What is causing the what looks like camera shake on the moon: I took several images of this scene and many of them have what looks like camera shake around the moon. I was not using a...

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

I took several images of this scene and many of them have what looks like camera shake around the moon. I was not using a remote release and the wind was wicked, but the formations don't seem to have the same problem.

(Download)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Country's Mama wrote:

I took several images of this scene and many of them have what looks like camera shake around the moon. I was not using a remote release and the wind was wicked, but the formations don't seem to have the same problem.

Long exposure? The mountains probably weren't moving.

Gorgeous image. That "blur" can probably be edited out.

If you could do that for a few hours, you'd have a great picture.

banjonut Loc: Southern Michigan

Country's Mama wrote:

I took several images of this scene and many of them have what looks like camera shake around the moon. I was not using a remote release and the wind was wicked, but the formations don't seem to have the same problem.

I don't know what your exposure time was, but my guess was that it was long enough that you didn't 'freeze' the moon. It is going at a fairly good speed across the sky, and you have gotten a trail of the moon.

djtravels Loc: Georgia boy now

I've had this happen while using a tripod, so I'd say it's exposure length. Or, did you have a filter on the lens? Maybe a reflection.

RegisG Loc: Mid-Tennessee

Like others said, I guess that's about 1.6 seconds (your exposure length).

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Thanks everyone I learned something. I didn't think about the speed of the moon, or is that the earth? :) Yes it was easily edited out.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

jerryc41 wrote:

Long exposure? The mountains probably weren't moving.

Gorgeous image. That "blur" can probably be edited out.

If you could do that for a few hours, you'd have a great picture.

Darn! I didn't think about doing a time lapse, but that would have great. Maybe next time. :-D

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

CM, Looking at the picture, I tend to agree with the others about the "moving moon".

But what about the little streak at the lower right, just above the horizon? And a small spot at the upper left...
Easy enough to work them away, but you want to be aware of them for photos where they should not be visible at all.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Country's Mama wrote:

I didn't think about the speed of the moon, or is that the earth? :)

Both! :D

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Morning Star wrote:

CM, Looking at the picture, I tend to agree with the others about the "moving moon".

But what about the little streak at the lower right, just above the horizon? And a small spot at the upper left...
Easy enough to work them away, but you want to be aware of them for photos where they should not be visible at all.

I think it was something on the sensor. I didn't spend much time on this in pp. I was more interested in what I now know is the moon trail. All sensors need to be cleaned after this trip. :-D

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Country's Mama wrote:

I think it was something on the sensor. I didn't spend much time on this in pp. I was more interested in what I now know is the moon trail. All sensors need to be cleaned after this trip. :-D

Using the same technique, you could get something like this - not my photo.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

jerryc41 wrote:

Using the same technique, you could get something like this - not my photo.

That would have been so neat. Why don't I think of these things when I have the chance to do them. But it was lucky that I got what I did as we were giving up on the moon ever rising and heading back.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

I don't think it was any thing other then lens flare. If it had been motion of the moon you would have more blur where the two meet. Wondering if you had a filter on the like a UV or added glass of some kind. But that to me is a lens flare.

Jay Pat Loc: Round Rock, Texas, USA

I'm going with camera shake.
The mountains don't slow it but, they are a lot darker (not sure if that is a valid point).
I would think if it was moon movement, the "shadow" would have been brighter (not as bright) and the opposite side of the moon would have been equally "lighter".

Also, with the lens at 400mm, I would have "started" with Shutter at 400
ISO at 400
Adjust f stop.

Pat
Snap Shot Guy!

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Bill Houghton wrote:

I don't think it was any thing other then lens flare. If it had been motion of the moon you would have more blur where the two meet. Wondering if you had a filter on the like a UV or added glass of some kind. But that to me is a lens flare.

Naked lens in this one.