Moon shots...
Several years ago I was told by a pro. that to shoot the moon, the camera settings need to be at least f-16 and a speed of at least 1/250th of a second. I have found this true most of the time, in order to obtain sharp images, although I have seen many posted whose settings were not as high as these. But, it made sense to me that because of the dof of the moon, and the speed of the movement, that both need to be set high. However, I have discovered as far as sharpness goes, the earth's atmosphere plays a key role as well.
Mac wrote:
DoF???? Because it's a sphere, the center is closer than the edges???????
So far as any lens that can exist on Earth is concerned, all of the moon is at infinity.
CLF
Loc: Raleigh, NC
billgdyoung wrote:
Allow me to butt in on the answer... although the same side of the moon is always facing the earth, the moon does rotate like the hands of a clock. That's one reason we use a "wedge" with telescopes when we want to take planetary pictures instead of a stationary tripod... even on a tracking telescope mount we still need a wedge to follow not only the left to right movement of the moon, but the rotation as well... if the exposure is less than about 1/2 second, the rotation shouldn't be noticed... but when looked at after a couple of hours, the part of the moon that we see will have rotated... I'll butt out now... :-)
Allow me to butt in on the answer... although the ... (
show quote)
billgdyoung, I always learn something new. Thank you for the education.
Greg
CLF wrote:
billgdyoung, I always learn something new. Thank you for the education.
Greg
my pleasure... I've spent lots of time with telescopes and the night sky... and I've made almost all of the mistakes that one can make... but it's always been fun. The only problem is that here at 7,000ft elevation is that the winter is too cold at night... guess I'll have to go back to solar filters and wait for the sun to become active again... thanks for the kind words...
dugole wrote:
In moon shots, the brightest part of the moon is subjected to direct sunlight - resulting in no shadows. around the outer edges, the sunlight is at a greater angle so shadows develop giving a better sense of perspective. The photos of partial moonlight are always showing more shadow of the craters and their walls creating a sharper image. My moon images are taken with a Canon 5D Mk IV and a 100-400 "L" MkII - 1/400, F5.6, ISO 100 the pp in light room maximizing contrast and sharpness, then to PShop adding more contrast and laght/dark adjustments. Of course I have the stabilizer on.
In moon shots, the brightest part of the moon is s... (
show quote)
I may be slightly off topic but every picture I have taken of the moon has it in the same general position as your top photo. The bottom photo seems to be showing a different part of the moon's surface and is different from most images I have seen. What am I missing?
tropics68 wrote:
I may be slightly off topic but every picture I have taken of the moon has it in the same general position as your top photo. The bottom photo seems to be showing a different part of the moon's surface and is different from most images I have seen. What am I missing?
Just rotated 90 degrees in post processing.
There's a wide range in the appearance of these full moon shots, partly because people are processing them so differently. Here's my supermoon shot, processed three different ways. One with minimal contrast enhancement, then two with more radical enhancement done in Topaz Adjust, which uses local tone mapping (Topaz calls it "Adaptive Exposure). Which shot is the best? Personally I prefer the second one. Others may differ. I showed the third shot to a friend who hated it, said it looked way "overprocessed." I used Nikon D7100 with Nikon 200-500mm at 500mm ISO 125, f5.6, 1/640 sec.
pmackd wrote:
There's a wide range in the appearance of these full moon shots, partly because people are processing them so differently. Here's my supermoon shot, processed three different ways. One with minimal contrast enhancement, then two with more radical enhancement done in Topaz Adjust, which uses local tone mapping (Topaz calls it "Adaptive Exposure). Which shot is the best? Personally I prefer the second one. Others may differ. I showed the third shot to a friend who hated it, said it looked way "overprocessed." I used Nikon D7100 with Nikon 200-500mm at 500mm ISO 125, f5.6, 1/640 sec.
There's a wide range in the appearance of these fu... (
show quote)
Number 2 for me also....Rich
pmackd wrote:
There's a wide range in the appearance of these full moon shots, partly because people are processing them so differently. Here's my supermoon shot, processed three different ways. One with minimal contrast enhancement, then two with more radical enhancement done in Topaz Adjust, which uses local tone mapping (Topaz calls it "Adaptive Exposure). Which shot is the best? Personally I prefer the second one. Others may differ. I showed the third shot to a friend who hated it, said it looked way "overprocessed." I used Nikon D7100 with Nikon 200-500mm at 500mm ISO 125, f5.6, 1/640 sec.
There's a wide range in the appearance of these fu... (
show quote)
Of the three, I prefer the original. Perhaps 30% of the way to number 2 would suit my personal tastes.
I believe CathyAnn and Rongnogno are correct. It's a matter of the angle of sunlight striking the Moon. Consider any crater. If the Sun is directly above it, few if any shadows will be produced, since the sunlight is coming nearly straight down. Alternatively, if the Sun has just risen over the crater, or it it's about to set, then light rays are striking the walls of the crater at a sharp angle, casting long shadows from its walls upon its floor. Often craters have one or more mountains inside them, usually near the center; you can see these central mountains in any reasonably good telescope. If the Sun is rising over the crater, the top of a central mountain will be seen before its lower slopes; if the Sun is setting over the crater, then , the shadows of the steep walls creep eerily up the central mountain until it, and the floor and walls of the whole crater will be enshrouded in darkness for a month. The view can be just stunning. And, it changes every night that the Moon is visible. Long live the Queen of the Night!
This was my Supermoon photo from last weekend. Nikon D7100, Nikkor 500mm f/8 mirror lens, ISO 3200, 1/8000 sec handheld. Some processing in LRCC, including some sharpening.
DSC_1596 by
David Casteel, on Flickr
This photo was posted in another place a few days ago.
When you shoot the moon, remember it is the night's brightest thing. I try to keep the look of moonshots looking more like the moon does to the naked eye, just magnified. I shoot the moon a lot in digital cinema at just 1080p (right now) which means the shutter speed is about 1/48 and when I grab a still frame, the moon's motion is not really a problem. With the magnifications I use, a tripod is a must. The vertical point of view is under .5 degrees and the horizontal just over a degree, so framing is a bit tough.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.