light: I took a picture of the full moon last night and in every picture there is a blue light. I use a D7000 ISO 1600 WB auto using 70-300 lens at 260 mnn w F6.3 where is this blob...

PES Loc: Georgia

I took a picture of the full moon last night and in every picture there is a blue light. I use a D7000 ISO 1600 WB auto using 70-300 lens at 260 mnn w F6.3 where is this blob coming from

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Its caused by the overexposure of the moon primarily. You need to remember that its daylight on the moon, expose for daylight shots. Sunny 16 rule is a good start. ISO 100, F16 and expose for your lens, 300mm = 1/300sec. Then adjust from there.

PES Loc: Georgia

thanks...will try again

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

PES wrote:

I took a picture of the full moon last night and in every picture there is a blue light. I use a D7000 ISO 1600 WB auto using 70-300 lens at 260 mnn w F6.3 where is this blob coming from

The moon is the same as photographing a light. drop the ios down to 100

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

MT Shooter wrote:

Its caused by the overexposure of the moon primarily. You need to remember that its daylight on the moon, expose for daylight shots. Sunny 16 rule is a good start. ISO 100, F16 and expose for your lens, 300mm = 1/300sec. Then adjust from there.

I'm still learning, MT, so forgive me if I'm mistaken, but is the blue blob what is often referred to as 'flare', more commonly occurring as a result of sunlight refracting in the lens?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

The flare IS more commonly caused by shooting into the sun, but, as in this case, the severe overexposure of the moon can and has caused the same effect. The focus point is on the much closer tree and the moon is an extraneous object here, blown out entirely, resulting in the flare.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

MT Shooter wrote:

The flare IS more commonly caused by shooting into the sun, but, as in this case, the severe overexposure of the moon can and has caused the same effect. The focus point is on the much closer tree and the moon is an extraneous object here, blown out entirely, resulting in the flare.

So then adjusting exposure will remove it or only reduce it? Would changing shooting angle, i.e. dead on, also help?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Proper exposure should all but eliminate it, and yes, straight on shooting would also eliminate it because that light would not be reflecting off internal lens elements as obviously as it is in this example.
The blue color of the flare is resulting for the flare picking up color from the multi-coated surface of a lens element, it could very well be exacerbated by the use of a filter (UV or other) on the front of the lens, they often compound this particular flare problem, especially with a cheaper non-coated filter.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Thanks, MT.
One of life's simple pleasures for me- finding out I actually grasp a concept! :)

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

MT Shooter wrote:

The flare IS more commonly caused by shooting into the sun, but, as in this case, the severe overexposure of the moon can and has caused the same effect. The focus point is on the much closer tree and the moon is an extraneous object here, blown out entirely, resulting in the flare.

So then adjusting exposure will remove it or only reduce it? Would changing shooting angle, i.e. dead on, also help?

Dynamic range is gonna play an important part here. The tree branches are going to by totally black when the exposure is ok for the moon unless there is some fill flash used and at 260mm that's going to be a difficult task

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

And if the moon were in focus it would be a LOT smaller.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Do you have a UV / Lens Protection FILTER on your lens? Your shot looks a lot like an internal reflection off of an uncoated glass filter. IF you have a cheap, uncoated filter on your lens, go get one that has been multi-coated to reduce/prevent reflections. Yeah - - it'll cost you $65 instead of $12 - - but THEN you won't get those green blobs (unless, of course, as MT Shooter suggested, your whole lens only cost $12 - - in which case the reflections may well be internal to your lens - - in THAT case - you're hosed until you upgrade your lens).

PES Loc: Georgia

interesting..the lens protector was $60.00 and the lens >$500 from Nikon. In some circles that would be considered cheap...I thought it was middle of the road. I will keep trying and see

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

PES wrote:

interesting..the lens protector was $60.00 and the lens >$500 from Nikon. In some circles that would be considered cheap...I thought it was middle of the road. I will keep trying and see

Price means nothing when it comes to UV filters, I have seen uncoated filters for $90 and multi-coated filters for $20, its the coating that matters.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

PES wrote:

interesting..the lens protector was $60.00 and the lens >$500 from Nikon.

Certainly an easy thing to check - - take off the filter & duplicate the shot. The key to seeing reflections is that the lens axis is only 1 or 2 degrees off from being pointed straight at the light source {in fact - your point of aim/focus will be half-way between the light source and the reflection}. If you only get the blobs with the filter ON - - well - - there you are.

The photo below shows a distinct reflection of the filament of the light bulb - which disappeared when I removed the uncoated Tiffen UV filter. By TILTING the camera slightly off-axis - I could put the reflection anywhere in the picture I wanted -

Internal Reflection from Uncoated Filter