Moon Shots: I have conquered taking photos of the moon per se. But I want more detail around the moon such as a cloud layer, rocks or trees. If I expose for the moon, the rest of the...

Gray Fox

I have conquered taking photos of the moon per se. But I want more detail around the moon such as a cloud layer, rocks or trees. If I expose for the moon, the rest of the view is vastly under exposed...If I expose for the surrounding clouds, the moon is blown out.
Of course I can do this with layers, maybe stacking, etc. but I want a one-shot deal.
Any ideas?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I shoot a lot of full moon photos at sunrise. Below are two + a link to an older topic that might be of interest:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-412050-1.html

If you don't like to get up early, there is also moonrise at sunset. Check the charts for the one day per cycle where moonrise/sunset or sunrise/moonset are closest together.

There are other times when a 3/4 moon or a sliver may be visible during daylight. The moon isn't just out at night

jj56 Loc: Londonderry, NH

Here is an example of a one shot moonrise at sunset that I recently took on vacation.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

#1 is from four years ago with a bridge camera. #2 is from around that same time period (with a dslr Canon Rebel) and now seems oversaturated and in need of better editing

Both were shot at sunrise.

One cool - and challenging - aspect of shooting the moon when it's at the horizon is you can see it moving...and it moves fast!

Also, be prepared for the "charts" to not be accurate. Maybe phone apps are better, but the website I usually used would indicate I had 20 more minutes for moonset than I actually did.

TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ

jj56 wrote:

Here is an example of a one shot moonrise at sunset that I recently took on vacation.

I like that one particularly !

TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ

Linda From Maine wrote:

#1 is from four years ago with a bridge camera. #2... (show quote)

I like that first one....you are quite a damned Photographer Linda From Maine !

illininitt

Is that hand held or did you use a tripod?

alf85 Loc: Northumberland, UK.

Gray Fox wrote:

I have conquered taking photos of the moon per se. But I want more detail around the moon such as a cloud layer, rocks or trees. If I expose for the moon, the rest of the view is vastly under exposed...If I expose for the surrounding clouds, the moon is blown out.
Of course I can do this with layers, maybe stacking, etc. but I want a one-shot deal.
Any ideas?

Hi i take a lot of moon shots, but have never been able to get both moon and the rest of the view sharp. I have enclosed a few with clouds, and a couple from last night.
Regards, Alfie.

Super Moon.
Super Moon....

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Gray Fox wrote:

I have conquered taking photos of the moon per se. But I want more detail around the moon such as a cloud layer, rocks or trees. If I expose for the moon, the rest of the view is vastly under exposed...If I expose for the surrounding clouds, the moon is blown out.
Of course I can do this with layers, maybe stacking, etc. but I want a one-shot deal.
Any ideas?

Nikon allows me to "layer" two images within the camera. So, in Raw, I take several photo's of the moon. Then I take my landscape shots in Raw on the same memory card (you must have both images on the same card and you must shoot in Raw. Then using in camera processing, I can combine any two images. Kodak used to call this process, MOONS IN THE Refrigerator. I am sure most camera's today have this feature. Try it out, it may solve your problem.
Hint, when I "shoot the moon" I put the moon in different locations within each image (I end up with about 60 different moon locations and sizes of moons). Then when I combine it with another image on the same memory card, I can put the moon exactly where I want it.

Gampa

Center weighted the exposure on this one to accentaute the yellow moon ... got lucky on capturing the surrounding cloud adequately. Not really happy with the tree exposure ... but could have brought it out more from the shadows in post.

(Download)

dparsh Loc: Massachusetts

WOW Linda from Maine!! love these shots of the moon. I will have to give it a try with the sunrise. thanks!!

Catnlion Loc: Arizona City, Arizona

billnikon wrote:

Nikon allows me to "layer" two images wi... (show quote)

How do you do that? What camera are you using?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Catnlion wrote:

How do you do that? What camera are you using?

D500 and the d810 both do. I am not sure how many nikon' do.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

TucsonCoyote wrote:

I like that first one....you are quite a damned Photographer Linda From Maine !

dparsh wrote:

WOW Linda from Maine!! love these shots of the moon. I will have to give it a try with the sunrise. thanks!!

Appreciate the comments from you both! I do recommend using a tripod, even though I haven't followed my own advice for a few years now

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Gray Fox wrote:

I have conquered taking photos of the moon per se. But I want more detail around the moon such as a cloud layer, rocks or trees. If I expose for the moon, the rest of the view is vastly under exposed ...

It's always broad daylight on the full moon. You can use Sunny 16 (1/ISO sec @ f/16 or equivalent) and the moon would come out around middle gray. Or you could bump that up a couple of stops (1/ISO sec @ f/8 or equivalent) and still see some detail. Any more and you may lose all of the detail on the surface of the moon. You might get away with a little more exposure if the atmosphere is not clear.

You then have to consider where that leaves all of the rest of the image. It might be possible to recover enough shadow information to make a reasonably good shot if the rest of the image is not too dark. But if not, your only remaining option is to use HDR - one exposure for the moon and a brighter exposure for everything else.

This is the problem Adams faced when he photographed Moonrise, Hernandez. If you look at how his interpretation of that image changed over the years you will see that it
evolved to become darker. You may simply need to make a virtue of necessity - allow a large portion of the image to be rendered as pitch black. It worked for him.