Are these subjects just incompatible? OK, lots of us want to get great moon shots, but it is more interesting to put something else in to make it a natural setting. So, I went to the...

SonyBug

OK, lots of us want to get great moon shots, but it is more interesting to put something else in to make it a natural setting. So, I went to the Penobscot Narrows Bridge, and tried to get both the super moon and the bridge. Used a 14-24 Nikon lens, and various settings on a D800E. So, without taking two shots, one to expose the moon, and the other for the bridge, and then combining, Are these two subjects possible to shoot and get in focus and with proper lighting at the same time in one shot?

(Download)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

nikonbug wrote:

OK, lots of us want to get great moon shots, but it is more interesting to put something else in to make it a natural setting. So, I went to the Penobscot Narrows Bridge, and tried to get both the super moon and the bridge. Used a 14-24 Nikon lens, and various settings on a D800E. So, without taking two shots, one to expose the moon, and the other for the bridge, and then combining, Are these two subjects possible to shoot and get in focus and with proper lighting at the same time in one shot?

I'd say the result is what counts, and you got a good result. Eliminating some of the sky would emphasize both subjects.

Mike Adams Loc: Connecticut

This might be a time to make use of HDR (judiciously).

Photo.Jerry

A quick rule of thumb on moon shots. The moon is in direct sunlight while the rest of the photograph is not. Different exposures will apply to get both. Unless, of course the moon's light is blocked by the atmosphere or clouds.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I agree with Jerry that some cropping will help you emphasize the moon. I wouldn't want to cut off the top of the bridge - maybe just some from the left side. It's a beautiful bridge and I can see why you wanted to use that location.

Exposure is easiest when getting the moon right around sunset or moonset.

I took these yesterday morning. In the first shot, I pasted a well exposed moon to the image because it was quite dark out. However, a few minutes later it was close enough to sunrise that I could expose both the moon and the foreground + it's fun to see it set on the horizon. In photo #2 I used an editor to slightly darken the moon and to give it a bit more detail: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-234880-1.html

For the below images, it was the day after the full moon (like today, when I'll be heading out again :) ) and the moon was still visible well after sunrise:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-227083-1.html

doduce Loc: Holly Springs NC

Seems to me you could do several things if you want to get deep into PP. Use Content Aware Move in PS to slide the moon closer to the bridge, then crop. Create a composite with a larger, more colorful moon, maybe reduce the exposure to make it more dramatic. But it is your image and vision. All in all, a nice solid shot.

naturepics43 Loc: Hocking Co. Ohio - USA

nikonbug wrote:

So, without taking two shots, one to expose the moon, and the other for the bridge, and then combining, Are these two subjects possible to shoot and get in focus and with proper lighting at the same time in one shot?

I think you will find that the simple, short answer is NO!
Your question has many variables.
You will probably get answers that are all over the map , like perceived focus, minimum viewing distance, etc.

Proper filters might help with exposure but having the bridge & moon (technically) in focus in one shot? I don't think so.

Good luck!

PS: You did pretty good with this shot but you have a couple of sensor spots to clone out.

jgitomer Loc: Skippack Pennsylvania

nikonbug wrote:

OK, lots of us want to get great moon shots, but it is more interesting to put something else in to make it a natural setting. So, I went to the Penobscot Narrows Bridge, and tried to get both the super moon and the bridge. Used a 14-24 Nikon lens, and various settings on a D800E. So, without taking two shots, one to expose the moon, and the other for the bridge, and then combining, Are these two subjects possible to shoot and get in focus and with proper lighting at the same time in one shot?

If you don't mind shooting raw and then spending a lot of time (perhaps hours?) post processing you MIGHT be able to get away with a single shot.

After all Ansel Adams did the equivalent with film in the darkroom in his famous photo Moonrise :D

But, for us mere mortals it will take at least two shots. :-(

Jerry

Photo.Jerry

Most of Ansel Adams photographs were what we would consider manipulated. Being a classically trained musician he compared the negative to the score and the print to the performance. He kept annotated "maps" of each print with the dodging and burning-in instructions on them to ease his making of reprints.

SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

Next time perhaps you could go onto the bridge, assuming there is a pedestrian walkway, and use part of the bridge (railing, cables, posts) as a framing device for the moon to give you the upclose/faraway look.

SonyBug

Thank you for all who answered. The consensus seemed to be that a single shot with two very disparate focal points is not doable with a single shot. I have a thing for getting a really good picture of the moon. Tried many times and still do not get what I want. Maybe I need a new lens. My wife calls me a lens-whore. (if I can say that here!) Just kidding, I have the equipment, just need practice. Many of you'all do it very well and kudos to you!

Thanks guys and gals for the replies!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

nikonbug wrote:

Thank you for all who answered. The consensus seemed to be that a single shot with two very disparate focal points is not doable with a single shot. I have a thing for getting a really good picture of the moon. Tried many times and still do not get what I want. Maybe I need a new lens. My wife calls me a lens-whore. (if I can say that here!) Just kidding, I have the equipment, just need practice. Many of you'all do it very well and kudos to you!

Thanks guys and gals for the replies!

Easier to do most of the time with two shots but, yes, it is doable in a single shot.
There is a small window of time at each end of the day when the settings for both will be able to be about the same.
I think I read somewhere that that window is about 6 minutes, give or take a bit.
Closer to the poles that 6 minutes will stretch out at certain times of the year.
Looks like you were a little bit late on the 6 minute window.
Moon is overexposed, land is underexposed.
10-15 minutes earlier might have been the correct time.

How to do it?
Work out your exposure on the moon.
And then take the shot when that exposure setting is right for the land.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

lighthouse wrote:

Easier to do most of the time with two shots but, ... (show quote)

A full moon is straight on illumination by the sun, and the earth is too at Noon. It isn't a 6 minute window, it several hours!

However, the earth's atmosphere is also illuminated which will reduce the contrast of light from the moon. Hence ideally one would choose a day when the moon is just above the horizon in relatively the east at the same time the sun is setting relatively in the west (at higher latitudes that becomes less and less "relative" and might be closer to north and south than east and west). As the sun sets in one direction the atmosphere in the opposite direction has lower illumination and becomes less trouble if the moon is low enough on the horizon. Very tricky timing and the optimum window may be only seconds long for any given ratio of lighting on the earth compared to lighting of the moon. I don't know how much the atmospheric haze will actually affect the results, and it might well a reasonable window of hours even though it isn't exactly optimal.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Apaflo wrote:

A full moon is straight on illumination by the sun... (show quote)

Make up your mind Apaflo.
Is it "several hours" or "only seconds" long?
You seem more concerned with disagreeing and point scoring than giving the information.
Possibly my 6 minutes was falsely remembered with a different but similar situation - cityscapes on the changeover from day to dark.
Either way, you appear to agree with me that it is possible to take a shot for both the land and the moon, contrary to the other posters.
And I still think my information is more correct than yours.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

lighthouse wrote:

Make up your mind Apaflo.
Is it "several hours" or "only seconds" long?

One situations lasts for hours. That is, specifically, the time you discussed when the illumination for both the moon and the earth are the same.

lighthouse wrote:

You seem more concerned with disagreeing and point scoring than giving the information.

That is your problem, not mine.

lighthouse wrote:

Possibly my 6 minutes was falsely remembered with a different but similar situation - cityscapes on the changeover from day to dark.
Either way, you appear to agree with me that it is possible to take a shot for both the land and the moon, contrary to the other posters.
And I still think my information is more correct than yours.

Think about it logically for a few seconds. During the mid part of the day, when the sun is nearly overhead, a full moon and the earth have virtually identical illumination in terms of how much exposure for a photograph. That is a condition that lasts for hours, not minutes.

Beyond that time of day the dynamic range of the camera can significantly make up for differences, assuming one uses a modern digital camera and shoots at ISO 100. As the sun sets though, the moon remains bright and the earth does not, and that is when HDR would be useful.

None of the above necessarily makes for the best image, in terms of sharpness and higher contrast, of the moon though. And that is what I addressed as having an optimal time that lasts only seconds. Very different than anything you mentioned.