What is causing the what looks like camera shake on the moon (Page 4): Pretend its day time when you shoot the moon at night. You'll be surprised sat what you will get.

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

Pretend its day time when you shoot the moon at night. You'll be surprised sat what you will get.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

Hal81 wrote:

Pretend its day time when you shoot the moon at night. You'll be surprised sat what you will get.

I have done that when shooting just the moon, and it works wonderfully. I was probably trying to get too much into one photo with this. I wanted the moon coming up over the Badland formations.

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

Country's Mama wrote:

I have done that when shooting just the moon, and it works wonderfully. I was probably trying to get too much into one photo with this. I wanted the moon coming up over the Badland formations.

:thumbup:

Ron Of TN Loc: Middle Tenn

[quote=Meives]

Country's Mama wrote:

Is this a joke. Below is the data. The folmula for shutter speed is 1/mm lens. At 600 mm the shutter should be 1/600. Data shows 1.6 secounds. David

Your formula is normally only used for handheld shooting. When using a good tripod any f stop can successfully be used.

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

Country's Mama wrote:

Not sure what you are referring to, but right or wrong the exif doesn't lie and this is what I shot it at. I am thinking I have a lot to learn about night photography. I know it wasn't at 1/600. This is a 400mm prime lens. I am not sure what the 600mm means other than I have a crop sensor camera and that might make it the equivalent of a 600mm. Someone with more knowledge is going to have to jump in here.

I apologize for my stupid remarks. I was thinking that the shot of the moon was hand held. When this is the case you use the formula of 1/mm lens. I was mixed up also if the lens was 400 or 600. Since we are not talking hand held, that makes no difference. I will try to read your notes next time before I jump in. I think it could be the earth and moon rotation causing the blur. By setting the ISO higher you could drop the time to about 30 seconds. David

alice62 Loc: eureka, IL

did you turn the VR off on your camera? since you were on a tripod

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

alice62 wrote:

did you turn the VR off on your camera? since you were on a tripod

LOL! At first I was going to bemoan the fact that I didn't, but this lens is so old it doesn't have VR. :-D

joto9d7 Loc: Laguna Hills

What we are doing with this "camera shake" argument is to start out taking our own photographic, visual, hard evidence that we can see from our photographs. and then we deny the truth of what we see by asking if it might be "camera shake" and weren't we the ones who took the pictures in the first place?

When NASA hit the moon with a nuclear bomb a few years back, they say that the Moon rang like a bell and that the Moon is hollow.

I think that the Moon shakes all of the time, but the evidence should be in those photos that you have of the moon shaking.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

joto9d7 wrote:

What we are doing with this "camera shake&quo... (show quote)

Yep. It must be moon shake for sure. :shock:

erickter Loc: Dallas,TX

You make no mention of your camera settings, tripod or hand held, lens mm, etc. Guessing is a waste of time. Only clue was that
Wind was mentioned. Big shake factor.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

erickter wrote:

You make no mention of your camera settings, tripod or hand held, lens mm, etc. Guessing is a waste of time. Only clue was that
Wind was mentioned. Big shake factor.

Camera Model Name NIKON D200
Software Adobe Photoshop Elements 11.0 Macintosh
Exposure Time 1.6
F Number 16.00
Exposure Program Manual
ISO 200
Exif Version 0221
Shutter Speed Value 1.6
Aperture Value 16.00
Exposure Compensation 0
Max Aperture Value 5.7
Metering Mode Spot
Flash No Flash
Focal Length 400.0 mm

I don't usually include the exif data as it is so easy for someone to look at it themselves if they want to.
I was on a tripod and I was using the timer.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Not to be pedantic, but the moon is a satellite and "revolves" around the earth. Both are moving bodies.

In this instance, 1.6 seconds is too long of a shutter duration to minimize this effect.

All the other explanations are not the reason for a blurred moon when shooting a 1.6 second exposure unless you using a timing device which is moving your camera/lens in the same direction as the moon's travel and at the same speed.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

Not to be pedantic, but the moon is a satellite and "revolves" around the earth. Both are moving bodies.

In this instance, 1.6 seconds is too long of a shutter duration to minimize this effect.

All the other explanations are not the reason for a blurred moon when shooting a 1.6 second exposure unless you using a timing device which is moving your camera/lens in the same direction as the moon's travel and at the same speed.

Thank you for the comments. It just reenforces what others have said and fixes it in my mind that I must use a shorter shutter speed. Maybe blend photos so I can get the exposure right for the landscape and keep the moon sharp.

skywolf

On my Nikon 3100, with a DX 55-200, I was advised to turn off the vibration reduction because under a long exposure, it can create a vibration effect in the image. Don't understand why, but I haven't had any problems when doing this.

Country's Mama Loc: Michigan

skywolf wrote:

On my Nikon 3100, with a DX 55-200, I was advised to turn off the vibration reduction because under a long exposure, it can create a vibration effect in the image. Don't understand why, but I haven't had any problems when doing this.

No VR to turn off using this lens. :) But I do tend to forget to do that. :-D