I have seen video footage of northern lights so I assume it doesn't require
a very fast film. But northern lights are always moving - at least the
ones I have seen - so would seem to require a fast shutter speed. Maybe
even faster than for shooting the moon.
On another difficult shooting assignment, has anyone had really good
results shooting hot pools or geyser basins? I never seem to end up with
the vivid colors that were in the pools.
Gregg
Chris Barker wrote:
> I have managed to get a snatched shot of the Aurora, again in Canada, but
> from the ground using a OM1/50mm combination. Nothing impressive. I
> expect that to get the sort of photograph that we might show off proudly,
> we would need a fast lens and film and a tripod set up away from light
> "pollution".
My attempts have all been away from city lights, using print film (can't
remember exactly which, but I usually shoot either ASA 200 or 400),
with the tripod. Either the northern lights weren't distinguishable from
the rest of the sky, or they appeared as green "mud" and weren't purdy
at all.
To be more specific with my questions, should one use really long
exposures (like minutes, even?) or short ones? I'm assuming that no
filters on the lens is best, right? In other words, if someone on the list
has had success photographing northern lights, I'd sure like to hear
specifically how it was done.
> I'll see what happens with my new multispeed Fuji slide film... when
> it arrives. I'm going back to Stavanger on 23/24 Oct as well.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|