capturing an image
Sep 29, 2015 00:35:50 #
image #1 is the full frame from which i cropped enough to get image#2.
Any 20mp body and 200mm lens should be able to get equal or better results but looking at the dozens of posted moons, most are not.
My question is:
why not?
Any 20mp body and 200mm lens should be able to get equal or better results but looking at the dozens of posted moons, most are not.
My question is:
why not?
Sep 29, 2015 06:45:01 #
oldtigger wrote:
image #1 is the full frame from which i cropped enough to get image#2.
Any 20mp body and 200mm lens should be able to get equal or better results but looking at the dozens of posted moons, most are not.
My question is:
why not?
Any 20mp body and 200mm lens should be able to get equal or better results but looking at the dozens of posted moons, most are not.
My question is:
why not?
Not many try to capture a new moon. Most concentrate on a full moon, which is easier to expose - EV 15 at ISO 100.
The problem seems to be that this is an image of the dark side of the moon illuminated by earth-shine. Boosting the brightness and contrast with post-processing has brought out a lot of noise on the moon surface. There is none in the dark surrounding sky.
Were you working with a raw file? At ISO 400 it should have been possible to recover the detail in the highlights along the edges. If you only have the JPEG it is less likely to work.
Sep 29, 2015 07:20:06 #
oldtigger wrote:
Any 20mp body and 200mm lens should be able to get equal or better results but looking at the dozens of posted moons, most are not.
My question is:
why not?
Any 20mp body and 200mm lens should be able to get equal or better results but looking at the dozens of posted moons, most are not.
My question is:
why not?
Atmospheric conditions, pollution, thin clouds, camera shake, focusing errors, incorrect exposure, poor editing skills... All of these are mistakes are problems that I have experienced in getting a good shot of the moon.
Sep 29, 2015 07:39:04 #
Got one in my life with a bridge camera by sheer luck.
If you can do it on a regular basis might be nice to share your settings and technique with us dumb folks who are maybe not quite at your level. Many like me come to learn as well as admire a good image
If you can do it on a regular basis might be nice to share your settings and technique with us dumb folks who are maybe not quite at your level. Many like me come to learn as well as admire a good image
Sep 29, 2015 09:15:47 #
Frank2013
Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.
oldtigger wrote:
image #1 is the full frame from which i cropped enough to get image#2.
Any 20mp body and 200mm lens should be able to get equal or better results but looking at the dozens of posted moons, most are not.
My question is:
why not?
Any 20mp body and 200mm lens should be able to get equal or better results but looking at the dozens of posted moons, most are not.
My question is:
why not?
My first couple of attempts were duds and have not tried since. You make it look easy.......maybe I'll revisit.
Sep 29, 2015 10:46:17 #
selmslie wrote:
Not many try to capture a new moon. ... Boosting the brightness and contrast with post-processing has brought out a lot of noise on the moon surface. ..... At ISO 400 it should have been possible to recover the detail in the highlights along the edges. If you only have the JPEG it is less likely to work.
You are right, i shot myself in the foot.
Rickity tripod, high ISO, long exposure, tripped shutter with my finger, didn't use mirror lockup, contrast blew out edges, sharpening increased noise, jpg instead of raw, etc...etc. but we already knew i'm a sloppy shooter.
My question was why are we not seeing more detail and surface features in the moon shot posts?
People have the hardware, the moons surface hasn't changed.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-340275-1.html shows how
surface detail degrades as as the moon darkens.
Why does it do that?
Sep 29, 2015 11:30:47 #
oldtigger wrote:
... My question was why are we not seeing more detail and surface features in the moon shot posts?
People have the hardware, the moons surface hasn't changed.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-340275-1.html shows how
surface detail degrades as as the moon darkens.
Why does it do that?
People have the hardware, the moons surface hasn't changed.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-340275-1.html shows how
surface detail degrades as as the moon darkens.
Why does it do that?
There are lots of reasons but the most important one is that there simply is not enough light coming back from the dark side and you need a lot more exposure to swamp the noise. You may need an equatorial mount to allow longer exposures.
For very long exposures, you even need to allow, not only the rotation of the earth but also for the much slower movement of the moon.
Here http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-340281-1.html#5708598 is one of my early feeble attempts at a moon shot. You can't see the entire moon but there is clearly too much contrast between the light side and the dark side.
Sep 29, 2015 11:34:34 #
oldtigger wrote:
You are right, i shot myself in the foot.
Rickity tripod, high ISO, long exposure, tripped shutter with my finger, didn't use mirror lockup, contrast blew out edges, sharpening increased noise, jpg instead of raw, etc...etc. but we already knew i'm a sloppy shooter.
My question was why are we not seeing more detail and surface features in the moon shot posts?
People have the hardware, the moons surface hasn't changed.
Rickity tripod, high ISO, long exposure, tripped shutter with my finger, didn't use mirror lockup, contrast blew out edges, sharpening increased noise, jpg instead of raw, etc...etc. but we already knew i'm a sloppy shooter.
My question was why are we not seeing more detail and surface features in the moon shot posts?
People have the hardware, the moons surface hasn't changed.
I'm not as technically savvy as most here, but remembering basics, a full moon is illuminated by direct "high noon" type sunlight. Almost everyone shoots a full moon. A day or two of waning will perk up shadow details.
Your earthshine shot is in the same directional light, just much less bringing into play all the low light factors as well.
Sep 29, 2015 11:46:54 #
oldtigger wrote:
My question was why are we not seeing more detail and surface features in the moon shot posts?
People have the hardware, the moons surface hasn't changed.
My question was why are we not seeing more detail and surface features in the moon shot posts?
People have the hardware, the moons surface hasn't changed.
I never get good results shooting a full moon. I prefer the shadows that are cast during partial moons. The surface of the moon does not change, but the shadows that help the moon's features stand out do change. I get much better results when the mountains and craters stand out because of the shadows they cast.
Sep 29, 2015 15:15:11 #
NormanHarley wrote:
I never get good results shooting a full moon. I prefer the shadows that are cast during partial moons. The surface of the moon does not change, but the shadows that help the moon's features stand out do change. I get much better results when the mountains and craters stand out because of the shadows they cast.
Exactamundo Norman, and a great example as well.
Sep 29, 2015 20:55:27 #
oldtigger wrote:
image #1 is the full frame from which i cropped enough to get image#2.
Any 20mp body and 200mm lens should be able to get equal or better results but looking at the dozens of posted moons, most are not.
My question is:
why not?
Any 20mp body and 200mm lens should be able to get equal or better results but looking at the dozens of posted moons, most are not.
My question is:
why not?
Maybe the best moon shot I've ever seen. Outrageous.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.