Rich475 Loc: North of San Francsico

The photos were shot about 10 miles north of San Francisco with a Tamron 600mm and are combined in an "inDesign format".
The first one was about 20 minutes before the moon started into eclipse. The second one was shot in total eclipse (about 5:30am) and each one after was about 5-8 minutes apart.
The last one was just before moonset after coming out of the eclipse. I’m pretty new at this. I couldn’t figure out was I was doing wrong when I couldn’t get focus as the shutter speed was dropping to 2 seconds and I had to raise my ISO to 32,000. I generated a lot of grainy photos during the total eclipse. I hope to have it figured out by the next time in 150 years.

joel.photography

Nice presentation!

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

Very nice.
I had the same problem with lack of light when in total eclipse. I was not able to easily find focus and had to take a shot and then check it for focus. At some point I realized that the moon was moving fast enough to blur if the exposure was long. {The 500 rule for Astro Photography says that you cannot have an exposure longer than 500/(focallength x cropfactor) seconds.} So for my 400mm on an M43 body it would be 500/(400 X 2) = .625 seconds.

The result is that you either need a tracking device or need to shoot shorter exposures. But you can practice for the next Blue Blood Moon at the next Blood Moon (total eclipse) in January 20-21, 2019 - less than a year away. And you will see it in Northern California. Have fun!

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Moisture in the atmosphere might make for a hazy photo.

poprock48

Nice