Would it not result in a more detailed, less 'diffuse' image of the aurora if the exposure was kept as short as possible, i.e. with the largest f-stop possible? At 245 seconds, (that is over 4 minutes!), I have seen auroral curtains move half way across the sky (actually, right off the frame when using a 15mm), and have had to resort to the 16mm fisheye on the LX, and the Arsat 30mm fisheye on the 645, all of them wide open. Being shot at infinity, using wide angles, this should take care of the foreground being in focus as well, even wide open, no? As for the moon, do you have a trick? I'd like to increase the number of nights I can shoot, but I find that the moon washes out the sky in no time at all, and have resorted to simply not shoot between half moons. When you mention pushing with E100VS, do you exceed 1 stop ? And do you have any views on Elitechrome 200 ? As for the film flatness, I fear that cold temperatures will simply exacerbate the problems. One would need to keep the camera back warm without affecting the optics, assuming it makes a noticeable difference. Michel -----Original Message----- Subject: Aurora Borealis shooting (WAS: Re: LX OTF metering, useful to you?) > > Do you find it a problem that the city lights will shorten the > > exposure too much when trying to get the Aurora on film? Pål wrote: > I avoid city lights when shooting auroras. I prefer no signs of the "hand of man" in > my pictures. I do, howewer, usually include parts of the landscape in my aurora > images; I treat it as landscape photography. I don't go for those grainy and fuzzy > aurora pictures usually published but aim for landscape images that can take enlargement. > > When not using the OTF metering, do you have a preferred routine > > for exposing, i.e. 5, 10, 15, 30 sec, f/1.4 sort of thing ? > I determine exposure by using the LX then dial in that exposure on my 645n. I use > exposure compensation on the LX; usually minus 2/3 stop because I don't want it to > look light daylight; you need the night feel. I does depend though on how powerful > the Aurora is. If its very bright I might not compensate at all because the meter > treat it like any backlit subject and will give the desired "underexposure". The degree > of compensation depends of course on the reciprocity characteristics of the film. > I use the lens at F:4 because wider apertures don't give desired sharpness. The 645n > is a totall hit and miss (mostly miss) affair because of film flatness problems that > seems unsolveable (more of that in another post). > > > And which emulsion(s) do you find gives better results? > Kodak E100VS by a far margin. Give the most realistic colors due to its blue bias. > The Aurora is very green (usually) but our brains compensate for it. By using a more > neutral film the result is far greener than our brain experience the phenomena. The > Ektachrome E-emulsion also have excellent reciprocity chracteristics also the way it > renders blue yields punchy images. It also reacts well to pushing. At 100 ISO and F:4 > shutter speed varies typically from 90s (full moon) to 245s. > Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
