A picture with the Moon making the image interesting - can be just the Moon, or the Moon just being pretty with foreground objects or stars and planets, new or old, but OC.See finder image (next post) for exif.
>>4525386
This is the moon eclipse pic from 2024A6700 + tamron 18.300Can t remember the settings is a pic i ve sent via WhatsApp to ppl
>>4525424
>>4525394>Can t remember the settingsIf you're on a Windows box, use File Explorer, right-click the file, "Properties", then the "Details" tab.Also, a little editing revealed a lot in your picture (pic related is yours, I hope you don't mind my presumptuousness). Do you know which lunar eclipse this was? File name implies Sept. 7 2025, which would match reality, but I can't match the field stars.
>>4525477
>>4525478
>>4525477Cool! Egret?
>>4525447I need to get back home and get acces to hdd with pics. If i haven t deleted them
100 pics60 darks60 dark biased pics at ss 1/8000pipp+asfull moon on 28-29thtook like 750 pics and 200 dark biased but as far as i can tell even zoomed at 800% cant find any visible differencesharpening 150% texture +100% dehaze +100% in lrc because why not
>>4525531420-800 lens@800f16ss 1/500iso 800>took like 750 pics and 200 dark biased but as far as i can tell even zoomed at 800% cant find any visible difference*in the staked end picalso fuck 4chin for resetting the cookies or some bs i need again to solve 4 bs captchas even after multiple email verifications
>>4525447my bad, sept 2025 eclipsef8ss 0.4siso 1600sooc jpgattached exported at 75% iq in lrc so i can uploaded
>>4525534anotr one from same night after the eclipse when the moon started getting illuminated againf 7.11siso 320
Shot this an hour ago using a 400mm lens I bought from Cash Converters for a few bucks. 100 light frames + 40 dark, 20 flat, 20 flat dark.400mm, f22, ISO 100, 1/6 sec, Sony a7iii.
>>4525565My autism kicked in and I had to edit it. Sorry.
>>4525565>>4525620Pretty nice lens with good details My tamron 18 300 on aspc so 450 on ff does not show that much and sharp details. And ive paid 900$ new. Only for it to be on sale for 550$, less than 4 months laterHere is mine from previous thread. Maybe if i ll edit it a little bit will look nicer as it was just the processed pipp+as pic with no edits
>>4525638>>4520759
>>4525638I'm wondering if maybe you'd get a slight bump in quality by underexposing your shots. I'm not always the best judge of these things but it looks slightly washed out, a lot of details can be lost in lunar photography if there's too much exposure. The whole point of stacking after all is to gather more detail by boosting your signal to noise ratio when trying to capture low light objects, which won't happen if you've already blown the highlights.Either lower ISO and exposure time or step down the aperture, or both.
>>4525620No, I appreciate your autism (although I don't appreciate the rotation - I'm in Australia, so the photo was the right way up)Out of curiosity, what did you use for sharpening it?
>>4525652Oh shoot - my apologies in particular for rotating.I use GIMP for most editing - rotating, resizing, light balance, and sharpening (gaussian).Sharpened twice: using radii of 3, then again with 2.Then resized, because a lot of the image real estate is blur - neighboring pixels in blocks of nine have no discernible detail differences - so that cuts down on 'superfluous' size.I find many images in general nowadays are what I call oversized. It's a hallmark of truly pro photographers when you see an image at original size retain pixel-to-pixel detail relevance. Frankly, Almost all of my images are resized except planets, where (paraphrasing Monty Python) 'every [pixel] is precious.'
>>4525638>>4525649Here's my attempt at that, but there was less skeletal information to work with. I sharpened once with a radius of 2. At higher settings it began to have a 'newspaper photo' quality about it, and the blue fringing at left became distracting.The biggest enhancement came from adjusting the gamma.
>>4525659>>4525620Why is the moon crop on a ff @400mm bigger than 300mm on 1.5x crop?2000x2000 vs 1200x1200?Shouldn't my moon look bigger and have more pixels in diameter?I will maybe try again tonight and underexpose a little bit
>>4525661400mm here - I neglected to mention that I used a teleconverter. It's variable and can be set to 2x, 2.5x and 3x; I think I had it on 3 but genuinely can't remember.
>>4525661Anon's original was 10000x6676>>4525565
>>4525668Better answer:Anon's original frame was 10000x6676. The Moon's diameter was 3230 pixels, and I cropped and shrunk the frame so the Moon is now 1570 pixels.>>4525565Your Moon's diameter was and still is 720 pixels in a 1208 square frame.So lenses aside, this is a demo where megapixels have a consequence.Another issue would be lens/camera quality. Do more megapixels simply magnify the inherent flaws in a system?
>>4525672But how did he get 10kx6.6k pixels pic out of 6k x 4k pixels sensor?
>>4525673¯\_(ツ)_/¯We'll have to wait for him to answer that.Digital zoom would be one answer and explain why I felt okay shrinking it.
>>4525664Isn't using a tc softness and iq decline the more x you use? Must be some really sharp lens
tried again tonight-0.7 expbut like a retard forgot switch off ibisa6700+tamron 18-300@300iso 200ss 1/160f11300 pics60 darks60 dark flatsno editing, just the pipp cropmy mouse started double clicking so i can t use lrc
This is my best shot of the Moon, taken in June, 2019.Nikon D5200m ISO-100, 1/500th sec.Schmidt-Cassegrain with reducer/corrector to effective focal length 2,106 mm, f/7.Image reduced in half to 3000x2000.
>>4525674>>4525673>But how did he get 10kx6.6k pixels pic out of 6k x 4k pixels sensor?I was wondering the same thing and was a bit confused. I just had a look at my Autostakkert settings and apparently I've selected Resample 2.0x at some point in the past and totally forgot about it, and then didn't question why my resulting file was 12032x8032 and needed resizing to fit within 4chan's 10000x10000 limit. I can only assume I'm a drooling retard.
it's clearly been some time since I've been on /p/, what happened to embeded exif data?
>>4525841Depending on the editing software and the nature of how the images are stored and finally saved, exif can get wiped out pretty easily, and difficult to restore.
nice moon shots anons
>>4525841embedded exif data gets purged by 4chink software because some retards used it for doxxing back in the dayall you can do is add the important exif data (camera make/model, shutter/aperture/iso, focal lenght) as a caption to the image. see >>4525936
>>4525937Just tested - true story! There used to be an option to include exif, and now there isn't.
>>4525490Yeah, a Cattle Egret I believe. Took this photo in a botanical garden in Málaga.
>>4525848>>4525937are these fucking AI answers fuck off>>4525940a while back 4ch was hacked via a malicious pdf upload because the backend was using an ancient ghostscript version with a vulnerabilitywhen the site came back, basically any feature that relied on calling third-party software on the backend was disabled because the 4ch devs got spookedyou can export with a watermark with the info you want to show like >>4525936 but personally I export it in the filename because I hate watermarks
Fujifilm XM-5 500mm TT Artisans
>>4526003How is the lens?
>>4526002>a while backlol newfagthat was just the last attack that lead to "show exif data" on /p/ being removedthe images themselves got cleaned of any exif long before that you fucking niggerjew
>>4526052so shit he has to crop to 1300x1300 lol
>>4526063I was pretty sure when I was talking about, probably 2018, it would strip the geotags but kept all the pertinent exif data like lens, camera, and settings. Maybe it was longer ago than that, I am an ancient little faggot after all, but I didn't branch into /p/ until 2010s
>>4526122do you mean like the little [exif] button next to the image?that's what I was talking about here >>4526002that was a feature only on /p/the site did strip all the exif from the image files themselves, so technically this faggot >>4526063 is correct
Sorry, I know it's not very good.
>>4526249It's a benchmark for you to compare with your future efforts, and it reminds me of when I started.Believe it or not, practice will enable improvement.
>>4526211yes, exactly that
>>4526249maybe not but it's got sovland by sovl I mean grain but still it looks cool
>>4526253>>4526277Thanks for the kind words. Just to avoid any misunderstanding, it's fake grain from C1.
>>4526280>it's fake grain from C1.I don't know what that means.
>>4526284I mean, I added the grain effect in Capture One.
>>4526329Ah. Thanks.
partial lunar eclipse from last month
>>4526572Purty!
Moonrise today,Jupiter below, Leo to the left, Cancer upper-right and you can see M44 (the "Beehive" cluster).
>>4526714cool
moona by the sea
