I didn't disbelieve the sunset shot. The exposure is listed as 383
seconds (over 6 minutes) at ISO 100. To the eye it must have been dark
or nearly so. The photo is showing something we wouldn't normally see.
As to the starlit sky I believe the photo is a composite of two separate
exposures of sky and ground. The exposure is listed as "8/5 sec". I
have no idea what that's supposed to mean. But I believe that the
exposure of the milky way is probably long enough that there would be
visible star trails (even at 10mm) unless the camera was guided during
exposure. If so, the ground would be blurred. Ergo, two separate
exposures combined in PS.
Chuck Norcutt
Chris Barker wrote:
> There are some lovely photos there, some of which are quite
> inspiring. But there are one or two which are incredible -- I don't
> believe them.
>
> One is the starlit sky, apparently over Monument Valley. The sunset
> early on is also difficult to credit.
>
> But the 2 that I've seen of the Northern Lights are great (although
> the stars look a little large in one).
>
> Again back to Goose Bay in Canada, low flying at night in a Tornado,
> I have seen the most gorgeous shows of Aurora Borealis from the
> cockpit.
>
> Chris
>
> On 10 Jan 2010, at 11:45, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/ChallengeSlideshow.aspx?ID=2398&View=Results
>>
>>
>> But don't get too carried away. There are over 500 photos in this
>> show. I wasn't keeping track of the gear but I did notice an E-520,
>> E-3 and E-1 in the gear used.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|