toxdoc42

I tried so hard to take this image to show details in the moon as well as show the foliage and the beautiful dark blue sky, but either the moon was blown out, or the tress were not visible. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

I had a similar situation once on a ship's deck, but was able to use the flash to show the ship's details. But there was no way to light up the tees and the golf course.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

on a ship, i used the pop up flash to illuminate the ship's rigging, and I exposed for the moon.

(Download)

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Use a modern camera (preferably FF), expose for the detail in the moon, save and process a raw file.

toxdoc42

I used a Nikon Z50, this is the raw converted to JPG to upload, if i expose for the moon, then everything else is black, that is what I tried to show by the others. I do know how to shoot for moon details and how to shoot for the trees, etc. Yes, if I took the photo while it was still daylight, the moon might not have washed out that mush, but that was not my question.

shot on another night with same camera

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

HDR

toxdoc42

damn, i forgot about that, thanks, next time, i will remember, and maybe it will work better.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

You have two challenges to solve. You need a longer lens in order to get the moon larger, and you need to combine the image of the moon, which is almost as bright as noontime sunlight on earth, with your landscape, which is not.

If you look at your last image, there is a little bit of lunar detail, but not much. You need better focus and even a little bit less exposure. Even so, if you used HDR (High Dynamic Range) software to combine the landscape from your first image with the moon from the last one, you'd have a pretty good start toward what you want to do. And remember...you don't want the landscape to appear too bright...it's moonlight. The next step is to use a longer focal length to get the moon larger. That means you'll need to get an earlier start before the moon gets so high in the sky.

While you could get a more sensitive camera and use raw files and do all that stuff, it is not necessary. You can tweak what you are doing and get completely acceptable results.

For shots like this, the learning and the pursuit are a big part of the effort. Look for incremental progress toward your target and don't get discouraged.

toxdoc42

I didn't really "want" a bigger moon. I liked what my eye saw, which was the image I posted but with the details of the moon. I have used HDR once before but didn't think about it for this image. If the view is like this again, i will try HDR. The camera has built in HDR, so it will be reasonably easy to try. I will fool with it and repost in the future.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Understood. If that is the case, accurate exposure and focus for the moon will be critical. For exposure, there are several variables to consider. The moon is as much as four stops brighter when it is overhead vs. when it is near the horizon. For focus, just experiment and practice. If you don't want the moon larger, manual focus is going to be your choice.

Again...night sky photography is about the pursuit. Have fun with it.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The problem is the moon is lit by the sun, and there is too much difference between it and nighttime light. I would do an exposure for the moon, and another for the rest of the shot and paste the correctly exposed moon into the shot exposed for the rest of the scene.

FredCM Loc: Central Illinois

HDR was my first thought too. One might experiment first on a similar night with various exposure compensation values, try to figure out how many one might need for an HDR shot.

toxdoc42

Apparently, the automatic exposure differential is 2 EV, probably not enough in the case of the moon. The instructions from Nikon say there is a place to choose the differentiation. I will have to experiment with that. I had hope some hogger might have already had this experience and could suggest a starting point.

efnelson

I like to shoot in the morning when the moon is decending. You can wait for it to line up with your landscape interest. I use a gradulated filter to allow a longer exposure. Works about half the time..lol

toxdoc42

Thanks for your comment, but it was the colors of the tree foliage, during the golden hour, that made the image so beautiful. That is why I wanted to shoot it then. If the sky was bright enough so the moon didn't get washed out, then the foliage would nopt have been as lush, lit by moonlight, as was the plan for the image.

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

Listen to Ysarex, he has the right idea. But his (and all the other solutions) require some amount of post-processing.

What your asking for is not likely to happen with a SOOC image. The moon is too bright (about the same as bright daylight) and the foreground too dark, as you've experienced. However with just a simple mask (blocking changes to the moon) and a little post-processing (brightening and NR to the balance of the image), even your darkest image may yield acceptable results for you. Here are a couple of quick lightening examples, using only your darkest image, even though it's just a jpeg.

Lightened from dark original jpeg

(Download)

Lightened even more

(Download)

toxdoc42

Thanks for the advice, interesting that you were able to bring out some of the image, but, it is still not what I had hopped for. Even using the RAW images, there is just not enough data to get the moon as clear as I would have liked it. I think the best advice was to try HDR the next time, then, maybe, the finished image can then be manipulated into closer to what I hope for. I mentioned to my wife that I wished the camera could be closer to the quality of the human eye.

I took your edit and did some further editing. it is getting closer.

(Download)


(Download)