A point that's often overlooked when discussing how to shoot a full moon (Page 3): Did you read all the way to where he says: But, wait I’m not done yet! Since the moon is so far away...

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Architect1776 wrote:

Here is an instructor's point of view on the subject.
Photos look pretty good to me.
https://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/photographing-the-moon/

Did you read all the way to where he says:

But, wait I’m not done yet!

Since the moon is so far away, why use the lens almost fully closed?

why not use the lens fully open and take advantage of using a very fast shutter speed? This is what I do every time that I photograph the moon.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Gene51 wrote:

.. Though it is a bit of an urban legend, no "Sunny 16" here. Maybe Sunny 11 - nothing has changed with the moon - it's just that Sunny 16 doesn't and never did apply -

...

Both approaches are valid for exposing the moon. There is only a 1 stop difference between Sunny 16 and Loonie 11. One places the gray material on the surface of the moon on Zone V and the other places it on Zone VI.

But as has been pointed out elsewhere, neither rule requires the use of f/16 or f/11. All that is needed is to offset any change in aperture with an equal and opposite change in shutter speed to keep the exposure constant.

For example at ISO 400, instead of 1/400 @ f/16 we can open the aperture three stops to f/5.6 and increase the shutter speed three stops to 1/3200. It's the same Sunny 16 exposure and you can hand-hold a fairly long focal length lens. Loonie 11 can use the same ISO 400 1/1600 at f/5.6 which is still a pretty fast shutter speed.

Most modern cameras don't have much of a noise problem at ISO 400. If you manage to see any, the easiest solution is to raise the black point in PP and just cover it up. You might lose some small stars but the moon will be unaffected.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

abc1234 wrote:

Gene, I suspect this would be sharper if you used a tripod. Did you have image stabilization on? What was the focal length? As you have said in the past, this is a very heavy lens so do you think you can hold it steady enough?

I doubt it.

OS was on, and as I stated in the post, the focal length was 600mm, and yes, I have yet to put this lens on a tripod, so I have no trouble with it's 6.5 lb weight. Do you really think you see motion blur?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Gene51 wrote:

I doubt it.

OS was on, and as I stated in the post, the focal length was 600mm, and yes, I have yet to put this lens on a tripod, so I have no trouble with it's 6.5 lb weight. Do you really think you see motion blur?

I don’t see any motion blur either.

What we all are more likely to find is a little interference from the atmosphere. Another common issue is glare from urban lights. You really need to head for the boondocks or the mountains in calm weather to get around these problems.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Gene51 wrote:

I doubt it.

OS was on, and as I stated in the post, the focal length was 600mm, and yes, I have yet to put this lens on a tripod, so I have no trouble with it's 6.5 lb weight. Do you really think you see motion blur?

Gene...

In my opinion, this is a very nice portrait of the moon. It is well exposed and has lots of detail. I like to do mine maybe a half stop (or maybe a little more) darker, but I like your image.

If you look along the left side and top of the limb, from about the 7:00 position to maybe the 12:30 position, there is some sort of ghosting. I wonder if this is what he is seeing? But the right side and boundary look perfect. It could be some sort of artifact from when you made your upload copy, could be some sort of flare, or could be just the characteristic of the way the light is reflected. The sun is behind your left shoulder, with its light passing by your left temple, it looks like, so maybe that is the source of the effect.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Linda From Maine wrote:

Did you read all the way to where he says:

But, wait I’m not done yet!

Since the moon is so far away, why use the lens almost fully closed?

why not use the lens fully open and take advantage of using a very fast shutter speed? This is what I do every time that I photograph the moon.

Yes, I read the whole thing.
And he confirmed what I said at the beginning. It is a good starting point then experiment from there. But he gets all the students started with the sunny 16 rule and then they go from there as they choose with different settings.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Linda From Maine wrote:

.....why not use the lens fully open and take advantage of using a very fast shutter speed?.....

It would make sense to me to use the widest aperture that your lens is capable of - unless it's known to be soft when wide open. Most newbies won't be using constant aperture lenses so they won't be wide open at that level of zoom so they won't have to worry about what it's like wide open. The shutter speed doesn't have to be very fast, but the moon is a moving target and a fast shutter speed will help.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Architect1776 wrote:

Yes, I read the whole thing.
And he confirmed what I said at the beginning. It is a good starting point then experiment from there. But he gets all the students started with the sunny 16 rule and then they go from there as they choose with different settings.

I guess that confirms what RobertJerl has mentioned (he's a former educator) about the value of being able to see exif on shots posted to UHH. Any "starting" place is better than nothing.

And maybe the catchy name helps?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Linda From Maine wrote:

I guess that confirms what RobertJerl has mentioned (he's a former educator) about the value of being able to see exif on shots posted to UHH.

And maybe the catchy name helps?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

R.G. wrote:

It would make sense to me to use the widest aperture that your lens is capable of - unless it's known to be soft when wide open. Most newbies won't be using constant aperture lenses so they won't be wide open at that level of zoom so they won't have to worry about what it's like wide open. The shutter speed doesn't have to be very fast, but the moon is a moving target and a fast shutter speed will help.

The first time I shot the full moon at sunrise and saw how quickly the moon disappeared at the horizon, I was shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Linda From Maine wrote:

The first time I shot the full moon at sunrise and saw how quickly the moon disappeared at the horizon, I was shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

It would probably take me half the night to do the maths needed to re-calculate Sunny 16

.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

R.G. wrote:

It would probably take me half the night to do the maths needed to re-calculate Sunny 16

.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Linda From Maine wrote:

I guess that confirms what RobertJerl has mentioned (he's a former educator) about the value of being able to see exif on shots posted to UHH. Any "starting" place is better than nothing.

And maybe the catchy name helps?

Here is basically using the sunny 16 rule. Seemed to work pretty well.
Then using a similar photo to replace the washed out moon over the Casino in LV.
And that is where the original moon was.

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Architect1776 wrote:

Here is basically using the sunny 16 rule. Seemed to work pretty well.
Then using a similar photo to replace the washed out moon over the Casino in LV.
And that is where the original moon was.

Thanks for posting those. I never intended to suggest that those settings wouldn't produce a satisfactory result, more that they aren't logical from the standpoint of aperture. There's just no "need" for f/16 and for some of us, those 2 or 3 stops are much better applied to a faster shutter speed or lower ISO.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Linda From Maine wrote:

Thanks for posting those. I never intended to suggest that those settings wouldn't produce a satisfactory result, more that they aren't logical from the standpoint of aperture. There's just no "need" for f/16 and for some of us, those 2 or 3 stops are much better applied to a faster shutter speed or lower ISO.

You are absolutely correct. For a beginner this gets you a photo that is not a white ball, then if you know how relationships of aperture, shutter and ISO work you can adjust from there to get the combination that works for you. It is just sometimes hard to get a useable exposure to start with if you are just starting out.
Kind of like target shooting. Once you are on paper then you can adjust as needed but until you are on paper it is hard to know where to go (Unless you have a good spotter).