Newbie's (blackstar) Moon Shot questions and helps

[Dawg Pics]

You don't put it back into Auto, that will just let the camera do what it wants.

If you are getting a minimum shutter speed with it still in Manual, then check the internal shooting menu for the Minimum Shooting Speed. I don't know what the default is on your camera.

May I recommend that you purchase a good book on the D3500. I used 2 different books that weren't the Nikon manuals that helped me a lot. I think people tend to recommend the David Busch books. Maybe somebody who has a camera in the series you own will come along. I don't have your camera, so I am not sure what all it can or can't do.

 

[hark]

Hi,

I am a new owner of Nikon D3500 two lenses kit. Since there is no D3500 group, here at D3400 group I post my newbie's questions:

I put in a request for a D3500 sub-forum and possibly some answers as to why you are having trouble posting. Nice to have you here! :encouragement:

 

[blackstar]

Hi Dawg,

I am very new to the DSLR camera, so when I start using it I would shoot regular photos in auto mode (the other day I had a one day trip to S.F. for the cable car ride and visit the new Salesforce Transit Center and walk on its nice roof-top park: I really had no time and experience on setting and taking manual shots... but the about 70 photos I took (autofocus) were mostly good and nice for my taste). That's why I say it's convenient for no need to reset auto iso control.

As for my original question: about night sky shooting and manual mode, it all time back to late March this year when I had a camping trip to Mojave desert (CA) and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (AZ). I had encountered one thing the night at Mojave Desert and nights at OPCNM: the spectacular starry sky which I thought I had never seen before in my life! I used my old iphone trying to catch the wonder... you all know the outcome Then I started researching a bit and found the answer: a DSLR camera, even an entry-level one like D3500 could work. So I am here digging into M mode operation just preparing for taking a striking night star shot or shots when next year's camping trips come again. Also I may take an adventure to the Antelope Canyon to try the phantom shots. They are all remote shot for me now, but I'll try.

And thanks for advising in reading books. I'll check some out (never thought after retiring from science career and Ph.D. study, more book reading still on!)

 

[blackstar]

Hi Cindy,

Thank you for requesting a new D3500 sub-forum. At first, I was wondering why there isn't a D3500 sub-forum and how I can create or request one. Now I see why. Thanks for help.

 

[hark]

Hi Cindy,

Thank you for requesting a new D3500 sub-forum. At first, I was wondering why there isn't a D3500 sub-forum and how I can create or request one. Now I see why. Thanks for help.

It was simply an oversight, blackstar. One that will no doubt be fixed when jdeg has time.

 

[Dawg Pics]

Ah, I see what you were saying. You are putting it back into Auto for regular shooting. Full auto shooting mode chooses ISO for you.

Yeah, just when you think you don't need to study any longer or keep up with journal articles, you take up a hobby that has all manners of science behind it.

I recommended the book because the manual is not really meant to teach anything. I find them confusing at best. I know they helped me out while trying to figure out all of the camera settings.

You are doing the right thing by practicing way in advance. Astrophotography is like a different animal, and you don't want to mess up the opportunity to shoot in a dark site. I would love to take the astrophotography workshop in Joshua Tree Park.

Keep asking questions and post some images when you can.

 

[Dawg Pics]

Look, you made 10 posts. Attach away. :encouragement:

 

[blackstar]

Hey thanks, Dawg. I'll do some photo uploading later, but will be careful to avoid regret as revealing my poor photos to you guys all professional photographers. But another newbie question here: regardless "RAW" quality (I know for special shots it is the norm), which file type should I choose for regular photos: jpg fine or jpg normal? It's the file size that bothers me: jpg fine images eat more than double of jpg normal images size (~ 17 Mb vs ~ 6 Mb). What's your take?

 

[Dawg Pics]

Somebody else would need to answer that as far as discussing file size and what is good to use and why.
I shoot all RAW images, and I save the PSD file with all of the edits. Eats up a lot of space.

I think it depends on how much you want to edit your images, and how you are displaying them and/or printing them. This is where my knowledge is greatly lacking. I can't discuss file size and resolution. There are several old threads discussing RAW vs jpg, but you might want to start another thread in photography Q&A asking for specifics.

BTW, we aren't all professionals, and I have posted some really bad images for the world to see. I am still learning and trying to improve. My images improved by leaps thanks to the help on this forum.

 

[mikew_RIP]

Hey thanks, Dawg. I'll do some photo uploading later, but will be careful to avoid regret as revealing my poor photos to you guys all professional photographers. But another newbie question here: regardless "RAW" quality (I know for special shots it is the norm), which file type should I choose for regular photos: jpg fine or jpg normal? It's the file size that bothers me: jpg fine images eat more than double of jpg normal images size (~ 17 Mb vs ~ 6 Mb). What's your take?

Raw or jpeg is an age-old question, the best i can say is for now shoot raw and jpeg, the jpeg will do untill you gety into processing but you will have the raw files for later when you get into processing.

 

[Texas]

Hey thanks, Dawg. I'll do some photo uploading later, but will be careful to avoid regret as revealing my poor photos to you guys all professional photographers. But another newbie question here: regardless "RAW" quality (I know for special shots it is the norm), which file type should I choose for regular photos: jpg fine or jpg normal? It's the file size that bothers me: jpg fine images eat more than double of jpg normal images size (~ 17 Mb vs ~ 6 Mb). What's your take?

Normal jpg (likely even small) are plenty good enough to view at normal size on the computer or upload.
There's enough pixels in a normal size to even crop half the picture away and still have a good one for display.

It is fashionable these days on forums to bash this guy's website.
But here is a good discussion of jpg size vs. quality: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/quality-settings.htm

 

[Andy W]

Hey thanks, Dawg. I'll do some photo uploading later, but will be careful to avoid regret as revealing my poor photos to you guys all professional photographers.

We're all learning here as we go, post away!

 

[blackstar]

Hi Texas, Like your input and recommended link. Thanks

 

[blackstar]

And thanks, Dawg and Mike, again. But don't push me, Andy

 

[TwistedThrottle]

@blackstar
You can always reduce the amount of space taken by a higher resolution image but you can not increase it if you want more detail. When I look at 10 or 20 year old digital images, its comical how grainy they are and how I wish I could make them look better. My first digital camera used a 3 1/2" floppy disk that held 1.44 mb of data back in the late 90's or early 2000's. Storage is cheap. My suggestion would be to shoot at least JPG fine and just invest in more storage. 10-20 years from now, we'll be joking that pictures only took up 20mb of space. I shoot RAW and JPG fine, BTW and my raw images can be 50mb each. In the last year, I have filled up a 1TB hard drive, so next year I've got a 2TB hard drive to use. The externals are nice- I process on my internal hard drive and then back up to external. Hope this helps.

 

[blackstar]

Hi TThrottle,

Thanks for your insight. Understand the lighting advance of hightech stuff (you know cloud is replacing both internal and external storage now...). Storage is no worry on me, but handling and running image (size) is an issue: up to now, my old computer is still running most tasks in well acceptive time. Not any more that when I need to open a 15+ mb jpg file in an image viewing or editing program, it takes a noticeable longer (waiting) time... I have read up the article Texas referred to and mostly taken author's investigation and argument (with his photo proof) for the sake of image quality view on different image file types and sizes -- no or little difference. But still, I understand RAW files are the necessity for post processing, etc. Well, as you said, 10-20 yrs from now, we will be joking about current file size, yet when I bring up and see my family's old-time (30 yrs ago) pictures, surprisingly I am delighted to find all those grainy and fuzzy images in those low-resolution pictures fondly memorable... Will I feel the same way after 20 yrs from now? Imagine it.

 

[TwistedThrottle]

Each person has a different priority and if space is of concern, then the lower quality JPG is most functional. If space is not the concern, it sounds like you might want to look into more RAM if your computer is choking on JPG's. I needed a faster machine so I did a RAM upgrade and also swapped out the main hard drive for a SSD, what a huge difference that made! (I am a CAD drafter and need a fast machine. Pictures are my hobby and I benefit from a fast machine.) I only brought up the past digital cameras because that was the technology that we had available to us at the time and although the memories are fond, the image quality (especially printed) is not what I am used to in today's eyes. I imagine in the future, it will be a similar scenario so to me, it makes sense to use the best of whats available today for mediocre quality in the future.

 

[blackstar]

Hi,

I have discovered the solution to a mystery issue of setting shutter speed on d3500 (my earlier question): the camera overrides my preset speed and insists there's a limit for slow speed as 1/30... So I can never get my wanted speed for night star shot: 10", 15", or 20" and above! After accidentally digging into movie settings, there is an allowance for shooting video with manual speed and under this allowance, still a limit is applied, i.e., 1/30! I realiz this is what made me stuck in setting speed. I remove this allowance and my preset speed become king!

 

[blackstar]

Hi,

I made some experimental shots on exposure. Originally when I went out for a walk in this cold, but dry night, I saw a few stars twinkling in the sky and thought maybe it's a good time for a night star shot practice. Turned out to be disappointing long-time labor in focusing to the not very bright stars (I thought first I should be able to see or focuse through the viewfinder, never got it -- I could see the foreground trees, but just couldn't focus to the stars between trees. Turn to Live view and I could only see the whole dark screen with nothing even faint trees... ). So I decided to give up for now and then I saw some neighborhood light emitting out through trees and houses thinking why not take a shot of this night scene. I set to focus the light and it seemed working. I took the shot with the star sky exposure settings -- 20", f3.5, 3200. Shockingly the replay image took me to the roof! As it looked definitely a day-light shot, not a night-light photo. I realized this must be the doing of exposure settings, so I took two more shots, one in auto mode with flash and one without flash. I attach these three images for your comments and enlightenment (hopefully no critics). Oop! Upload still failed. ??? HELP!

Anyway, I am back to my original question: How to focus to infinity with D3500? I have watched some videos and read some articles with all the (hopefully) good ideas and yet when practicing, have no even slight success. Maybe stars are too few and not bright enough? Hope I can get this right before the real occasion comes.

 

[Dawg Pics]

If you are in an area with a lot of street lights, then it is easy to get what looks like a daylight shot with those settings, so you can turn down the ISO and take another shot see how it looks. Then you can decrease the exposure time and see how it looks. It depends on the environment. In a dark site without ambient light, you won't get that over exposed image.

Trying to focus on faint stars is difficult. Did you try to zoom in as much as possible and then turn the focus ring to see if any stars showed up in the screen?

Are you in a heavily populated area?