I want to blow up the moon!

Denis R · Dec 3, 2009

and make it fit on 8x10
majority of prints are 5x7 or 3x5

moon is 1.8mm on film

camera N75 with 55-200 vr at 200
film Delta 400 35mm

enlarger Omega B-600
current lens is el-nikkor 50mm f4
wall mount optoion allows for 10 ft under the lens
I like it better than the beseler 35-67-67sc models

now here's the questions

1. which enlarger lens to use
I found the chart at http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/lenses.htm and sorted the info in excel to find possible lenses in 39mm mount, which has a range of 21 - 38 mm

2. since this will use a small part of the frame and lens, is it possible to get by without changing condenser

3. who will send me the lens? it's worth a try

also will need a 75mm later for 6x6

previous serches were irrelevant

tkamiya · Dec 3, 2009

If the moon is 1.8mm on film and you want it to fill a paper that is 8 inches wide, that means it will be magnified 113 times... It'll be similar to taking a typical portrait and blow up the eyeball to fill the page.

There will be no details to speak of when it's all said and done. Is it really worth your effort??

David William White · Dec 3, 2009

You should consider a longer lens -- maybe a cohort has a 300mm to borrow? Also strongly urge a slower, finer grained film to make this even remotely possible.

Lee L · Dec 3, 2009

If you enlarge a 1.8mm image of the moon that has a resolution of 100 lines/mm (read excellent lens, film and technique) to 178mm, or about 7 inches diameter to fit on an 8x10 print, your print resolution will be about 1 line/mm at the very best. Assuming a more reasonable level of performance, you're looking at about .33 to .5 lines per mm on the print, and you'll need to enlarge by a factor of about 100. Most enlarger lenses are designed to perform well at smaller magnification ratios than this.

Of course it's your call whether you want to spend time and money on this.

Lee

Jarvman · Dec 3, 2009

haha, the title of this thread cracked me up

bobwysiwyg · Dec 3, 2009

Didn't NASA recently try this?

David William White · Dec 3, 2009

I know NASA has taken some nice photographs of the moon, but if memory serves, they did it by moving the camera physically closer, but don't quote me on that.

removed-user-1 · Dec 3, 2009

The best way to achieve this with some detail is to use an equatorial-mount telescope for the initial exposure. 800-1000mm fl would be a start (any decent 2.4" refractor or 4-5" reflector), 2000mm would be better (most 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes are ~2000mm). See if there are any astronomy clubs in your area, maybe you can gain access to such a scope.

moouers · Dec 3, 2009

As others have said, you really ought to take the photo with a much longer lens (rent one if facilities or friends are near) and finer grained film.

Or, better yet, buy a cheap reflector telescope (cheap being totally relative and subjective, of course...$400 should get you very very fine quality - or at least it did for me back in 1998) and get a cheap adapter and get some really incredible photos for many years to come

keithwms · Dec 3, 2009

First of all shoot with ~1000 mm focal length.... whether by telescope with T mount or by doubling a good long prime with a TC or by digital means (I like to think of an APS digital as an electronic TC with no light loss). E.g. I recall shooting a 400/3.5 manual prime with a 2x TC and that gave me a reasonably frame filling shot and good level of detail. N.b. I suggest digital because the well-established way to achieve the best signal:noise is by stacking multiple frames. If you do it by film then you'll need to shoot and then scan and then stack... doable, but a bit laborious. Stacking will take the results to a whole new level.

richard ide · Dec 3, 2009

Another way with a telescope is to focus the eyepiece image but requires a rather elaborate setup. I have a 1200 mm Apo Tessar and photographing this way, the moon more than fills the frame.

Rick A · Dec 4, 2009

You are indeed better off using a long telephoto to photo the moon, whatever it takes to fill the frame on your 35mm. There are still some inexpensive 400mm T-mount lenses available for just over $100 new, then add a 2 power converter. This will get you close, but be aware, the setup is slow, as the converter also doubles the f-stop of the lens.
As for enlarger lenses, I have a Schneider Componon-S 80/f4 I was considering letting go of. PM me if you are interested.

Rick

Christopher Walrath · Dec 4, 2009

I used a 2x tele on a 400mm once with the Minolta. At 4x6, the moon was about one inch. Great detail. Don't remember the exposure. It was in 2001/2.

ic-racer · Dec 4, 2009

You can try the 25mm Rodenstock but, even though it is a fantastic lens, your projection print will be blurry. On thing to remember is that at 100x enlargement your diffraction is related to the relative aperture, not the indicated aperture. So, even with that lens wide open, your relative aperture is going to be way into the diffraction range, like f400 or so.

Your Airy disks are literally going to be as big as the craters on the moon , so you won't have much resolution.

mts · Dec 4, 2009

Here is a Moon picture taken on 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 with a baby Speedgraphic, and the Moon image enlarged by scanning at 4000 dpi with the Nikon 9000ED. You cannot expect to get much better if you enlarge your tiny 35mm image. As mentioned above, if you want to photograph and enlarge a Moon image, use a telescope. Moon is 1/2 degree diameter more or less and although it can appear large at moonrise, it is actually no larger when near to the horizon.

Mike1234 · Dec 4, 2009

MTS... I think you dropped your ball of cheese in the sand. It's all grainy.

WolfTales · Dec 4, 2009

Yep. Looks blown all up to me.

Denis R · Dec 6, 2009

getting loony

made some test shots ttl of the telescope with the D60
will need camera mount

Telescope focal length divided by Eyepiece focal length = Eyepiece power
1000 v 25 = 40
The eyepiece power, or magnification is therefore 40X (approximately).

DS-2114S
Optical design....................Reflector
Clear aperture ..................114mm
Focal length .....................1000mm
Focal ratio .......................f/8.8
Resolving power.................1.0 arc secs
Max power .......................325X

paul_c5x4 · Dec 6, 2009

Surprised no one has mentioned these two points yet:

Size of moon on negative = lens focal length / 109

Use the sunny 16 (or moony 11) rule when shooting the moon.

keithwms · Dec 6, 2009

paul_c5x4 said:
Use the sunny 16 (or moony 11) rule when shooting the moon.

Aaaaah please don't start that discussion!

People really need to spot meter IMHO. The sunny/luny/moony rules work much better when shooting something illuminated by the moon, but frequently fail for the moon itself because of the phases and atmospheric scatter and so forth. Why not spot meter- we have the technology! Also, if someone is trying to get moon detail then the shutter speed will prove to be the singlemost important factor. As high as 1/320 is not unusual for a ~full frame shot. I clearly saw motion blur below that speed when I did this at ~1200mm. For a small enlargement 1/200 seemed acceptable, but people think St. Ansel did 1 sec in Hernandez and so that must be fine and... not so for tight crops. Adams was a super-smart guy but he wasn't able to stop the moon in the sky

michaelbsc · Dec 17, 2009

paul_c5x4 said:
Size of moon on negative = lens focal length / 109

Use the sunny 16 (or moony 11) rule when shooting the moon.

mts said:
Moon is 1/2 degree diameter more or less and although it can appear large at moonrise, it is actually no larger when near to the horizon.

Let me ask a couple of questions here. I've been rolling a project like this in the back of my head for a few years, and now that I've actually started thinking it through I want to make sure I get it right. I'll only get one shot at this a year, maybe two if I'm lucky. Let me think out loud, and people please point what I may be overlooking. I'd like to get this shot before I die.

On the island where I live there is a fishing pier with a hut/bar at the end. I want the moon to silhouette the bar across the water. Obviously this has to be done at moon rise. The only good moon rise shortly after sunset at the right azimuth for this is Mar 30, 2010 for some months to come.

How close is the 1/2 degree estimate? And how much does it change from perigee to apogee? Does anyone know? If I want the bar to be about 40-50% of the size of the moon, basically in the middle of the moon just breaking the water, then my distance from the bar has to be determined based on the size of the bar. The moon isn't going to fill any more or less of the frame regardless of where I stand on the beach, but my relative distance to the bar is crucial to the perspective.

Also, if the moon does truly fill 0.5 degrees, then I must make the exposure about 4 minutes after moonrise to get the proper silhouette. It moves pretty doggone fast if you ever watch it at the horizon.

Is the 109 factor accurate? I had hoped to use some kind of 6x9 contraption (so I can make a big enlargement), and capture the moon image size to be about 20mm on the film. About 1/3 the image on one end. If 109 is accurate, then I'll need a focal length of about 2200mm. I could probably fab up some kind of makeshift bellows extension for my mini-Speed Graphics with the roll film back on it, and use the focal plane shutter, but at that length I'd worry about jitter. The Speed's shutter slaps a lot. Not bad with the stock 105mm lens, but with 2200mm I expect just tripping the shutter, even if I use the solenoid, will show camera shake.

keithwms said:
Also, if someone is trying to get moon detail then the shutter speed will prove to be the singlemost important factor. As high as 1/320 is not unusual for a ~full frame shot.

For this fast a shutter speed, does anyone have a good recommendation besides the focal plane shutter? I'm not even sure where I can get a lens this long, frankly. Much less one that's not an old barrel, but has a proper shutter.

I also can't use an equatorial drive on a telescope, since that will blur the stationary bar. And if one does use a telescope, how do you figure the f-stop on that? The reflector mirror size? What?

Anyone got some suggestions. If I don't get it this year, then I'll try again next year.

Lee L · Dec 17, 2009

1) How close is the 1/2 degree estimate?
29.3 to 34.1 arcminutes

2) Is the 109 factor accurate?
Close enough. Michael Covington, Astrophotography for the Amateur, says 110.

3) And if one does use a telescope, how do you figure the f-stop on that?
for a reflecting telescope:
Mirror diameter/focal length
for a refractor:
clear diameter of the objective (lens)/ focal length

Many commercially produced telescopes are marked with their specs.

Few amateur telescopes have a large enough focuser aperture to cover MF or LF films. Typical focuser diameters are 1.25 or 2 inches. Others are designed to cover larger format film, and if you have to ask the price...

Lee

michaelbsc · Dec 17, 2009

Lee L said:
1) How close is the 1/2 degree estimate?
29.3 to 34.1 arcminutes

Good enough.

Lee L said:
2) Is the 109 factor accurate?
Close enough. Michael Covington, Astrophotography for the Amateur, says 110.

Again, good enough.

Lee L said:
Few amateur telescopes have a large enough focuser aperture to cover MF or LF films. Typical focuser diameters are 1.25 or 2 inches. Others are designed to cover larger format film, and if you have to ask the price...

I only have to ask the price if I'm serious about it. I could just write a check, but we have laws about passing bad checks here.

Maybe dropping back to 135 is easier, but then the enlargement ratio becomes more important.

As with all things, life is a compromise.

Toffle · Dec 17, 2009

Not sure about focal length or exposure, but I have to say that this wins hands down as the best thread title of 2009.

EASmithV · Dec 18, 2009

TERRORIST ALERT!
TERRORIST ALERT!

I want to blow up the moon!

removed-user-1

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency