Still did not nail it :(: My shots are better than last month but not great! I don't know why. Please any helpful input would be appreciated. Thanks...

tita1948 Loc: North Idaho

My shots are better than last month but not great! I don't know why. Please any helpful input would be appreciated. Thanks

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Are you referring to the lack on detail on moon face? That's exposure. You can't get "straight" shots of very bright moon face details without losing detail in your scenery. That's why you see all those BLACK sky photos.

I think #2 is a lovely composition and since the moon isn't totally blown out, I'd be thrilled with that one :)

#1 you could darken a tiny, but might not make difference for the moon. I'd also crop some off right side and straighten the shoreline a teensy. Otherwise, it's also a lovely, serene scene.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

I think your second photo is well done and I would be proud to have taken it. :thumbup:

tita1948 Loc: North Idaho

Linda From Maine wrote:

Are you referring to the lack on detail on moon face? That's exposure. You can't get "straight" shots of very bright moon face details without losing detail in your scenery. That's why you see all those BLACK sky photos.

I think #2 is a lovely composition and since the moon isn't totally blown out, I'd be thrilled with that one :)

Thank you for your kind words. But I wish I had more detail in the moon. The second one was done at 4:30 am this morning. The first was last night. So was the third. Totally blown out.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

Two is excellent. I really love the mood. Sure the detail in the moon is not as good as a "moon" shot; but there is detail and the exposure is just great. I would love to have taken that photograph. Three is over exposed.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

tita1948 wrote:

Thank you for your kind words. But I wish I had more detail in the moon. The second one was done at 4:30 am this morning. The first was last night. So was the third. Totally blown out.

The only way you can do that is combining shots or other PP. Check Erv's super-moon thread running right now, or other posts. You'll see it's not possible to have it both ways straight from camera. It's similar to trying to photograph someone in a black snowsuit on a white mound of snow. Camera can't record detail in both those extremes simultaneously.

tita1948 Loc: North Idaho

Linda From Maine wrote:

Are you referring to the lack on detail on moon fa... (show quote)

Please explain this,You can't get "straight" shots of very bright moon face details without losing detail in your scenery.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

tita1948 wrote:

Please explain this,You can't get "straight" shots of very bright moon face details without losing detail in your scenery.

I guess I was answering this question while you were typing it (telepathy!). See above.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Re your own comment re #3: you could have changed exposure and gotten your moon detail, but the scene would be too dark to show the tree.

tita1948 Loc: North Idaho

Linda From Maine wrote:

I guess I was answering this question while you were typing it (telepathy!). See above.

True. I took a gander at Erv. shots. Wow! You're right it was not dark enough outside. But I was afraid that if I waited too long the moon would rise too high. Maybe I should wait till Sept. or Oct. When day light hours are shorter.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

tita1948 wrote:

True. I took a gander at Erv. shots. Wow! You're right it was not dark enough outside. But I was afraid that if I waited too long the moon would rise too high. Maybe I should wait till Sept. or Oct. When day light hours are shorter.

Actually, that's not what I meant. It's easier to get a nice shot of the moon + scenery when it's NOT too dark out because you aren't dealing with extremes of light and dark that the camera can't record.

You could have exposed #1 differently and gotten detail on the moon face, but you would lose most of the detail in your surrounding scene.

To "dramatize" my point, here is a little piece of #1, darkened considerably, just to give you an idea of how your image might have looked with different exposure.

So you have to choose what you would like to end up with, or go ahead and combine a well exposed moon with a well exposed countryside scene after-the-fact.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Here's another illustration. I took these photos just 2 minutes apart. In first, I exposed for the clouds, and the other for the moon detail.

sandheinrichc Loc: Illinois

I hope it clears up hear, so I can try my hand photographing the moon tonight.

tita1948 Loc: North Idaho

Linda From Maine wrote:

Actually, that's not what I meant. It's easier to ... (show quote)

Do you mean like with HDR?

kmohr3 Loc: Rockford, IL

You probably could have avoided blowing out #3 by setting the metering to spot metering. The reason it's blown out is the camera was exposing for the entire scene and not just the moon. Set the camera to spot metering and try again. Also, I have better luck by increasing the shutter speed. try f8, 1/500, spot metering and adjust ISO as needed. You'll also get more detail when the moon is not full. A non-full moon has shadows cast upon it that bring out the details in the craters, etc.