Careful preparation and planning can be trumped by the unfortunate positioning of a cloud. The following photograph was the planned picture with the moonrise emerging in the catwalk. The timing of the photograph is exactly when the moon was in the precise position. Great shot, eh?

Egg Farm Silos with Missing Moon, Panasonic DMC-L1, Tokina AT-X 100-300 F4 Zoom Lens

Since this shot was not going to be successful and knowing that it would be a few minutes before the moon would rise high enough to clear the cloud layer, I went driving down the country lanes looking for something to make the trip worthwhile.

Cow and Moon, Panasonic DMC-L1, Zuiko 300mm F4.5 Lens

Along one B-Level road (unmaintained, 4wd recommended) I spotted a hillside with a number of Hereford cows on it. This one cow was standing on the crest of the hill which was far enough above the road to give me another moonrise. Fortunately she stayed in one place until after the moon had risen enough I couldn't get any more pictures.

The trip wasn't a total loss.

Ken

A little reminder, as it is almost upon us.

The Photographer's Ephemeris 

This program is highly recommended for planning your shots. I have it running on both my laptop and iPad. A little trial and error will be required in figuring out how to position yourself in relation to your subject being photographed. The program is photographer-centric, not subject-centric which is better more often than not, but for the silhouette shots, you'll have to work a little harder at getting the lines to intersect.

Planting the moon directly behind a structure like the cell-tower is a little more challenging than a subject on the horizon. But for this moonrise, if you are in the northern hemisphere, try to locate yourself on an east-west road or path to the west northwest of the subject. As the moon is rising, if you want to keep the moon and subject aligned you'll be walking east with the tripod.

While you are at it...

Heaven's Above

Use this site to determine when an Iridium Flare is going to occur near you. Those who have never seen an Iridium flare are in for a treat. If at all possible, if this is your first time, go to the center of the pass. Make sure you have an accurate clock source as they only last for a few seconds and you have to be looking in exactly the right place. Use the star chart to find the spot to look, or have some kind of compass and angle-finder if you plan on precise placement of the flare with some terrestrial object.

Here's to clear skies and "Keep Looking Up!"

Ken

DoF calculators generally use the same algorithm to determine far and near limits of in-focus objects. This is determined by an acceptable "Circle of Confusion" which varies depending on the application. Most CoC values are based on an average viewing distance of an 8x10 print. As print sizes go up, typically viewing distances increase. But not always, as there are some applications, like a double-truck spread, that will require tighter values. A point where an object is no longer in focus isn't a hard limit, but is the point where the average human eye will see the loss of sharpness in the object.

But is the calculation a hard and fast formula or do you have to take into account the specific design of the lens? I have noticed that some of the modern "made for digital" zoom lenses have a tendency to deepen the effective DoF of an image beyond what the calculated numbers would say.

For this article I compared two test photographs taken with the OM Zuiko 24mm F2.8 lens and the Panasonic Leica 14-50 F2.8-3.5 lens at F4.0.

Full Image of a highly detailed scene, Panasonic L1, Leica 14-50 at F4.0

Click on "read more" or the article title to see the full text and sample images.

UV "protection" filters are not too unlike putting plastic runners over your carpet or slip-covers over your furniture. In theory they "protect" against something, but who or what are you saving it for?
 
The sunspot flare that you are experiencing is highly likely being exasperated by the filters. One of the easiest tricks in the book for improving your photography is usually just removing the "protective filter" and keeping the glass clean.
 
Nowadays, we have the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. You can buy these "protective" films (as advertised on this very site) to go over the glass. Again, why?  Why put up with the additional surface to look through, the ugly look, the reduced effectiveness and accuracy of the touch-screen?  To protect it from SCRATCHES?  It's awefully hard to scratch this new glass used in these devices. If you are going to scratch it, chances are you're going to break it first.
 
But we do these things to "preserve value". Ooooooooookay. Again, for what/whom are you doing that?  Unless trashed, most used lenses are pretty much about the same price regardless of whether you used a protective filter on it or not. As to cell-phones and other consumer electronics, they have no value, used, anyway. The moment a new model comes out, your existing one is nearly worthless.
 
UV "protective" filters serve a purpose if:
1. You're photographing around water,
2. You're photographing an industrial site with abrasive and oily materials in the air,
3. You can't help yourself from sticking your fingers on the glass all the time,
4. You smoke and the haze builds up on your equipment,
5. You're photogaphing at high-altitude and need a UV filter,
6. You don't use lens caps,
7. You photograph motorsports from the fence opening on the outside of a turn.
 
I'm sure there are random other examples, but you get the idea.
 
Think about it this way--the average non-professional hobbiest photographer keeps his camera safely tucked away inside a camera bag until a picture reveals itself. Only then does he/her remove camera from bag, remove lens-cap from lens, shoot picture and then put lens-cap back on the lens and the camera back in the bag. It is not unusual at all for a five-year old lens to have been exposed to the air for less than two hours total.  Personally, I can get two hours of air-time on my lenses before breakfast!
 
Another thing about UV filters which most people don't realize. Due to the disparate materials and the plastics used in the filters and lenses, it is very common for the filter to become statically charged which attracts dust, oils and other gookies in the air directly to the filter. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly my filters become hazy. (I use filters for B&W photography and polarizers). The bare lenses rarely become hazy, but the filters will get so with only an hour of exposure.

Ken

Buying a camera is an expensive proposition. Do you buy based on features or on something else?

Photographing in the rain - sure way to destroy lesser cameras. E-1 with DZ 14-54 Lens

A common theme in the various photography forums is brighter lenses and full-frame sensors (or film) equate to better bokeh. This is not necessarily true. All this guarantees you is a narrower depth of field, but the quality of the bokeh is not related. Consider the following photograph. This photograph was taken with the Olympus Zuiko 50mm F1.4 lens at F1.4. Camera used was the Olympus OM-4T with Fujifilm 200 color film.

Going to Seed, Olympus OM-4T, Zuiko 50mm F1.4, Fujifilm 200

This photograph illustrates two particular flaws of this lens when shot wide open and near or at the closest focus distance: Vignetting and rough bokeh.

As a variation of the classic Double-Gauss lens design, the 50mm F1.4 has a tendency to produce harshness in out-of-focus areas unless stopped way down. When used for an effect, such as in the "Bokeh Guitar" photograph on this site, it is fine, but if pleasing bokeh is desired, other lens designs will yield superior images.