Thank you. Getting decent moon shots does require manual manipulation of camera settings, as if you let it auto-level the brightness it will always end up blown out.
P.S. I may also have imbibed some intoxicating molecules within a relatively small portion of the recent terrestrial day-cycle, so please excuse me BEATING YOU OVER THA HED WIV A CONDOMINIUM AND DEMANDING ANSWERS, DAMMITT!!! HIC!!!!!!! +;O]
Of course, fast "film" (i.e. "ISO setting") to go with the fast shutter speed. I hail from the era when anything over ISO 100 film would cost you extra... =:o\ (I usually bought 200, as an almost-adequate compromise for indoor and outdoor shooting.) And presumably the telephoto lens gathers a decent amount more light per radian than the cheaper basic lenses I had.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
How exactly was that taken?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
*MIND IS BLOWN*
[HYPERVETILATES]
[POSSIBLY OVER-DRAMATISES JUST A WEE TAD]
OK, maybe your idea of "fast" is different than mine? Or maybe I'm just a clueless photography noob (of 38 years standing)...?
Gimme *numbers* (with accompanying relevant units), dammit!!! =:oO
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
ISO 500, f/5.0, shutter speed 1/4000, focal length 200mm.
From:
no subject
Of course, fast "film" (i.e. "ISO setting") to go with the fast shutter speed. I hail from the era when anything over ISO 100 film would cost you extra... =:o\ (I usually bought 200, as an almost-adequate compromise for indoor and outdoor shooting.) And presumably the telephoto lens gathers a decent amount more light per radian than the cheaper basic lenses I had.