Bold Moon Rising: Sharpness seems to escape me. What could I have done better? Camera Model: Canon EOS 7D Lens: EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - Filters: Removed

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Sharpness seems to escape me. What could I have done better?

Camera Model: Canon EOS 7D
Lens: EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
- Filters: Removed
- Mounted: to tripod
- Image Stabilization: OFF
Focal Length: 200.0mm
Shooting Mode: Manual Exposure
Image Quality: RAW
Tv(Shutter Speed): 1/125
Av(Aperture Value): 8.0
Metering Mode: Spot Metering
ISO Speed : 100
White Balance Mode: Auto
AF Mode: One-Shot AF
AF area select mode: Spot AF
Drive Mode: Self-Timer Operation
Live View Shooting: OFF
- Camera Trigger: Tethered to DSLR Controller

Shot mid-city, over a lit building, on 6 Dec 14 at 6:30pm, 58 degrees out, at several degrees above the horizon.

Live View produced similar success.

Bold Moon Rising

Algol Loc: Georgia

You mentioned shot over a lit building. You may want to try to get as far as possible from any structure that produces heat (buildings, concrete, pavement etc., even pine trees). At times they can produce what is termed "bad seeing" and can cause a soft focus. Also, due to the same effect, the moon is an extended object, not a point source such as a star. Atmospheric conditions can cause problems with creating an unsharp focus. This is what causes stars to twinkle. Astronomers absolutely hate nights when the stars are twinkling.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Hey Algol, I appreciate your reply and the detailed explanation. The shot was an unexpected project, but fun and a worthwhile learning experience.

To your reply, I've often wondered too, if shooting level with the horizon causes more distortion than shooting straight up for the reasons you point out.

I'll look for somewhere dark and out of town to give it another go. Thanks again! S-

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

Well the first thing Steve would be make so we can see it with the download. :) Next would be wait till it is the highest it can be in the sky. Have you tried the back screen for focus? You can zoom in on it pretty good and do manual focus. If I am out trying to get the best shot I can, I always use the back screen. At 200mm you are really making that lens work pretty hard. So if you can crop it tight that will help you see the details.
Erv

dlmorris Loc: Loma Linda, Ca

You've been given some good pointers already. If this was shot over some buildings, I'd include the buildings for interest sake. You will never get a really sharp image of the moon that close to the horizon. I was at the Mt. Wilson telescope, and they said they would never observe below about 45 degrees above the horizon, because of atmospheric distortion below that level. And as someone else pointed out, you're really pushing with a 200 mm lens. I've been pretty pleased with my Tamron 150-600 zoom, but even with that, I have to crop a lot. And just for the record, last night I shot the moon rising above the mountains with my Tameron, and my results weren't much better than yours. So you're not doing anything wrong, it's just the conditions you're shooting in. I'll bet if you got some of the cityscape buildings in your shot, it would be spectacular!

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Hey Erv, I appreciate your input and thought I had checked (store original). As to your question, when I used the LCD it looked in focus, but when I got back to the computer it didn't seem as much. I will try tethering my laptop next time. Thanks again! S-

(Download)

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Hey dlmorris, the building would have been a counter interest, but I know what you mean and will keep that in mind for the future. As for the rest, shooting high is excellent advice and something I did not know, but it makes sense. This is new to me and I thank you for your advice! S-

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

Steve, would you mind if I played with your shot?
Erv

St3v3M wrote:

Hey Erv, I appreciate your input and thought I had checked (store original). As to your question, when I used the LCD it looked in focus, but when I got back to the computer it didn't seem as much. I will try tethering my laptop next time. Thanks again! S-

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Erv wrote:

Steve, would you mind if I played with your shot?
Erv

ALWAYS!

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

I just sharpened it and added definition. Then turn it to black and white. And cropped it very tight.
Erv

St3v3M wrote:

ALWAYS!

(Download)

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Erv wrote:

I just sharpened it and added definition. Then turn it to black and white. And cropped it very tight.
Erv

I'm always leery of adding too much Sharpening. Is Definition a tool or an effect of Sharpening? And, is this the level of detail I can expect out of a 200mm lens or should I work for more?

And, Thank You! S-

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

I just play in post Steve. I should have said edge sharpening.:) No you can get better shots with your lens. It will mostly be the skies it is in rather than the lens. You can push the 200 for better shots. But as I said, wait for it to be over head. That is when it is closest and cleaner air. I have been out taking shots in what I though was very good skies, and come in and put them on the computer and have maybe one keeper.:)
Erv

St3v3M wrote:

I'm always leery of adding too much Sharpening. Is Definition a tool or an effect of Sharpening? And, is this the level of detail I can expect out of a 200mm lens or should I work for more?

And, Thank You! S-

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Erv wrote:

I just play in post Steve. I should have said edge sharpening.:) No you can get better shots with your lens. It will mostly be the skies it is in rather than the lens. You can push the 200 for better shots. But as I said, wait for it to be over head. That is when it is closest and cleaner air. I have been out taking shots in what I though was very good skies, and come in and put them on the computer and have maybe one keeper.:)
Erv

This helps more than you know. If I suck, then fine, I can deal with that, but if I can achieve more and know how I will work it till I am happy with the results. I don't do Like, I do I Like!

I don't live far from Mt. Wilson and may try that. I've thought of shooting star-trails there too, opposite times of the moon phase obviously, but it should be fun!

Thanks again everyone!!! S-

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Erv wrote:

.. Then turn it to black and white. ...
Erv

Before I forget, the moon was white in RAW, but I changed the Kelvin scale to match what I saw in the sky.
- Is white more appealing for the moon or should it be what you see? Curious.

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

LOL! I like to see the details so I think B/W looks a little better. But if you like the different colors I is your shot.:) I did a few blue ones for awhile.:):)
Erv

St3v3M wrote:

Before I forget, the moon was white in RAW, but I changed the Kelvin scale to match what I saw in the sky.
- Is white more appealing for the moon or should it be what you see? Curious.