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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
How exactly was that taken?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
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
no subject
no subject
ISO 500, f/5.0, shutter speed 1/4000, focal length 200mm.
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.