Since no other photos of it have been posted here yet … Partial Solar Eclipse, 11am, Reading, UK

Canon R5 Mk II + RF600mm F11 + Thousand Oaks Optical Solar Filter (alas filter missing any details of its “strength”) all on a Manfrotto 405 tripod.

Bottom left is the original (ISO500, 1/125s, F11) , top left is playing around with the histogram tool to emphasise brightness changes, top right a slightly later photo again with histogram modification.

  • warm@kbin.earth
    1·
    9 months ago

    Fantastic shots! I only managed a cloudy one and didn’t have a filter for it.

    • Denvil@lemmy.one
      0·
      9 months ago

      You were looking at the sun without a filter…? I feel like that’s meant to mean something else, or you’re blind, or your camera is blind

  • Maeve@kbin.earth
    1·
    9 months ago

    I was listening to podcasts this week about solar eclipses in ancient (and even more recent!) times portending the deaths of kings.

    In all seriousness, though, thanks for gorgeously done captures. It wasn’t visible in my area.

    ETA I realize this came off in poor taste. I was thinking of wannabe emperors.

  • gerryflap@feddit.nl
    0·
    9 months ago

    Damn, that’s the real work. I wasn’t prepared, so I only figured out that this was happening close to the end. Even at the darkest settings that I could find (1/8000, f/36, ISO100) it was still too bright. Another complication is that I use a Canon EOS 40D which has an optical viewfinder and doesn’t show the picture live on its screen. So I couldn’t actually see where I was aiming. Anyway, I still got this one which is not what I wanted but it still looks cool and has the eclipsed sun in the lense flare.

    • KevinFRK@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      Solar filters are the way. Thousand Oaks site has comments like:

      "TRANSMISSION: 1/1,000th of 1%. Solar image is yellow orange. Safe for both visual and photogenic use. "

      I can’t entirely guess what your normal daylight settings would be, but I’d guess your attempted settings are not much less than 1% transmission of that.

      Also, even if everything is digital, I’d refrain from pointing an unfiltered camera at the sun for more than a couple of seconds in case of heat damage from focussed light.

      • gerryflap@feddit.nl
        2·
        9 months ago

        Yeah I was already a bit scared to damage something. The mirror was quite effective in rerouting all that light and heat through the viewfinder though, so it’s probably fine (as long as you don’t put your eye behind the viewfinder). But just to be sure I only aimed it at the sun when shooting the image.

        If a total solar eclipse were to happen I should probably invest in specific tools to capture it. For now I guess I will just refrain from flying too close to the sun

      • KevinFRK@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        2·
        9 months ago

        In passing, this might read as a suggestion to go buy one of these filters. I would actually suggest thinking long and hard before doing that. Really, their only use is photoing the sun on a clear day, and so:

        • Eclipses - a very slightly jagged dark circle out of a bright circle
        • Sunspots - black blotches on a bright circle
        • Conceivably solar flares, but I’ve never even tried for them (and probably even at their strongest, at the best angle, less than 5% of the diameter of the sun - I’m worried by my google results on that!)

        On the flip side, these things are expensive (needing to be optical quality)and likely limited to one diameter of lens.

        There is something deeply satisfying about making your own solar observations, but you may feel replete after very few photos!