How to prevent artifact in moon shots? This moon shot has what looks like a sci-fi-type celestial body in the background. I liked it, so I kept it in this image. My Q.: Is it an...

goldengirl Loc: Tucson, AZ

This moon shot has what looks like a sci-fi-type celestial body in the background. I liked it, so I kept it in this image. My Q.: Is it an artifact caused by some kind of lens reflection? How do I prevent this from happening when I take photos of the moon in future?
Taken with Canon EOS Rebel T3i
Lens 55-250 mm, f 5.7-32
Focal length 250 mm
Exposure time 0.0769s (1/13)
Aperture 5
F number f 5.6
ISO 3200

Moon shot w/ weird artifact

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

To eliminate reflection, remove UV filter from lens. Centering moon in viewfinder will also help.

And properly expose for moon detail! It is noon on the moon. Start at 1/ISO at f/16.
FAQ: How to photograph the moon at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26498-1.html

goldengirl Loc: Tucson, AZ

Thank you very much, Nikonian72. Total newbie so greatly appreciate these pointers.

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

Good morning GoldenGirl. We do a lot of Moon shots here and love to play. Just do a search on the Moon. I try to post the data with my shots most of the time to help others. :) It is a fun thing to shoot. I have way to many Moon shots on my hard drives.:) Here is one I posted this morning from last night.
Erv
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-78524-1.html

goldengirl wrote:

Thank you very much, Nikonian72. Total newbie so greatly appreciate these pointers.

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

goldengirl wrote:

This moon shot has what looks like a sci-fi-type celestial body in the background. I liked it, so I kept it in this image. My Q.: Is it an artifact caused by some kind of lens reflection? How do I prevent this from happening when I take photos of the moon in future?
Taken with Canon EOS Rebel T3i
Lens 55-250 mm, f 5.7-32
Focal length 250 mm
Exposure time 0.0769s (1/13)
Aperture 5
F number f 5.6
ISO 3200

Just crop out the reflection.

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

The moon shot is rather hugely overexposed. Remember the moon is a DAYLIGHT object, which never needs a higher ISO than 400, except perhaps during a total eclipse, and if exposed well, can always be brightened in the digital darkroom. People tend to be fascinated by seeing detail in the moon.

Here is a detailed moon...
Here is a detailed moon......

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

PhotoArtsLA wrote:

The moon shot is rather hugely overexposed. Remember the moon is a DAYLIGHT object, which never needs a higher ISO than 400, except perhaps during a total eclipse, and if exposed well, can always be brightened in the digital darkroom. People tend to be fascinated by seeing detail in the moon.

I agree with this. You ISO is too high hence the grainy/noisy image. Use spot metering on the brightest part of the moon and use a lower ISO.

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

goldengirl wrote:

This moon shot has what looks like a sci-fi-type celestial body in the background. I liked it, so I kept it in this image. My Q.: Is it an artifact caused by some kind of lens reflection? How do I prevent this from happening when I take photos of the moon in future?
Taken with Canon EOS Rebel T3i
Lens 55-250 mm, f 5.7-32
Focal length 250 mm
Exposure time 0.0769s (1/13)
Aperture 5
F number f 5.6
ISO 3200

I'm pretty sure it's Louis Farrakhan's Mother ship. Contact all the tabloids right away. You're sitting on a fortune. :thumbup:
Seriously looks like a reflection from the lens back to a filter. Moon is VERY overexposed. Go to manual settings and set for a noon daylight shot. :thumbup:

goldengirl Loc: Tucson, AZ

PhotoArtsLA wrote:

The moon shot is rather hugely overexposed. Remember the moon is a DAYLIGHT object, which never needs a higher ISO than 400, except perhaps during a total eclipse, and if exposed well, can always be brightened in the digital darkroom. People tend to be fascinated by seeing detail in the moon.

Wow. Great image. Thank you for posting it and your comments.

goldengirl Loc: Tucson, AZ

Thanks everyone. Yup. Had been shooting sunset shots until it got dark, then on impulse took one moon shot but forgot to change ISO (it was at 3200!, lol). Next time, I'll remember.

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

goldengirl wrote:

Thanks everyone. Yup. Had been shooting sunset shots until it got dark, then on impulse took one moon shot but forgot to change ISO (it was at 3200!, lol). Next time, I'll remember.

Uhhhh... Why are you shooting sunsets at ISO 3200? :lol:

EoS_User Loc: Oshawa, Ontario Canada

ISO 3200 IMO Yikes!! I do my best to never go over 400, I even shudder if I have to go to 800 due to lighting. When I use film it's mainly 200 and 400. Anything else is getting hard to find.

goldengirl wrote:

Thanks everyone. Yup. Had been shooting sunset shots until it got dark, then on impulse took one moon shot but forgot to change ISO (it was at 3200!, lol). Next time, I'll remember.

Aaron Braganza Loc: Sydney, Australia

Yes, Thanks to Nikonian some good advice.
I followed the steps F/16, SS 1/200 ISO 200
IS set to off and got the attached result.
My first shot of the Moon

goldengirl Loc: Tucson, AZ

pounder35 wrote:

goldengirl wrote:

Thanks everyone. Yup. Had been shooting sunset shots until it got dark, then on impulse took one moon shot but forgot to change ISO (it was at 3200!, lol). Next time, I'll remember.

Uhhhh... Why are you shooting sunsets at ISO 3200? :lol:

It was almost dark - was shooting silhouettes and the tailend end of sunset clouds.

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

goldengirl wrote:

pounder35 wrote:

goldengirl wrote:

Thanks everyone. Yup. Had been shooting sunset shots until it got dark, then on impulse took one moon shot but forgot to change ISO (it was at 3200!, lol). Next time, I'll remember.

Uhhhh... Why are you shooting sunsets at ISO 3200? :lol:

It was almost dark - was shooting silhouettes and the tailend end of sunset clouds.

Just asking. Sounded kind of strange. :thumbup: