There was quite a bit of discussion of this topic three or four years ago. A search should bring up some of those topics.

There are a few things to remember about the moon. The first is that it is a subject without much contrast, especially the full moon. The second is that it is illuminated by the same sunlight that illuminates the earth at noon on a very clear day. The third is that there are a surprising number of variables, most related to the photographer's location and how high the moon is in the sky. We know from the Apollo lunar landings that moon rock is gray, and that the surface appears a very pale orange if you are actually there.

Photographing the moon is best accomplushed as a Manual operation...across the board...including no Auto ISO and no Auto WB. You may be able to auto focus on the limb (the edge) of the moon, but you may need to focus manually, as well.

I have found that, as a general rule, the moon high in the sky needs about one stop more than a sunlit exposure on earth, most of the time. Da
An example would be 1/400 at ISO 400 at f/11. Daylight White Balance. If the moon is near the horizon, you will need one or two stops of additional exposure.

These are all starting points. You will need to bracket or experiment to get the proper exposure at your shooting location and time. Also...make sure that your camera is not set to a portrait mode or some other low contrast mode. There's not much contrast to start with, and you don't need to be reducing it any.

If you are capturing raw files, this is not a time to be exposing to the right. You need to be in the "meat" of the response curve in order to get the image information you will need.

So...Manual everything, be prepared to experiment, and when you think you have it all figured out, bracket anyway.

Good luck and have fun.

The shot is very well done and represents an artist at the height of her profession.

In defense of some observations regarding her composition, it has to be said that those observations are formed by life experience for the most part. I think of the emaciated children in other photographs. The difference is that the children are malnourished and weak. The artist is not malnourished nor weak. She is the opposite of both terms. It is the individual's life experience that colors their interpretation of what they view.

Where I find problems is in the demand by a viewer for the photographer to "toe the line" as to their model's image.

For a differing view of dancers. I suggest viewing a Georgian Dance group doing some of their dances. You Tube has several examples. The men dance en pointe. E.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSa54yp5bCo

To each dance type, there are distinct body shapes. Google International Folk Dance, particularly those in Africa.

It does take an appreciative eye for the photographer to move the expression into the shot.