Moon shots
Apr 6, 2012 18:17:08 #
Well it seem to be a full moon last night. Well at lease with my glasses. I did set the camera to "M" , f/16, 1/100th sec. But well they didn't come out well. The second one I moved up the ISO to maybe 400, but still not good.
I was using my tripod and used shutter delay so the tripod would have 10 sec to quite down.
On a few of the shots the camera meter didn't like the the Sweet 16 and wanted to increase the shutter speed to 5 sec.
Your thoughts are most welcome
Diet
As I lean forward to adjust the focus, my back started going out. So not the best focus.
I was using my tripod and used shutter delay so the tripod would have 10 sec to quite down.
On a few of the shots the camera meter didn't like the the Sweet 16 and wanted to increase the shutter speed to 5 sec.
Your thoughts are most welcome
Diet
As I lean forward to adjust the focus, my back started going out. So not the best focus.
Apr 6, 2012 18:39:38 #
What type/make of camera do you have? I am asking to see if you have LiveView or a similar accessory.
Apr 6, 2012 19:03:12 #
Are these your first moon shots? They're better than a lot of others we've seen.
Apr 6, 2012 21:30:24 #
brucew29 wrote:
What type/make of camera do you have? I am asking to see if you have LiveView or a similar accessory.
10 yr old Canon Rebel. I do have the camera adjusted so I can take off my glasses. But to need to put on my reading glasses to check some stuff. It was just a nice night and I had a ruff day. Just wanted to keep trying to do some shooting even as my back started to go.I was using a 75-300 lens and had it cracked out all the way. To bad Auto Focus would not work.
Oh no Live View.
Thanks for stopping by.
Diet
PS: You know in out west they make it real hard to get pain meds, so a lot of folks suffer.
Apr 6, 2012 21:44:26 #
OK... jsut wanted to know if you had LiveView... Some people have it and don't know it. It helps me focus by using the 10X magnified view. Can get pretty clear shots of the moon through my telescope. Below are a few photos that I took through my Dynamax 8 SCT telescope.
Dietxanadu wrote:
quote=brucew29 What type/make of camera do you ha... (show quote)
Moon at Prime Focus through Dynamax 8 SCT
Extreme Crop of Moon Surface
Moon and Orion Nebula
Apr 6, 2012 21:58:34 #
brucew29 wrote:
OK... jsut wanted to know if you had LiveView... S... (show quote)
I love the third one. I get somuch light coming from the city, it washes out most of everything. I do have a 6 in short tube reflector, but it is a bear just moving it around.
Diet
Apr 6, 2012 22:13:22 #
I know what you mean about light pollution. I live on the outskirts of the city but have neighboring security lights and a street light to contend with. On occassion when my neighbor is home she will turn the security light off when she sees me with my telescope out.
Apr 6, 2012 22:16:25 #
Once you zoom out all the way,it's just a liitle better focus if you back off just a hair,just the way lenses are made,it's just better that way."infinity",when it comes to lenses, is just short of the farthest-out setting..caution,not much though..
Apr 6, 2012 22:20:58 #
The moon and M42? When did Orion become zodiacal?
Apr 6, 2012 22:48:29 #
Diet,got to thinking about that "sunny 16" setting you had tried being a little under exposure. It's a nice rule of thumb but i used to find it a bit short of ideal exposure usually. It's for optimum conditions. Closer to horizon,the more atmosphere to interfere with clarity. But it's hard to wait until midnite when the moon is so high it's a "pain in the neck" to focus. For any atmosphere or smog you need to add an exposure step or more. I don't do moons anymore. It was a common practice with film or slides to shoot a moon and then find a night landscape to go with it in a double exposure.(Now i'm lazy and sometimes hurting too,so think you're doing just great if venturing out to do a moon shot.)
Apr 6, 2012 22:50:40 #
ngc1514 wrote:
The moon and M42? When did Orion become zodiacal?
It is a composite... forgot to mention that! The proportions are not correct, and the exposures are different... the exposure for the moon would not record M42; and the correct exposure for M42 would blow-out the moon, but I liked the combination.
P.S. I mentioned that it was a composite in an earlier post.
Apr 6, 2012 22:51:11 #
The rule I use for exposing the moon is sunny 11. Opening up a stop is usually a good starting point.
Apr 6, 2012 23:27:21 #
Yes,and the old rule of thumb for f16 would be 1/60, not 1/100 as Diet mentioned,tho he may have meant 1/60.
f11 gives that extra exposure step at 1/60,again for a good clear night. I preferred a faster shutter speed,so by the sunny 16 rule that's f8 @ 1/250,then drop it down to 1/125 or slower if needed. Diet mentioned the camera wanted to go for a 5 sec. exposure,it was of course reading the dark sky.
On my monitor the second 2 pics look good,they may look lighter or darker on someone else's. Anyway, it's one of those situations where a rule of thumb is better than a meter unless it could be a spot meter,amd even then he would have to compensate.So this takes a bit of thought and it's a whole lot better than "point&shoot" method.
f11 gives that extra exposure step at 1/60,again for a good clear night. I preferred a faster shutter speed,so by the sunny 16 rule that's f8 @ 1/250,then drop it down to 1/125 or slower if needed. Diet mentioned the camera wanted to go for a 5 sec. exposure,it was of course reading the dark sky.
On my monitor the second 2 pics look good,they may look lighter or darker on someone else's. Anyway, it's one of those situations where a rule of thumb is better than a meter unless it could be a spot meter,amd even then he would have to compensate.So this takes a bit of thought and it's a whole lot better than "point&shoot" method.
Apr 7, 2012 01:23:12 #
I wish I could get that good. all I get is whit balls most of the time. I did get a couple tonight, but they still are bad. The first 3 is the moon coming up through the clouds
others looked like this
Apr 7, 2012 07:20:25 #
brucew29 wrote:
It is a composite... forgot to mention that! The proportions are not correct, and the exposures are different... the exposure for the moon would not record M42; and the correct exposure for M42 would blow-out the moon, but I liked the combination.
P.S. I mentioned that it was a composite in an earlier post.
ngc1514 wrote:
The moon and M42? When did Orion become zodiacal?
It is a composite... forgot to mention that! The proportions are not correct, and the exposures are different... the exposure for the moon would not record M42; and the correct exposure for M42 would blow-out the moon, but I liked the combination.
P.S. I mentioned that it was a composite in an earlier post.
Just funnin with ya! Of course it's a composite - the ecliptic passes about 20 degrees north of M42 and is in the constellation of Taurus. This is why the full moon in the winter are much higher in the sky (for northern observers) than summer full moons.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.