Assignment #41: Half-Moon

[Nikolai]

Given my history with the Earth biggest satellite, I'm sure you all knew this one was coming.:wink Time is about right, weather is nice (at least here in SoCal:-), so why don't we all take a shot or two at our celestial neighbour?

This week's target is moon, more specifically half-moon (in case you're catching up - try to select a time of month when the moon is close to it's half, no matter which: growing or dying).

Some hints...
Many novice moonshooters bend over backwards trying to get a decent moon shot and wonder why it is not happening. Others memorize some magic numbers and try to convince themselves and the others that this is some arcane lore which should be followed verbatim.
The things are simple. Remember "Sunny 16"? Having an ISO100 film and a sunny day, set your aperture to f/16, your shutter speed to 1/100s - and you get a perfect exposure. For those who lack clear blue sky most time of the year, there is "Cloudy 8" - same thing, just open your aperture.
No the moon is a bright sunlit object. Of course, its albedo (~reflection coefficient, but don't quote me on this in your optics class) is only 12%, but it has some other quirks to it, so pretty much "Cloudy 8" works wonders. Or you can step it up a bit and operate with f/10 or f/11.

Now that we have figured out the exposure, how about the other tricks? Forums are full with the advices on MLU, tripods, etc. Well, let's get to it.

First of all, at these shutter speeds there is absolutely no need for MLU. Moreover, you can definitely open your aperture up a bit (say to f/8 or even f/5.6, depending on your lens) and use even faster shutter speeds.

Tripod.. well, it depends. If you have an IS lens - you don't really need it. If you don't - you probably do. Decent size moon shots (those you can print at least 4x6) start at 400mm (yes, you do need a long lens!), and holding it up requires the hand of steel - or, better, a trio of aluminum or CF legs:-)

So, do you think you can take something like this?

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/79626974-L.jpg

One image per entry please. Add some description (how you did it, etc.), and some basic exif info (aperture, iso, shutter speed).

As usual, fresh pictures only (meaning: taken AFTER you have become aware pf this assignment), moderate post-processing.

For the rest of the basic rules and index please check out this sticky (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=41800).

Let's get some half-moon! :D

[jennifer]

Not sure it's as good as the one above, but here's my try. I basically set up my tripod in an area where there were as few street lamps as possible. I played around with ISOs and shutter speeds until I found a combo I liked. Not exactly rocket science :)

http://jenfavre.smugmug.com/photos/165666042-L.jpg

Canon 300D 1/250s f/5.6 ISO 100 300mm

[Nikolai]

Not sure it's as good as the one above, but here's my try. I basically set up my tripod in an area where there were as few street lamps as possible. I played around with ISOs and shutter speeds until I found a combo I liked. Not exactly rocket science :)

Thank you, nice entry!:thumb

[Nikolai]

Here is a fresh one:

Moon over SoCal, Fri June 22 2007:

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/165684687-O.jpg

Canon 30D + ED 100-400L @ 400mm + TCx1.4 (pins taped)
handheld, full manual (including manual focus), ISO 100, f/8.0, 1/100s, IS on

[jennifer]

Show off!!! Actually my 1.4xTC just arrived today :clap Now I have to decide between the 70-200 f/2.8L IS or non-IS. I'll make my decision next week and then get an even better half moon on its way down :D

[Nikolai]

Show off!!! Actually my 1.4xTC just arrived today :clap Now I have to decide between the 70-200 f/2.8L IS or non-IS. I'll make my decision next week and then get an even better half moon on its way down :D
With a good tripod you may use the 300 + TC combo...

[z_28]

Over 3 years old shot, but at this time I got 300mm.
Maybe someday I'll buy something longer again :dunno
This one handheld with 100-300/5.6L on 10D

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t247/CameraSouth/IMG_0021-700.jpg

[Nikolai]

Over 3 years old shot, but at this time I got 300mm.
Maybe someday I'll buy something longer again :dunno
This one handheld with 100-300/5.6L on 10D


Uhm, how about the "freshness" rule? :deal :dunno

[z_28]

This is freshest long lens shot I got, so nearly brand new :D

[Antonio Correia]

Here are two versions of the harf moon, the way it is seen in Portugal.
The first picture was shot this afternoon at the beach when I was shooting kite-board. Later, you will be able to see some of these photos.
The shot at night is only half an hour old ...:D
How about this ?
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/165859547-M.jpghttp://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/165857070-M.jpg (http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/1587711#165857070-L-LB)

[rbrugman]

Right now I'm limited to 135mm. This is probably the best I can do for now.

[jennifer]

All these daytime half moons got me inspired. Imagine how freaked out we'd be if the sun came out at night?? :huh

http://jenfavre.smugmug.com/photos/165902300-L.jpg

Handheld Canon 300D 1/320s f/8 ISO 100 300mm

[tonyd]

I love moon shots but they are always difficult for me to get a good shot. I think the biggest problem is that I need a longer lens. Here is a try from an hour ago

Original
http://adejoie.smugmug.com/photos/165936408-S.jpg

Cropped
http://adejoie.smugmug.com/photos/165928780-L.jpg

Nikon D2x - 70-200 F/2.8 w/TC20EII (600mm equiv) ISO 100 F/11 1/60s (using tripod)

[Nikolai]

Here are two versions of the harf moon, the way it is seen in Portugal.
The first picture was shot this afternoon at the beach when I was shootinf kite-board. Later, you will be able to see some of these photos.
The shot at night is only half an hour old ...:D
How about this ?


Thank you, nice entries (I laughed a lot on 1st one:-) :thumb

[Nikolai]

Right now I'm limited to 135mm. This is probably the best I can do for now.
Thank you!
Even with 135mm, you don't need to have all that negative space around. Besides, cropping it to 100% would make your final immage bigger:-)
Another thing - wait until dark. Moon is a shy person, she only likes to be photographed in her own light:-)

[Nikolai]

All these daytime half moons got me inspired. Imagine how freaked out we'd be if the sun came out at night?? :huh
Handheld Canon 300D 1/320s f/8 ISO 100 300mm

Not bad at all. I'd wait a bit more for darkness and played with sharpening (Hiraloam in PS or sharpening in ACR4.0)

[Nikolai]

I love moon shots but they are always difficult for me to get a good shot. I think the biggest problem is that I need a longer lens. Here is a try from an hour ago
Original
Cropped
Nikon D2x - 70-200 F/2.8 w/TC20EII (600mm equiv) ISO 100 F/11 1/60s (using tripod)

Nice shooting!

I personally think the 100% crop is the way to go, nobody needs that much of a black void anyway.

BTW, I kinda disagree with you on your focal length math. 200mm and TC2 cal only bring you up to 400mm. Crop factor, while making a subject realtively larger in the frame, does not in fact, change the optical path. Once you crop it to 100%, you'd get the same size image from FF and APC sensors (provided their resolution is the same in terms of sensels per square inch).

[ajgauthier]

hi all :) I lurk mostly these days, but I thought I'd share some "math" on shooting the Moon. Some years ago now (using a film SLR) I did astrophotography and taught a lab on it for undergrads in the astronomy department. I get most of my info from a book called Astrophotography for the Amateur by Michael Covington. I believe the latest edition has info on digital SLRs...everything I quote below is for film. So...some minor tweaking.

1 - when you use a telephoto to photograph the Moon, know that the more you zoom, the more the "air turbulence" (think heat rising off a highway in waves), light pollution, environmental pollution, and 'position of the moon' affect the end result. Air turbulence gives a 'wavy' effect, mostly seen in small telescopes...it'll blur your image. The less atmosphere you look through the better...so get the Moon when it is almost overhead. Shooting the Moon close to the horizon you are looking through more "crap" that gets in the way and makes any colors off, gives haze, or makes a blurry image.

2 - cable release and tripod of course :) Though I know some of you are hand holding, that's fine when backed off, but for uber-zoom images you really get a better result with a tripod and cable release (or timer). If you can lock your mirror up, all the better. A little shake goes a long way.

3 - the "math" --- how long of an exposure can you take without the brighter/whiter areas blowing out?

The formula:

t (in seconds) = f^2/SB

t = exposure time
f = f-ratio
S = film speed in ISO
B = brightness of object being photographed (7 for thin crescent, 16 for wider crescent, 32 for half moon, 70 for gibbous moon, 180 for full moon)

The book I have recommends a telephoto lens set to f/5.6 or f/8 for "sharpness"

There's another formuls too: Longest practical exposure (as to not get motion of the Earth's spin or Moon orbit)

longest exposure (in s) = 250/F

F = focal length in mm

The more zoomed in you are, the faster the Moon will blur as you are zoomed into more 'motion'. The Moon moves quite fast...it's near the celestial equator, far away from the slower spinning sky near the North Star Polaris (north pole projected out into space)


4 - Bracket! Do it in various ways to find that 'perfect shot'. Use the above formula and find out what the best exposure is for 100, 400, 800 speed ISO settings. Keep the f-ratio the same. Then, for each ISO, go about 10 paces to underexposed and 10 paces to overexposed. For each setting (say f/8, ISO 400, 1/250s) do 3-5 shots. Yup, that's a lot of images! But...taking a few shots of the same settings can help with atmospheric effects. There's always that 'split second of clarity', maybe you can hit it. You don't process ALL of those b/c you'll easily be able to see straight off the images that were way underexposed and the ones that were blown out.

5 - Before EXIF I had to journal all this info with each photo. What you can do after you process everything in Photoshop is to make a visual record/collage of the settings for each photo and how it turned out. Then next time you go out ,you'll have your notes and know a good place to start. This actually was one of the lab assignments I'd do with students...some 100 images they had to pour through with different settings through all the phases of the Moon we could capture on film...though we didn't change the f-ratio (our telescopes were f/10) and we didn't change the film speed (ISO 400).


HAVE FUN :) I tried to get some moon shots last night after a star party and it didn't go so well. The air turbulence was really bad. I'll process and post though in a few days :)

Adrienne :D

[Nikolai]

Thank you a lot for your sharing, much appreciated! :thumb :bow

[tonyd]

Nice shooting!

I personally think the 100% crop is the way to go, nobody needs that much of a black void anyway.

BTW, I kinda disagree with you on your focal length math. 200mm and TC2 cal only bring you up to 400mm. Crop factor, while making a subject realtively larger in the frame, does not in fact, change the optical path. Once you crop it to 100%, you'd get the same size image from FF and APC sensors (provided their resolution is the same in terms of sensels per square inch).

I only based 600mm on the 200mm, 2x teleconverter and the 1.5x factor for the D2x sensor. The exif (http://adejoie.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=165928780)data also refers to it as 600mm.

[ajgauthier]

hi all :)

Here's my try from last night with my Rebel XT hooked up to the telescope via T-Adapter. No eyepieces, no lenses, just the 8" mirror on the telescope. It works out to be f/10. This was on the 400 ISO setting and the best shot came out at 1/250s. I did a variety of focusing just in case my eyes were lying to me :) I still got some blur, but Photoshop fixed it up nice w/o over-doing it (fine line...). The air turbulence was super bad last night (you can see the image shimmer when looking through an eyepiece) so considering this is a good catch.

2 versions: Version A is just regular contrast, curves, sharpening. Nothing major. Version B used the Image > Adjustments > Shadow Highlight (PS CS2). I played for an hour with all the sliders!

What I like better about Version B is that there is more detail along the terminator and slightly past it. This matches more to 'what the eye sees' when looking through the telescope w/ a 40mm eyepiece. There were some fabulous features past the terminator, but it's hard to catch them without blowing out the brighter 'right side' of the Moon. The shadow highlight is a good little tool for the Moon shots, brings out some of the craters...

I'm torn as to which one I like more - slight differences only. It's hard to get the detail along the terminator you want, whilst not blowing out Stavinus (lower right white highland/crater area).

Labeled Moon map:
http://membres.lycos.fr/astrolimagne/dossier2.html

I actually like a full Moon or 3rd quarter better as to get Tycho, Kepler and Copernicus craters. If you capture it right you can get the whole ejecta blanket lines of Tycho going all the way up/across the face of the Moon :clap

Version A:

http://ajgauthier.smugmug.com/photos/166147469-L.jpg


Version B with Shadow/Higlight tool:

http://ajgauthier.smugmug.com/photos/166147486-O.jpg


Cheers!
Adrienne

[Antonio Correia]

http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/166152691-M.jpg (http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/1587711#166152691-L-LB)

[Nikolai]

hi all :)

Here's my try from last night with my Rebel XT hooked up to the telescope via T-Adapter. No eyepieces, no lenses, just the 8" mirror on the telescope. It works out to be f/10. This was on the 400 ISO setting and the best shot came out at 1/250s. I did a variety of focusing just in case my eyes were lying to me :) I still got some blur, but Photoshop fixed it up nice w/o over-doing it (fine line...). The air turbulence was super bad last night (you can see the image shimmer when looking through an eyepiece) so considering this is a good catch.

2 versions: Version A is just regular contrast, curves, sharpening. Nothing major. Version B used the Image > Adjustments > Shadow Highlight (PS CS2). I played for an hour with all the sliders!

What I like better about Version B is that there is more detail along the terminator and slightly past it. This matches more to 'what the eye sees' when looking through the telescope w/ a 40mm eyepiece. There were some fabulous features past the terminator, but it's hard to catch them without blowing out the brighter 'right side' of the Moon. The shadow highlight is a good little tool for the Moon shots, brings out some of the craters...

I'm torn as to which one I like more - slight differences only. It's hard to get the detail along the terminator you want, whilst not blowing out Stavinus (lower right white highland/crater area).

Labeled Moon map:
http://membres.lycos.fr/astrolimagne/dossier2.html

I actually like a full Moon or 3rd quarter better as to get Tycho, Kepler and Copernicus craters. If you capture it right you can get the whole ejecta blanket lines of Tycho going all the way up/across the face of the Moon :clap

Cheers!
Adrienne

thank you for your entry! :thumb

Is it 100% crop? If it is, I'm purely amazed how war "conventional" optics (the one I use) stepped ahead of what's supposed to be the dedicated "astronomical" devices...

[Nikolai]

Thank you! :thumb

1) too much negative space. We're shooting moon, not the skies :deal
2) 100% crop usually looks best:deal
3) why shoot at dusk when you have the whole night? :scratch

[ajgauthier]

thank you for your entry! :thumb

Is it 100% crop? If it is, I'm purely amazed how war "conventional" optics (the one I use) stepped ahead of what's supposed to be the dedicated "astronomical" devices...
right-o --- no crop at all :)

That's what an 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope will getcha, with no eyepieces :) I had to finagle the camera around to get it all in. So -- I wouldn't even be able to get a full moon via telescope into my camera without eyepieces in the T-Adapter.

With a 40mm eyepiece inside the T-Adapter one can get the whole moon. I've photographed using a 15mm eyepiece and you get nice and up close with some of the lunar features. Then you've really got to experiment with the camera settings and possibly polarizing filters on the open end of the telescope (but those are DARN expensive!)

I prefer to actually crop Moon images like the whole Moon is there...so no tight cropping on the unlit side.

If you had good enough sky, you can get Earthshine on the unlit portion, seeing the whole Moon. That's from sunlight reflecting off the Earth's oceans back out into space where the Moon catches it and reflects it back to Earth.

Glad to finally delurk,
Adrienne

P.S. I just realized I broke the 1 image per entry rule :( Whoopsie! I do still want to leave it though to show the subtle difference in the Shadow/Highlight tool since (to me) it made a significant difference and closer to "what the eye sees" along that terminator line. Is ok?

[MarkR]

This was even harder. My poor result below (after 1/2 hour of fruitless shooting.)

I did finally figure out that matrix metering was not my friend. It kept blowing out the moon in an attempt to add shadow detail to everything else. Or something. Turned it to spot metering and things got a lot better.

Also, you apparently can't autofocus on the moon. It's too far away. Had to set 'er to manual focus. :D

http://Hobbyist.smugmug.com/photos/166256316-L.jpg
1/200 second, F/8.0, ISO 200, 200mm (300mm equivelant), Pentax k100d.

[Nikolai]

This was even harder. My poor result below (after 1/2 hour of fruitless shooting.)

I did finally figure out that matrix metering was not my friend. It kept blowing out the moon in an attempt to add shadow detail to everything else. Or something. Turned it to spot metering and things got a lot better.

Also, you apparently can't autofocus on the moon. It's too far away. Had to set 'er to manual focus. :D


1/200 second, F/8.0, ISO 200, 200mm (300mm equivelant), Pentax k100d.

While I agree that focusing on the moon is no easy business, apparently it depends on the camera. I use AF constantly on my Canon 30D, if not directly for focusing then at least for focus confirmation. Yes, spot metering helps alot.
Your image seems rather soft indeed :-( :cry I remember I had similar problem with smaller cameras/lenses though, so it may be your gear fault, not your own...:dunno

[MarkR]

While I agree that focusing on the moon is no easy business, apparently it depends on the camera. I use AF constantly on my Canon 30D, if not directly for focusing then at least for focus confirmation. Yes, spot metering helps alot.
Your image seems rather soft indeed :-( :cry I remember I had similar problem with smaller cameras/lenses though, so it may be your gear fault, not your own...:dunno

I might try again tonight with a tad faster shutter speed. Of course, my wife came out last night hopping mad --she thought I was trying to peep on the neighbors -- why else have a telephoto zoom out that late at night? :rofl

As to the autofocus -- it seemed to work ok in the front yard, but not in the back. I'm guessing there wasn't enough light and/or other visible objects around for the AF to work properly. No big deal, as the distance from me to the moon is a known quantity to manually focus on.

[evoryware]

http://evosphotos.smugmug.com/photos/165848419-O.jpg
6-22-07
ISO 400
1/640
f5.6
Auto WB
70-200mm

http://evosphotos.smugmug.com/photos/165848430-O.jpg
6-22-7
ISO 400
1/250
f6.3
Flash WB
70-200

one day I'll be able to afford a real telescopic lens for this...
wish I had my 100-400 still.

[Nikolai]

one day I'll be able to afford a real telescopic lens for this...
wish I had my 100-400 still.

Thank you! :thumb

[Pat664422]

But here it is...

http://PatsPix.smugmug.com/photos/167058598-L.jpg

[Nikolai]

But here it is...

Thank you for the entry! :thumb

Is it a 100% crop? If not, why keep the black space while you primary subject can be made larger?:dunno

[squirl033]

okay, not as recent as it could be, but the sky was overcast here when the moon was at half... so here's my shot...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/squirl033/IMG_2092small.jpg

30D, 1/125 sec @ f5.6, Sigma lens at 400mm...

[Nikolai]

okay, not as recent as it could be, but the sky was overcast here when the moon was at half... so here's my shot...

30D, 1/125 sec @ f5.6, Sigma lens at 400mm...

Not bad at all, thank you for your entry! :thumb

Similar comment, though: no need for so much of a negative space...

[Pat664422]

Thank you for the entry! :thumb

Is it a 100% crop? If not, why keep the black space while you primary subject can be made larger?:dunno


It is indeed a 100% crop, unfortunately. It was taken with a 300mm, my longest zoom at the moment. I hope before the end of the year to get to 400mm zoom. I would ideally like to get a 500mm, but those are usually hard to walk around with and break the bank.

[Nikolai]

Moon Over SoCal, 2007-26-06:

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/167356523-800x800.jpg

Canon 30D + 100-400 + TC1.4, ISO200, 1/200s, f/10, handheld.

[jennifer]

Nikolai, that's just beautiful! My 70-200 f/2.8L IS is arriving Friday. Paired with the 1.4x TC I might just have to post a FULL moon to this thread in a few days. :wink

[SDJames]

Nik...from 6/27/07...N.Cty.SD
http://seaviewphotography.smugmug.com/photos/167398554-L.jpg
1/100, f9, ISO100, 400mm+1.4x on 1.6crop=896mm, tripod
funny...the tape (for autofocus) on the 1.4x eliminated EXIF transfer of 1.4x

[Nikolai]

Nik...from 6/27/07...N.Cty.SD
1/100, f9, ISO100, 400mm+1.4x on 1.6crop=896mm, tripod
funny...the tape (for autofocus) on the 1.4x eliminated EXIF transfer of 1.4x

Nice entry! :thumb I would sharpen it a bit in post, though..:deal

And yes, that lack of EXIF with taped pins is a quirk, but I think it's minor hassle compared to a returned ability to have a confirmed focus.:dunno

[David_S85]

6-28-2007, ISO200, 1/30, f/9.0, 20D, Canon 400 5.6 + Tamron 1.4x TC. 100% crop. Sharpened as much as I dare with medium contrast added.
http://davidwatts.smugmug.com/photos/167424245-O.jpg

[Nikolai]

6-28-2007, ISO200, 1/30, f/9.0, 20D, Canon 400 5.6 + Tamron 1.4x TC. 100% crop. Sharpened as much as I dare with medium contrast added.


Thank you David, great shot!:thumb

[hawkeye978]

Here is my submission. I think this is 100% crop. There is some degradation because this is a 5MP camera.

http://hawkeye978.smugmug.com/photos/166072544-L.jpg

Exposure Information

f/3.7
1/320 s
ISO 64 (to keep the noise down, this is not a SLR)

[Nikolai]

Here is my submission. I think this is 100% crop. There is some degradation because this is a 5MP camera.

Exposure Information

f/3.7
1/320 s
ISO 64 (to keep the noise down, this is not a SLR)

Tom, thank you, nice half! :thumb

[Antonio Correia]

This is not half Moon any more but this is the planet a few minutes ago over Setubal.
How is it ? Your is better !
20 D + 1.4 Mult + 70-200 f/2.8 IS L USM
1/200 f/10 Tripod.
28 th June 2007 22.00 h local time
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/167587446-L.jpg (http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/1587711#167587446-L-LB)

[TristanP]

Don't forget the Shaytech moon exposure calculator:

http://www.shaystephens.com/moon_calc.php

[Antonio Correia]

I just saw that my last moon was shot with 400 ISO ! :huh
I did not wanted to do so, at all.
But the camera was set to 400 and I could not remember so.
In fact I didn't care to see which were the current settings.
A shame. :toni
I must reset all the main setting each time I change them.
I hope to be able to shoot the Moon again tomorrow with 100 ISO.

Thank you Tristan for the link. It is because of that clue that I recovered my error. :D
:thumb

[det1rac]

Ouch according to http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?year=2007&month=6&country=1
I missed the half moon on the 22nd.

Is this going until July 22nd?

[Nikolai]

This is not half Moon any more but this is the planet a few minutes ago over Setubal.
How is it ? Your is better !
20 D + 1.4 Mult + 70-200 f/2.8 IS L USM
1/200 f/10 Tripod.
28 th June 2007 22.00 h local time

Thank you Antonio!:thumb

[Nikolai]

Ouch according to http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?year=2007&month=6&country=1
I missed the half moon on the 22nd.

Is this going until July 22nd?
Dude, just get the shot, will ya? :wink

[jennifer]

Here's my attempt at tonight's full moon. I'll try again tomorrow with the new 70-200 f/2.8!

http://jenfavre.smugmug.com/photos/167698581-L.jpg

300D, 1/250s, f/11, ISO 100, 300mm, handheld, 100% crop

[Nikolai]

Here's my attempt at tonight's full moon. I'll try again tomorrow with the new 70-200 f/2.8!

300D, 1/250s, f/11, ISO 100, 300mm, handheld, 100% crop
Thank, homie! :thumb

[jennifer]

Just a little side note... tomorrow night's full moon will be the last blue moon until december 2009 :thumb

[Nikolai]

Just a little side note... tomorrow night's full moon will be the last blue moon until december 2009 :thumb
Blue? :scratch

[ivar]

Blue? :scratchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_moon

[jennifer]

Blue? :scratch

Generally referring to the second full moon within the same calendar month. Only happens every 2-3 years hence the phrase "Once in a blue moon."

[Antonio Correia]

The Moon some minutes ago.
Almost Full Moon as I see it from my house.:D
ISO 100 - 1/200 s - f/5.6 - 280 mm - tripod

http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/167903603-M.jpg (http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/1587711#167903603-L-LB)

[Nikolai]

The Moon some minutes ago.
Almost Full Moon as I see it from my house.:D
ISO 100 - 1/200 s - f/5.6 - 280 mm - tripod
[/URL] [URL="http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/1587711#167903603-L-LB"] (http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/1587711/2#167899032-L-LB)
Thanks!
But why two pics? 2d alone would do nicely:scratch

[Antonio Correia]

Thanks!
But why two pics? 2d alone would do nicely:scratch

Enthusiasm ! I'll erase the 1.st !:thumb

[jennifer]

Any better with the 70-200? I can't tell :dunno

http://jenfavre.smugmug.com/photos/167963343-L.jpg

1/320s, f/8, ISO 200, 200mm + 1.4xTC, handheld

[Nikolai]

Generally referring to the second full moon within the same calendar month. Only happens every 2-3 years hence the phrase "Once in a blue moon."

Thank you for the explanation! :thumb

Now of course I simply could not miss that chance ;-) :wink
So, without further ado - here you go:

Blue Moon Over SoCal, June 30 2007:

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/168003256-O.jpg

100% crop, Canon 30D + 100-400@400 + TCx1.4 (taped pins)
ISO200, 1/200s, f/10, handheld

[Antonio Correia]

Blue Moon over Setubal, Portugal a few minutes ago. July the 1.st 2007 - 10h 48m local time.
ISO 100, 1/200s, f/5.6
20D + 1.4 II + 70-200 IS L USM f/2.8 at the maximum.

Nikolai:
Your Moons are always better than mine. Normal, as you are an expert and I am not. But tell me: which treatments have you done ?
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/168157525-L.jpg (http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/1587711#168157525-L-LB)

[Nikolai]

Blue Moon over Setubal, Portugal a few minutes ago. July the 1.st 2007 - 10h 48m local time.
ISO 100, 1/200s, f/5.6
20D + 1.4 II + 70-200 IS L USM f/2.8 at the maximum.

Nikolai:
Your Moons are always better than mine. Normal, as you are an expert and I am not. But tell me: which treatments have you done ?


It's not me - I simply have 400mm at my disposal vs your 200mm. Makes 100% difference...

Treatment was very simple and much akin to yours methink:
bluish overlay, color mode, than some blend-if magic and finally a linear gradient over a mask...:dunno

[ajgauthier]

Thank you for the explanation! :thumb

Now of course I simply could not miss that chance ;-) :wink
So, without further ado - here you go:

Blue Moon Over SoCal, June 30 2007:



100% crop, Canon 30D + 100-400@400 + TCx1.4 (taped pins)
ISO200, 1/200s, f/10, handheld

hiya --- did you do some other PS magic on it? It looks kinda "PS watercolored" Else...there was a lot of atmospheric turbulence (think heat waves coming off asphalt) creating that odd-blur effect.

It seemed like all the small craters and striking highland features are blurred into one another. I guess being an amateur astronomer/astronomy educator I'm a bit of a realist with astronomical imagery.

Else - good contrast on white and 'shades of gray' areas :thumb I wish I could try again tonight, but I didn't borrow my friend's T-adapter.

A

[ajgauthier]

It's not me - I simply have 400mm at my disposal vs your 200mm. Makes 100% difference...

Treatment was very simple and much akin to yours methink:
bluish overlay, color mode, than some blend-if magic and finally a linear gradient over a mask...:dunno


"blend-if magic"

what's that? I only do basics in PS...maybe that's what I'm seeing as "watercolored"

Can I see what your original was next to the PS'd version? I'd like to see what the treatment did compared to an untouched jpg ..if ya don't mind (...teachable moment...) :D

A

[Nikolai]

"blend-if magic"

what's that? I only do basics in PS...maybe that's what I'm seeing as "watercolored"

Can I see what your original was next to the PS'd version? I'd like to see what the treatment did compared to an untouched jpg ..if ya don't mind (...teachable moment...) :D

A

I normally prefer not to do that, but in the interest of science - here's "straight from the camera" (if there is such a thing for RAW) version (only cropped)

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/168180487-O.jpg

As to the blend-if sliders - it's a part of a layer style. I'm afraid its detailed usage is a bit too complex for this simplistic class of ours. Just do a search for "blend-if" here on dgrin (or google for it), you'll get tons of info.

HTH

[ajgauthier]

I normally prefer not to do that, but in the interest of science - here's "straight from the camera" (if there is such a thing for RAW) version (only cropped)



As to the blend-if sliders - it's a part of a layer style. I'm afraid its detailed usage is a bit too complex for this simplistic class of ours. Just do a search for "blenf-if" here on dgrin (or google for it), you'll get tons of info.

HTH

thanks Nikolai :D

I'm amazed (after seeing what we are calling 'au natural') how you were able to pull out the maria (darker smooth areas) and not blow out the uber-bright craters!

I played with your original briefly in PS 'doing what I usually do' and didn't come close. Lots to learn, lots to learn!

Adrienne

[Nikolai]

thanks Nikolai :D
I'm amazed (after seeing what we are calling 'au natural') how you were able to pull out the maria (darker smooth areas) and not blow out the uber-bright craters!

It was mostly classic S-curve, albeit rather steep one. The rest is just icing on a cake...:-)

[jennifer]

Whew, just made it!
Blue Moon over SoCal

http://jenfavre.smugmug.com/photos/168271020-L.jpg

300D, 1/640s, f/11, ISO 200, 70-200+1.4xTC, hand held

See you again in December 2009!
Maybe by then I'll have the 300mm f/2.8L IS :thumb

[Nikolai]

Whew, just made it!
Blue Moon over SoCal
300D, 1/640s, f/11, ISO 200, 70-200+1.4xTC, hand held

Thank you!


See you again in December 2009!
Maybe by then I'll have the 300mm f/2.8L IS :thumb
Just get 100-400 IS now, it's worth it:-):wink

[ABCaptures]

here are mine.. i know they are late but i still wanted to share it

1/250, 5.6,ISO100, 300mm

[Nikolai]

here are mine.. i know they are late but i still wanted to share it

1/250, 5.6,ISO100, 300mm
Thank you! :thumb
I wonder, why is it so dark? Monitor? Intention? :scratch

[ABCaptures]

Thank you! :thumb
I wonder, why is it so dark? Monitor? Intention? :scratch

I had three that i kept on my computer.. this was the darker of the three but i thought it showed the most detail. yes i agree it is dark but i didnt want blown out areas either. the others are posted to my flickr account in my signature. Im sure my settings were different for that one in particular. i took quite a few to insure i got at least a couple for keeps :huh

[NanaMo]

...while lurking thru galleries I found your thread, Nik and have so enjoyed it. However, some of the entries make my brain hurt! So much to learn.

This post probably breaks ALL of your rules but it was the first moon picture I tried (last August) and could not believe what I captured when the photos were d/l ed! Thought you might enjoy it.....only adjusted levels a bit and sharpened.....

http://PoirierPics.smugmug.com/photos/251101090-L.jpg

...yes, the bird made a appearance...

This thread has now made anxious to "shoot the moon" again (will actually review the rules). Thanks for all the information and great pictures submitted.


Maureen

[Nikolai]

...while lurking thru galleries I found your thread, Nik and have so enjoyed it. However, some of the entries make my brain hurt! So much to learn.

This post probably breaks ALL of your rules but it was the first moon picture I tried (last August) and could not believe what I captured when the photos were d/l ed! Thought you might enjoy it.....only adjusted levels a bit and sharpened.....


...yes, the bird made a appearance...

This thread has now made anxious to "shoot the moon" again (will actually review the rules). Thanks for all the information and great pictures submitted.


Maureen

Maureen, thank you for playing, but let's not forget Da Rule #1: Fresh Pictures Only! :wink

[NanaMo]

Maureen, thank you for playing, but let's not forget Da Rule #1: Fresh Pictures Only! :wink

...so sorry :bow:bow:bow......as I said....I was just playing "show and tell" as I will never again catch a bird flying by again... .:hide.....

my bad :whip....OK no more "show (off) and tell"......


Maureen :D

[Nikolai]

...as I will never again catch a bird flying by again...
Come on, it's soooo easy:

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/80629452-L-1.jpg

[NanaMo]

Come on, it's soooo easy:

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/80629452-L-1.jpg

....looks like I should have put up the .cr2 file to show you I am not lying.....:cry...oh, well....

[Nikolai]

....looks like I should have put up the .cr2 file to show you I am not lying.....:cry...oh, well....
It's not a matter of trust, of course I believe you. I'm only saying that the moon is a very seasy subject to work with and more often than not, composite images do tend to look better than the real ones:

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/233961066-L.jpg

[faye]

Just found this thread too... but my photo was taken after the thread was started.

Taken during daylight and converted to b&w for contrast.

http://www.pbase.com/fayewhite/image/80983804/large.jpg

[Nikolai]

Just found this thread too... but my photo was taken after the thread was started.
Taken during daylight and converted to b&w for contrast.

Thank you... Interesting.. What do you mean by "daylight"? Can you post the "original" (whatever it was before any major post-processing)?

[faye]

The exif says 6:20 pm, although I had remembered it being earlier in the day... anyway - shot through a telescope (Meade ETX125)

http://FayeZ.smugmug.com/photos/251249497-M.jpg

[Nikolai]

The exif says 6:20 pm, although I had remembered it being earlier in the day... anyway - shot through a telescope (Meade ETX125)

Oh, telescope! :bow Thanks for posting!
If nothign else, your image is one of the most 3D-looking moon shots I have ever seen. I wonder if it's daytime or telescope optics... :scratch

[spb13]

This evening while out shooting, I looked up and noticed the moon. I remembered seeing this assignment, so I grabbed a few shots.

http://spb13.smugmug.com/photos/255204119_Upua7-M.jpg

[Nikolai]

This evening while out shooting, I looked up and noticed the moon. I remembered seeing this assignment, so I grabbed a few shots.


Thank you for thinking of us! Nice shot! Dont forget the total moon eclipse is Feb 20!

[work2fish]

But here is another recent shot. I oriented the image the way the others in this thread are laid out, rather than the way the moon is displayed in my astronomer's guide as in my "Moon over Colorado" thread:
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/8699/img3157tychobottomnm2.jpg

and here is what the camera/telescope setup looks like:
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/233/dsc02928croppedre5.jpg

The scope is a Meade ETX-105EC, approximately 1470mm, attached to a Canon 40D.

Cheers,
Mike

[Nikolai]

But here is another recent shot. I oriented the image the way the others in this thread are laid out, rather than the way the moon is displayed in my astronomer's guide as in my "Moon over Colorado" thread:

and here is what the camera/telescope setup looks like:


The scope is a Meade ETX-105EC, approximately 1470mm, attached to a Canon 40D.

Cheers,
Mike

Mike, thank you very much!
Do you think you can post a link to a 100% (at least partial) crop? I wonder how it looks at 1470mm....

[work2fish]

Mike, thank you very much!
Do you think you can post a link to a 100% (at least partial) crop? I wonder how it looks at 1470mm....

Nikolai,

Sure, here is a 100% crop...
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2219/img3157croppedzn7.jpg

Cheers,
Mike

[Nikolai]

Nikolai,
Sure, here is a 100% crop...
Cheers,
Mike

OMG! :huh
You're officially the new Moon King now! :bow

[work2fish]

OMG! :huh
You're officially the new Moon King now! :bow

Nikolai,

However, thank goodness this guy didn't enter (wow!):

http://www.pbase.com/jayseejay/image/54692097/original

:uhoh

Cheers,
Mike

[Nikolai]

Nikolai,

However, thank goodness this guy didn't enter (wow!):

http://www.pbase.com/jayseejay/image/54692097/original

:uhoh

Cheers,
Mike

+1 on wow!:huh
Ain't it amazing what a regular person with a regular means can do nowadays!

[darkdragon]

Here's mine with a 200mm 100% crop, daytime.

http://darkdragon.smugmug.com/photos/298300625_tw3ei-XL.jpg

[Nikolai]

Here's mine with a 200mm 100% crop, daytime.

Wow, not bad for a day time! :thumb

[darkdragon]

Wow, not bad for a day time! :thumb

Thanks! I was rather impressed when I got home, it is the first decent moon picture I have taken. The moon Seems easy, but it's really rather tough to photo well.

Full moon coming, so I'm going to try some night shots @ 400mm :barb

[JAG]

I looked over some of the assignments early this morn then set out to do a few. Lick would have it that the moon was still out at 6am (aprox time) and it was half. Used my tamron 500mm with settings as follows
iso 200
sspeed 1/1000
fstop 6.3
focal length 500mm
crop 56%
ran a contrast booster because it was so faint in the sky...but it caused noise. The original is below the first one...

http://JAGCreations.smugmug.com/photos/302405236_RXunH-L.jpg

http://JAGCreations.smugmug.com/photos/302413068_4D4qU-L.jpg

[Nikolai]

I looked over some of the assignments early this morn then set out to do a few. Lick would have it that the moon was still out at 6am (aprox time) and it was half. Used my tamron 500mm with settings as follows
iso 200
sspeed 1/1000
fstop 6.3
focal length 500mm
crop 56%
ran a contrast booster because it was so faint in the sky...but it caused noise. The original is below the first one...

Jag,
thank you for the entry!
I must say, shooting the moon when it's already that bright is pretty much a lost battle, unless you can afford to keep it in its faint mode. However, I'm interested to see what your 500mm can do during a clear dark night (especially if you have an extender:-)

[JAG]

Jag,
thank you for the entry!
I must say, shooting the moon when it's already that bright is pretty much a lost battle, unless you can afford to keep it in its faint mode. However, I'm interested to see what your 500mm can do during a clear dark night (especially if you have an extender:-)

This one was taken in march at night with the 500mm lens. Sorry for the small size...This was a copy of the original and then made web worthy for another site.
http://JAGCreations.smugmug.com/photos/302425626_xadA6-L.jpg