
Not sure what you are using to export the picture. Perhaps, there's an option to include Exif. Based on the example you have shared though, it appears there is no Exif data in the image.
Two different Exif viewers show nothing or failure to read it.
There is a checked box in Save to web in the Photoshop module that was not checked, I checked it and now the picture passes that stage of the acceptance test..........unfortunately the picture was taken in 2016 so it doesn't qualify .............bummer
There is a checked box in Save to web in the Photoshop module that was not checked, I checked it and now the picture passes that stage of the acceptance test..........unfortunately the picture was taken in 2016 so it doesn't qualify .............bummer
AdaptedLenses wrote:
It’s a setting when exporting to include EXIF. Couple ways you can export though so exactly where is hard to say.
There is a checked box in Save to web in the Photoshop module that was not checked, I checked it and now the picture passes that stage of the acceptance test..........unfortunately the picture was taken in 2016 so it doesn't qualify .............bummer
---------------------------------------------
James Markus wrote:
Neil, Good photo. To your question. Adobe use to never strip metadata from photos. I think the export modules in PS & LR added a tic box to strip exif and iptc - when your in the module open the options for each catagory and see if it is ticked. Flickr does it by default as a host, but I assume you want to use your FM upload account. So bypass the Photoshop export module altogether and do a "Save As". I know the assignments are very fussy about image size. Off by one pixel and it will reject the photo. Open your image then image > image size > 96 dpi, 800 pixels on longest axis > Save As and Bob's your uncle. Now check the image size. Photoshop sometimes has rounding errors. If the longest axis is 799 resize it again from the 799 pixel version to 800.
Thanks guys
There is a checked box in Save to web in the Photoshop module that was not checked, I checked it and now the picture passes that stage of the acceptance test..........unfortunately the picture was taken in 2016 so it doesn't qualify .............bummer
The aurora were clearly visible with the naked eye here (no light pollution in my first location, the one with the jetty)
Just after dark, around 6.30pm before clouds came but they continued all night albeit not so vivid.
I was shooting Iso800, f3.5, 8 - 10 second exposures. I'm in NZ though.
coralnut wrote:
A question for those who posted the wonderful images on the preceding page -- Are you capturing images that aren't visible to the naked eye by using long exposures? Or you can you see what you're photographing?
Coltrane wrote:
Haven't posted here in quite a while as I haven't shot with my old Nikon lenses for a few years. Several of these were cross posted in the Fuji forum. After using my old Nikon 100mm 2.8 series E, I'm reminded what a wonderful, small, light, sharp lens this is.(not to mention inexpensive). Does anyone ever use this lens anymore? Also, one photo with the 24mm 2.8 ais.
While coming back to this forum and looking over recent pages, I'm saddened to read about the passing of Reagan. For years I've enjoyed his photos and his humor. My condolences to his family....Show more →
I took the 24/2.8 NC out for a spin on the D610 IR.
The mushy corner performance of the lens on the FX sensor reminds me why the 24mm sits at the back of the cupboard. Best reserved for DX.
DeltaSigma wrote:
I took the 24/2.8 NC out for a spin on the D610 IR.
The mushy corner performance of the lens on the FX sensor reminds me why the 24mm sits at the back of the cupboard. Best reserved for DX.
leighton w wrote:
The tones you achieved are incredible.
Thanks Leighton. I do process my IRs to be contrasty. I usually chose whichever of LR's B&W presets gives the best contrast.
Today, my first day of not working, sees me with the high pressure washer blasting the patio. Messy job.
It gets an annual clean but now I can do such things at a more leisurely pace rather than trying to cram it all in over the weekend.
Dayton, though a friend of mine went out to the rural areas near Covington to get shots. I work "oddball hours" where I go in at 4am (two hours early) most days. I'm asleep before sunset.
coralnut wrote:
Where are you in OH that the aurora is visible? I went to the southern tip of Lake Michigan, looking straight up into skies that were unlit by the full length of the lake stretching North ... nothing. I'm thinking that in OH you can't be any farther north than I was. Unfortunately the globe maps I've looked at show that my area is a no-go, far below the line of visibility.
A question for those who posted the wonderful images on the preceding page -- Are you capturing images that aren't visible to the naked eye by using long exposures? Or you can you see what you're photographing?...Show more →
