How can I make this better next time? Took these with my D7000 during the supermoon in March. Used a 80-200 mm F 2.8. Settings were at jpeg fine (still haven't learned RAW). Exposure...

Overthehill1

Took these with my D7000 during the supermoon in March. Used a 80-200 mm F 2.8. Settings were at jpeg fine (still haven't learned RAW). Exposure was 6 seconds, manual focus, 800 ISO, F13 and lens set at 80, which on my camera is 120MM. A little post processing, mainly to increase exposure and reduce highlights so moon appears round. There is another supermoon due next week, and I'd like to improve on this. Hoping for favorable weather too. Suggestions?

(Download)

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

I don't know, it looks pretty darn good now.

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

I love it. I think the cars in the lower left detract so I'd clone them out. And lowering the color temperature of the lights on the left would make them more consistent with dream-like quality of the right side. And, I'd remove that green spot in the tree on the upper left and the glasses? on the building lower right. I know, that's a bunch of picky stuff, but I think the photo is really nice and worth the time.

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

Or, if you are going to re-shoot, consider not including the left lights (since their colors are so "modern" blue)?

Overthehill1

Thanks, I'm betting cars won't be problem next week since all the businesses and restaurants are mostly closed.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

If you didn't use a tripod, use one next time. It appears focus is off a bit, which leads me to believe you were trying to take the picture hand held.

Overthehill1

Used a tripod. Don't remember for sure what my focus point was, probably infinity to get the moon and clock tower. Would a closer focus point and smaller aperture make a difference? Download looks a bit grainy, as we used to say in the film days.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Overthehill1 wrote:

Took these with my D7000 during the supermoon in March. Used a 80-200 mm F 2.8. Settings were at jpeg fine (still haven't learned RAW).

There is nothing to learn about RAW unless for some reason you want to know how it works.

Take the shot in RAW
Download to computer like any other photo
Open the photo in any RAW editor. I use Adobe Camera Raw. Lightroom makes automatic adjustments you have no control over and converts your RAW image to a NEF file.
Open the new file and treat it just like any jpg file you have ever edited.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

Overthehill1 wrote:

Used a tripod. Don't remember for sure what my focus point was, probably infinity to get the moon and clock tower. Would a closer focus point and smaller aperture make a difference? Download looks a bit grainy, as we used to say in the film days.

You might have to tweak where exactly infinity is on that lens, because everything should be considerably sharper.

BTW, the exif data shows f/10 @ 1.3 seconds, which should still be fine. But it can't hurt changing to F11 to F13ish.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

Curmudgeon wrote:

There is nothing to learn about RAW unless for some reason you want to know how it works.

Take the shot in RAW
Download to computer like any other photo
Open the photo in any RAW editor. I use Adobe Camera Raw. Lightroom makes automatic adjustments you have no control over and converts your RAW image to a NEF file.
Open the new file and treat it just like any jpg file you have ever edited.

It won't help his focus issues, which are probably more important than figuring out a RAW editor.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The softness looks more like camera movement - perhaps an accidental knock or an unnoticed gust of wind. At f/10, if you'd focused on the distant buildings - for example the clock tower - they look far enough away that the DOF would include the moon (having the moon sharp isn't critical anyway).

One of the issues is the dynamic range. If you'd exposed low enough to stop the moon from being blown, the foreground stuff would have been even more under-exposed and therefore even noisier. If you'd exposed for the foreground, the moon and its halo would have been completely blown. Exposure bracketing is a possibility if there isn't too much movement within the frame. But be advised, it's easy to underestimate how bright the moon is, and exposure bracketing doesn't guarantee a successful outcome in all situations. Doing a composite is another possibility (probably the best option if you can do them).

par4fore Loc: Bay Shore N.Y.

Overthehill1 wrote:

Took these with my D7000 during the supermoon in March. Used a 80-200 mm F 2.8. Settings were at jpeg fine (still haven't learned RAW). Exposure was 6 seconds, manual focus, 800 ISO, F13 and lens set at 80, which on my camera is 120MM. A little post processing, mainly to increase exposure and reduce highlights so moon appears round. There is another supermoon due next week, and I'd like to improve on this. Hoping for favorable weather too. Suggestions?

"Optical infinity is the spot on the focus ring at which a very distant subject, such as the moon, is at its best focus. The hard stop is the place at which the focus ring will turn no further. These two spots are often not the same. On some lenses the optical infinity may be closely aligned with the hard stop. On other lenses, the focus ring will move well past actual infinity focus, such that the image becomes blurry again.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Overthehill1 wrote:

Took these with my D7000 during the supermoon in March. Used a 80-200 mm F 2.8. Settings were at jpeg fine (still haven't learned RAW). Exposure was 6 seconds, manual focus, 800 ISO, F13 and lens set at 80, which on my camera is 120MM. A little post processing, mainly to increase exposure and reduce highlights so moon appears round. There is another supermoon due next week, and I'd like to improve on this. Hoping for favorable weather too. Suggestions?

I would not shoot at such a small aperture, since you've really got nothing in the foreground to go out of focus. Then I would suggest at least one bracket at -2 or -3 EV so that you have a correct exposure for the moon, which can then be masked in. Or you can get audacious and make an HDR. HDR would also give you some detail in the bright highlights on the street. This is not exactly the same, but here is an example of a night shot in China in HDR. This is the only way, in my experience, to capture the whole tonal range of a night shot like the one you are trying for.

(Download)

guardineer

Curmudgeon wrote:

There is nothing to learn about RAW unless for some reason you want to know how it works.

Take the shot in RAW
Download to computer like any other photo
Open the photo in any RAW editor. I use Adobe Camera Raw. Lightroom makes automatic adjustments you have no control over and converts your RAW image to a NEF file.
Open the new file and treat it just like any jpg file you have ever edited.

I'm so glad you offered this advice. I'll emphasize, just switch your camera to raw!

fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...

Expose for the brightest part of the image in which you want to include detail; if that's the moon, the moon is illuminated by the sun- on a clear night, an exposure of 1/250 @ f/11 ISO 100 will get you in the ballpark- and will tame all those blown-out streetlights, clock and store lights, too. Don't know what processing program you use but... Lightroom or ACR will bring up the shadows much more than you might think to balance the highlights. Yeah, shoot RAW.... Looking at your image, and just guessing what the circumstance was when you shot it, I'd have gone with 1/125 @ f/11 ISO 200. In processing, if noise is objectionable, would throw a texture over everything except highlights.... ... just an opinion...