Carolina Moon

[ginger_55]

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/18121463-L.jpg


lens 300L with 1.4 extender on it
manual settings, manual focus
shutter speed 250, aperture f 16 (I think)
I learned back in the seventies that the moon was as in daylight.
That has not seemed to change and makes the settings easier.
ISO 100
This is the full frame practically as it came from RAW

[pathfinder]

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/18121463-L.jpg


lens 300L with 1.4 extender on it
manual settings, manual focus
shutter speed 250, aperture f 16 (I think)
I learned back in the seventies that the moon was as in daylight.
That has not seemed to change and makes the settings easier.
ISO 100
This is the full frame practically as it came from RAW

Ginger I think this is a little under exposed - the moon seems grey rather than white on my screen. When I clock the pixels they read about 180, 150, 140 or so in the brightest areas. This is barely a warm grey, not white.

Sunny f16 would suggest an exposure of 1/100th at f16 at ISO 100, but you shot at 1/250th. Frequently I find that I need to shoot at 1/100 at f11 at ISO 100 to capture the moon brightly. Give it a try with a little more exposure and I think you'll like the results. :): I see you're giving your 300F4 L quite a work out shooting birds and now moon shots. Way to go!! :thumb

[rutt]

I think this is going to work out fine, especially after you follow Jim's suggestion. If you shot raw, perhaps you can fix this very shot. Or use LAB curves?

But my suggestion is a literary one. I like "Carolina Moon" a lot. But I don't love "Two days before the full moon". Why not:
Carolina Moon - Full in two days.
or
Carolina Moon - Two days before full
or maybe just Carolina Moon and don't provide all the information.

[ginger_55]

Ginger I think this is a little under exposed - the moon seems grey rather than white on my screen. When I clock the pixels they read about 180, 150, 140 or so in the brightest areas. This is barely a warm grey, not white.

Sunny f16 would suggest an exposure of 1/100th at f16 at ISO 100, but you shot at 1/250th. Frequently I find that I need to shoot at 1/100 at f11 at ISO 100 to capture the moon brightly. Give it a try with a little more exposure and I think you'll like the results. :): I see you're giving your 300F4 L quite a work out shooting birds and now moon shots. Way to go!! :thumb
Thanks, Pathfinder. I will do it tomorrow, am really quite beat. I love that lens, and you were the one who suggested it (strongly). It and the wide 17-40 are all I need most of the time. Of course I never take the extender off of the 300 and I really do need a longer lens.

I am having a lot of trouble finding good use for that wonderful of lenses, the 70-200. I just don't seem to need it for anything. I either want to be long, or very not.

Thanks for the guidelines on the moon will do them tomorrow night.

I agree, Rutt.

ginger

[rutt]

I am having a lot of trouble finding good use for that wonderful of lenses, the 70-200. I just don't seem to need it for anything. I either want to be long, or very not.

Try this. Go to an event of some sort where there are a lot of people and something happening (sports, politics, graduation, wedding). Then just hang out somewhere.

[ginger_55]

Actually, that is a good idea, Rutt. I tend to want to put on the 17-40 for that stuff, but the 70-200 did come in handy yesterday for that. However, I never wanted the shots much in the first place.

I am waiting for Canon to come together with me and come out with a like 28-135 that is an L lens. And affordable, a laugh there. I can really tell the difference between an L lens and one that is not. I think, though, that I am suffering withdrawal from the 28-135 that I sold to buy the 70-200L. My best shots have been with my long 300 and my short 17-40, the 17-40 was the most comfortable to learn, the 300 was a shocker. As heavy as Andy predicted, etc., but I loved the photos I got with it, so I carry it everywhere (that is a backbreaker, but I am rewarded). I was thinking after I shot that moon photo last night that I was no longer aware of that 300 with the extender being too long, too heavy, or too awkward, it just is as it is. I even put it in my bag yesterday.

But we will be coming up on events.............oh, dog, someone who I gave my card to, she called and wants to buy photos I took, and I can't hear her, don't want to hear her, etc. That is why I don't make any money. I have to do something about that. The reason I thought about that is that is a good lens if one wanted to sell photos, don't you think. They want recognizable photos of themselves at a place, recognizable.

I could go to the dog agility show coming up, I think. You don't have to read all this, I am without a car, just rambling.

g

[rutt]

I used that lens for the ice skating pictures that got me a POTD. I've taken zillions of XC skiing pictures with it. Lots of cell phone pictures. Head of the Charles Regatta. Actually mine is f2.8 so it has great bokah. It's really a great thing to strap on and go play. I find it works best in places where there are lots of people.

Just hanging around little leage games last spring I got these:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/4537164-L.jpg

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/4060010-L.jpg

Try taking it to a tennis match.

[tmlphoto]

http://gingersnap.smugmug.com/photos/18121463-L.jpg


lens 300L with 1.4 extender on it
manual settings, manual focus
shutter speed 250, aperture f 16 (I think)
I learned back in the seventies that the moon was as in daylight.
That has not seemed to change and makes the settings easier.
ISO 100
This is the full frame practically as it came from RAWGinger I think we have some kind of psychic connection. Same shot, same day. 100-400 with 2xTC. 1/100 f/11 ISO 100
http://tmlphoto.smugmug.com/photos/18112747-L.jpg

[ginger_55]

Thomas, I cheated. I saw yours first. Then I remembered the moon was getting fuller and wanted to try it with my 300L lens and extender.

I have been given different settings to use tonight.

What I think is really strange is that it is the same moon. If everyone in dgrin took a photo of the moon in the sky tonight, we would all be connected by all of us taking a photo of the same object.

ginger (Thanks for the idea and for coming to see mine, smile.)

[tmlphoto]

Thomas, I cheated. I saw yours first. Then I remembered the moon was getting fuller and wanted to try it with my 300L lens and extender.

I have been given different settings to use tonight.

What I think is really strange is that it is the same moon. If everyone in dgrin took a photo of the moon in the sky tonight, we would all be connected by all of us taking a photo of the same object.

ginger (Thanks for the idea and for coming to see mine, smile.)

I believe that the full moon is tomorrow. I'll shoot it if the weather is good.

[ginger_55]

Yes, I might wait, too. After all you are the leader here. YOu know I just do this stuff for fun and people get so serious. It looks like it is partly cloudy right now, don't know about tomorrow. The forcasts have been useless.

Yesterday I was in my front yard. I would still like to get it on a clear night rising out of the ocean. In the east that is how things happen.

g

[John Mueller]

Shine on shine on spring moon.Whoops wrong lyrics:D
I wish I could stay up late enough to shoot the moon.:cry
Go for Ginger.Ill see it in your images:thumb

[Stan]

Here you go ginger shot at 1.30 am GMT, a few hours ahead of you :):
100-400 1.4 tx @560 iso 100, f/11 1/100 sec hand held more fun than the eclipse I made such a mess of:dunno

[pathfinder]

Here you go ginger shot at 1.30 am GMT, a few hours ahead of you :):
100-400 1.4 tx @560 iso 100, f/11 1/100 sec hand held more fun than the eclipse I made such a mess of:dunno


Stan - your image is sharp, but lacks contrast, like Ginger's image. You must be shooting the same moon! :D

When I clock your lightest pixels they are barely lighter than middle grey RGB values of 160, 155, 152 or therabouts. Your highlights on the moon should be near white 245,247, 250 or thereabouts. And then it would look like this
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/3258135-L.jpg

If you shoot RAW this can be easily corrected in RAW conversion. Otherwise you will need to adjust in Levels or Curves. Use the white eyedropper in Levels on the whitest areas in your image and it will do the rest.

[ginger_55]

Stan - your image is sharp, but lacks contrast, like Ginger's image. You must be shooting the same moon! :D

When I clock your lightest pixels they are barely lighter than middle grey RGB values of 160, 155, 152 or therabouts. Your highlights on the moon should be near white 245,247, 250 or thereabouts. And then it would look like this


If you shoot RAW this can be easily corrected in RAW conversion. Otherwise you will need to adjust in Levels or Curves. Use the white eyedropper in Levels on the whitest areas in your image and it will do the rest.

I shot in RAW, I always shoot in RAW. I am getting scared to tell people that, though, as then they think I can do something I have no idea how to do.

How do I fix it in RAW? I noticed the same thing, went out and reshot it a bit lighter. I just didn't mention that last night. And when the lens talk was going on today, I was wondering if that was why my moon wasn't crisp. I also tried curves. And, even funnier, I used the eye dropper. Things just kept getting worse. So I shot one and left it alone, I can't remember doing anything, perhaps USM.

Did any of the rest of you reach a stage where you knew things, and the more you knew the more you were afraid to do because you might mess up. If you sharpen and someone says it looks oversharpened, you can't say you didn't. But I did everything you mentioned there and didn't know how to fix it.

So once again: how would I have fixed it in RAW? How did yours come out so crisp?

ginger

[rutt]

I think Pathfinder (are we allowed to call you Jim?) is king of the moon. I tried tonight with 100-400 + 2xii TC (also 1.4x TC, but they weren't as good!)

Here are two different takes:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/18177538-L.jpg

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/18177536-L.jpg

Jim, what lens(es) do you use to get those great shots?

[ginger_55]

Pathfinder, I just shot the moon. It is "clear" in a hazy sky. Remember, I did the best I could, but there is definite haze.

I focused manually handholding. I came in and got the monopod and used it with the ball head, so it was supported. I was kind of shakey though, so I changed from a manual focus, which I had redone a bunch of times, I changed to autofocus, on the tripod, using the one dot to focus, so it was not matrix. I took a series of those.

I would go out right now and try bracketing a bit lighter, but I am shaking, I have to hydrate and relax. So I will upload this. I There were three different people's moons on that thread before yours came on. Why is yours so crisp?

What did you do with it?

ginger (This is nervous shaking, not that I can't hold a monopod, but it was the first time.......I don't like to screw up.):uhoh

[ginger_55]

Has anyone noticed that is a big beach ball. It has that thing on the bottom that beach balls have.

I want to know how he did that. There was a way. I don't think it was high pass, though I did not try it last night, I tried it today sometime.

g
I will put something up as soon as I get it, about 15 minutes.

[pathfinder]

I shot in RAW, I always shoot in RAW. I am getting scared to tell people that, though, as then they think I can do something I have no idea how to do.

How do I fix it in RAW? I noticed the same thing, went out and reshot it a bit lighter. I just didn't mention that last night. And when the lens talk was going on today, I was wondering if that was why my moon wasn't crisp. I also tried curves. And, even funnier, I used the eye dropper. Things just kept getting worse. So I shot one and left it alone, I can't remember doing anything, perhaps USM.

Did any of the rest of you reach a stage where you knew things, and the more you knew the more you were afraid to do because you might mess up. If you sharpen and someone says it looks oversharpened, you can't say you didn't. But I did everything you mentioned there and didn't know how to fix it.

So once again: how would I have fixed it in RAW? How did yours come out so crisp?

ginger

Ginger, I think there are two different issues that you are addressing. Sharpness is a function of the optical quality of the lens, and the stability of the camera lens system, and the correct focus.

My image was shot from a stationary tripod with a 300mm lens + a 2x telextender ( if my memory serves -- smugmug says 600 and I don't own a 600 so....) Did you shoot from a tripod? Did you stop down at least 2 stops from the maximum to ensure the optical quality with your extender? Did you use a cable release or self timer release? Mirror L/U? I used the self timer for release and a firm fixed tripod.

OK - that should get you the sharpness that you want. You cannot shoot the moon with the camera on Av, Tv, P or whatever. Put the camera on MANUAL - so you can control the aperature and the shutter speed and the focus. The moon is not going to run away. Start with the sunny F16 you talked about the other night. You were right. The moon IS a sun lit object - just like noon daytime. F16 1/ISO for sunny objects is the sunny f16 rule. :D

Focus carefully and do a series of exposures 1/100 f16 ISO 100 --- 1/100 f11 ISO 100 --- 1/100 f22 ISO100---- and maybe for grins 1/50 f16 ISO100. Now you should have a series of exposures from 1 stop less to 2 stops more light than the sunny f16 rule suggests.

Start opening the files into your RAW converter and look at the histogram. Is it to the right or the left. In your image I bet it was to the left. You are looking for a shot that has a nice histogram to the right, but not all the way to the right so that the highlight remain and aren't blown out. Since the moon will be small relative to the larger black area you will have a large part of the curve to the left too - that's ok, everything around the moon will go to black anyway. What you need are the details in the lighter part of the moon, so pay attention to the right side of the histogram.

Now, slide the exposure slider to the right or left, WHILE YOU HOLD DOWN THE Alt KEY. The RAW converter screen will turn all black and as you slide the slider to the right you will begin to see white spots appear - these are the highlights that will be pushed to total white so back off just a little.
Now, slide the Shadows slider while holding down the Alt key and the screen turns all white and will turn black as you slide the Shadows slider to the left. Adjust to taste, and the finally the brightness slider. You can use the eyedropper tool to read the values of the various pixels displayed in the RAW converter screen to see if you are getting the whites you desire.

Now when you finally click ok to bring the image into Photoshop, not much remains to be done. Maybe just a little nudge in curves and some cropping and a little USM, and Voila!! Your image should look like the one I posted above
:thumb

[pathfinder]

Ginger, I think there are two different issues that you are addressing. Sharpness is a function of the optical quality of the lens, and the stability of the camera lens system, and the correct focus.

My image was shot from a stationary tripod with a 300mm lens + a 2x telextender ( if my memory serves -- smugmug says 600 and I don't own a 600 so....) Did you shoot from a tripod? Did you stop down at least 2 stops from the maximum to ensure the optical quality with your extender? Did you use a cable release or self timer release? Mirror L/U? I used the self timer for release and a firm fixed tripod.

OK - that should get you the sharpness that you want. You cannot shoot the moon with the camera on Av, Tv, P or whatever. Put the camera on MANUAL - so you can control the aperature and the shutter speed and the focus. The moon is not going to run away. Start with the sunny F16 you talked about the other night. You were right. The moon IS a sun lit object - just like noon daytime. F16 1/ISO for sunny objects is the sunny f16 rule. :D

Focus carefully and do a series of exposures 1/100 f16 ISO 100 --- 1/100 f11 ISO 100 --- 1/100 f22 ISO100---- and maybe for grins 1/50 f16 ISO100. Now you should have a series of exposures from 1 stop less to 2 stops more light than the sunny f16 rule suggests.

Start opening the files into your RAW converter and look at the histogram. Is it to the right or the left. In your image I bet it was to the left. You are looking for a shot that has a nice histogram to the right, but not all the way to the right so that the highlight remain and aren't blown out. Since the moon will be small relative to the larger black area you will have a large ppart of the curve to the left too - that's ok, everything around the moon will go to black anyway. What you need are the details in the lighter part of the moon, so pay attention to the right side of the histogram.

Now, slide the exposure slider to the right or left, WHILE YOU HOLD DOWN THE Alt KEY. The RAW converter screen will turn all black and as you slide the slider to the right you will begin to see white spots appear - these are the highlights that will be pushed to total white so back off just a little.
Now, slide the Shadows slider while holding down the Alt key and the screen turns all white and will turn black as you slide the Shadows slider to the left. Adjust to taste, and the finally the brightness slider. You can use the eyedropper tool to read the values of the various pixels displayed in the RAW converter screen to see if you are getting the whites you desire.

Now when you finally click ok to bring the image into Photoshop, not much remains to be done. Maybe just a little nudge in curves and some cropping and a little USM, and Voila!! Your image should look like the one I posted above
:thumb


Ginger, Rutt - see above :D :D Ginger - THINK TRIPOD!! :thumb It really will let your lens strut it stuff. You have good glass,girl, let it shine through. :):

As I said, I think my image was shot with a Canon 300mm prime + a Canon 2x extender on a tripod with sefltimer release.. The camera was a 10D I am sure. Processed in PS, and sharpened a little. I have no idea what the numbers I used for sharpening - little enough that I did not see halos while sharpening in RGB. I know that sharpening the Lightness channel in LAB is better, but for an image I am going to post on the WEB, it probably doesn't make that great a difference. And I'm sure that I was not sharpening in LAB when this was posted last spring.

:dunno

Of course, some afficianodos will take several images and stack them to average out the digital noise, but moon shots are short enough that there really isn't that much noise to worry about at ISO 100. Now if the exposure was 2 minutes, stacking would make a lot more sense.

[rutt]

Tripod, yes I have quite the tripod and I used it and also a remote shutter release. I did just the kind of manual bracketting you describe. And my post was pretty good; you should have seen them before. I think it might never really be crystal clear here and the light polution is something else. I'll have to see what I can do in Nantucket. Hmm, moonset on flat water. There's one for you and Ginger.

Jim, I was really hoping that you'd say you used one of those fancy teles that I just can't quite talk myself into.

[ginger_55]

I think I already said how I did it. I used the figures you gave me last night.
If I hadn't been tired and shakey I would have bracketed some, but I was bracketing other things.

I used the monopod. There was haze. Now am I going to get pictures like yours with haze? I mean cloudy haze. This is from the RAW, only the color was changed by auto, the histo and all is still to the left.

http://gingersnap.smugmug.com/photos/18180052-L.jpg

Can you see that haze/cloud cover. I used the 300L lens with the 1.4 extender. The histogram is to the left. Thanks for the info on how far to bring it over to the right. That has confused me as there is to be no white in an egret, none.

It was on manual. Last night you gave me the figures of 100 ISO, shutter speed 100, at f11. That is what I used. You gave me a lecture and gave me those figures. Now there is a whole new component that I had no idea about. Are you sure I want whites, in general, unless we are talking sheets as a poor example, I am not sure I want white. As I said there is no white in an egret. If there is any white in a bird, the whole bird is blown, so how do you know when you want white?

Do you see that ring of cloud around the moon, I didn't put it there, it is there in the sky. What should I expect?

I am going to check out your thing about holding the alt key in RAW, then I am going to go read.

ginger (thanks for the info and help)

[ginger_55]

This is the moon above, after using Pathfinder's method in RAW and some post.
I am sure I could have made the grey as black as Pathfinder's, but every time I got close I thought it was wrong. It is 1:39 by the computer clock. I am going to bed.

That is a good technique, holding the alternate key to know just how far to go, especially on the highlights, the shadows, as I said I could have made mine darker. But the whole technique is valuable enough to have gone through this. Thanks, Pathfinder. I will use it with my birds.:D

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/18181894-L.jpg

[Angelo]

http://gingersnap.smugmug.com/photos/18181894-L.jpg
Wow! Very nice G.

[Stan]

That is a good technique, holding the alternate key to know just how far to go, especially on the highlights, the shadows, as I said I could have made mine darker. But the whole technique is valuable enough to have gone through this. Thanks, Pathfinder. I will use it with my birds.:D


Ditto Ginger, I stayed up far too late last night trying to figure it out. The shot was hand held so will never be pin sharp but i still cannot get the contrast of Rutt's second shot.

Thank you Pathfinder and Rutt for the lesson :thumb

[pathfinder]

I think I already said how I did it. I used the figures you gave me last night.
If I hadn't been tired and shakey I would have bracketed some, but I was bracketing other things.

I used the monopod. There was haze. Now am I going to get pictures like yours with haze? I mean cloudy haze. This is from the RAW, only the color was changed by auto, the histo and all is still to the left.

http://gingersnap.smugmug.com/photos/18180052-L.jpg

Can you see that haze/cloud cover. I used the 300L lens with the 1.4 extender. The histogram is to the left. Thanks for the info on how far to bring it over to the right. That has confused me as there is to be no white in an egret, none.

It was on manual. Last night you gave me the figures of 100 ISO, shutter speed 100, at f11. That is what I used. You gave me a lecture and gave me those figures. Now there is a whole new component that I had no idea about. Are you sure I want whites, in general, unless we are talking sheets as a poor example, I am not sure I want white. As I said there is no white in an egret. If there is any white in a bird, the whole bird is blown, so how do you know when you want white?

Do you see that ring of cloud around the moon, I didn't put it there, it is there in the sky. What should I expect?

I am going to check out your thing about holding the alt key in RAW, then I am going to go read.

ginger (thanks for the info and help)


I see the haze and that is part of the image. My moon was shot on a cold dry evening when the sky was crystal clear and the light pollution is not as severe here as it would be in Boston or other large municipalities.
Whether you want your moon to be white or not is of course your choice. But a mid grey moon in a black sky just doesn't seem ideal. You have 0-255 levels of grey in each of the three color spaces RGB - and when none of them exceed 150, you are not making use of the image levels available. Certainly in a high key image, or a low key image, you will not see a complete range of contrast, but what makes the moon a hard thing to shoot is the extreme contrast range which should usually be visible in the final print eg: good black to white range. But if it is really hazy, then that is what your image will look like :dunno And to get the better whites, part of the histogram needs to be to the right, not the left.

[rutt]

Boy, this shooting the moon stuff just isn't like normal photography in any way, is it.

The camera doesn't meter correctly.
Composition doesn't really matter.
AF doesn't really work.
Just setting focus at infinity doesn't work (why?)
Post is totally bizzare:
Neat imge totally distroys the image.
FM sharpening is a big mistake.
USM values that work normally are way too much.
So I ended up blending light and dark halos in separate layers so I could control intensity separately.
The ARC histogram looks like nothing else. It's all black and a little white.
So I just bring the endpoints of the L curve inward until I'm using something like the full range.
I think you have to live in Peru or New Mexico or somewhere to get this really right.

[ginger_55]

It looks like a watermelon, that is what it looks like!
I wonder if it could be a sin, particularly without the full range of darks and lights or whatever.
God must have had a plan when he lit the moon, I am sure I violated it somehow.

I saw the moon before I went to bed at around 2 AM. I was taking the dogs out for their nightly "run" in the backyard. I never knew if they fulfilled the purpose of the run as I was mesmorized by the sight of the beautiful moon that appeared to be moving in a cloudy and clear sky. I thought of getting my tripod, but I was just too tired, so I watched it and enjoyed.

It went thru clear areas of the sky, or what appeared to be clear areas, undoubtedly there was moisture up there, it is a bright cloudy right now.
While in the clear areas it appeared to me to be very bright, much brighter than most of us are making it. The parts we think of as black were in my eyes grey. The lighter parts were almost shining they were so "white" appearing. The lighter parts encompassed far more of the moon than I would have wanted to show, though I would have liked to play with it.

Then the moon would dip beneath a "clear cloud", never disappearing, but changing the looks of the moon. It became duller, as a dime, but with a bright rim around the edge, in a photograph it would be quite fake looking, I would think. The whole experience was beautiful, truly breath taking. I wish I had not been so tired, but it was happening rapidly as the clouds raced across the sky, it would have been quite difficult to show in one photo. I am not good enough yet to do the multiples that would have done it some kind of justice. Even then, I think it was better as a memory and might be spoiled by laboring over a less than perfect image.

I did give the dogs their treats on the assumption they may have done their part, I read my book and went to sleep.

I just wanted to tell you about the moon I observed.

ginger

[pathfinder]

This post by John is such a great post I just have to respond!!

Boy, this shooting the moon stuff just isn't like normal photography in any way, is it.

1. The camera doesn't meter correctly. Actually, a good spot meter should work if you think of the moon like snow, may be, and just meter off the moon. But the large area of black around the moon gives camera’s averaging meters fits. Stick with sunny f16 for the moon - unless its really hidden in the clouds like Ginger describes - then you may need to try spot metering with exposure compensation like when shooting snow.


2. Composition doesn't really matter. I put my moon off center for that reason. I knew you’d mention it. I don't prefer the moon dead center either. YMMV


3. AF doesn't really work. I used AF with just the center point on the moon I believe. Using all 9 AF points probably won’t work that well. Putting the camera on infinity may work, but will be challenging in the dark without a split image rangefinder. Modern DSLRs are very poor choices for manual focusing with their stock viewing screens. Darn it. You can get separate viewing screens for the 1 Series Canons, but give up Evaluative metering to do so.

4. Just setting focus at infinity doesn't work (why?) Not sure but maybe the focal point for infinity is a function of the temperature of the glass and the air within the lens, and it may be cooler outdoors at night?

6. Post is totally bizzare: Because the vast bulk of the histogram is way to the left representing the black sky, but there is a spike to the right the represents that highlights from the moon? Otherwise as per usual I think.


7. Neat image totally destroys the image. I haven’t tried noise reduction software for the moon – I don’t usually use noise reduction software for sunlit shots, do you? Lower the ISO to 100, then, the moon is not moving that fast.

8. FM sharpening is a big mistake. See my previous answer above

9. USM values that work normally are way too much. As I said I don’t remember the values I used, but they should not be that different, nor needed that much – the image is sunlit and stationary – it should be sharp optically, not in post so to speak

10. So I ended up blending light and dark halos in separate layers so I could control intensity separately. That dark and lite sharpening trick with halo blending might work here – haven’t ever tried it. See my previous answer.
11. The ARC histogram looks like nothing else. It's all black and a little white. Yup!!

12. So I just bring the endpoints of the L curve inward until I'm using something like the full range. Better to do this in RAW than in jpgs, but yes if jpgs are what you are using.

13. I think you have to live in Peru or New Mexico or somewhere to get this really right. I live in the suburbs of a city of 100,000 mortal souls – not in the Alto Plano of Chile’. Just takes a cool dry night with a dark sky. But maybe not possible within 50 miles of Boston or other metropolitan areas. Kenton Oklahoma would work – not another light within 60 miles. But my image was shot in my backyard in Indiana and we have had electric lights in Indiana for over 100 years.


John, please consider this post plastered with smilies as it is posted very much with tongue in cheek:D:)::thumb

[ginger_55]

I really think we ought to get Andy and Steve interested.........somehow. I think Harry would know better.

ginger


I agree re Rutt's post! That was a warm fuzzy intellectual post to wake up to.
Thanks.

[DoctorIt]

rutt, ginger, pathfinder: this has become a very interesting thread! great images and i've learned quite a bit from rutt and pathfinders "tutorials".

:thumb

[pathfinder]

rutt, ginger, pathfinder: this has become a very interesting thread! great images and i've learned quite a bit from rutt and pathfinders "tutorials".

:thumb
Thanks :):

[rutt]

This post by John is such a great post I just have to respond!! Thanks. Actually, a good spot meter should work if you think of the moon like snow, may be, and just meter off the moon. But the large area of black around the moon gives camera’s averaging meters fits. Stick with sunny f16 for the moon - unless its really hidden in the clouds like Ginger describes - then you may need to try spot metering with exposure compensation like when shooting snow. Was using 20D which doesn't really have a spot (or does it?) I thought compared to the 1Dmkii, it was like getting a 1.3 TC for free. I put my moon off center for that reason. I knew you’d mention it. I don't prefer the moon dead center either. YMMV Yes, but you can do that easily in post in this case. As long as you get a nice sharp moon all in the shot, you're in business. I just cropped mine almost to the max in order to emphasize their inferiority compared to yours. I used AF with just the center point on the moon I believe. Using all 9 AF points probably won’t work that well. No AF with 20D+100-400+TC. It's in the manual. 1Series will, but only center focus. Not sure but maybe the focal point for infinity is a function of the temperature of the glass and the air within the lens, and it may be cooler outdoors at night? Or the TCs screw it up? I haven’t tried noise reduction software for the moon – I don’t usually use noise reduction software for sunlit shots, do you? Lower the ISO to 100, then, the moon is not moving that fast. I used low ISO, but still got grain. Not sure what the issue. Cleaned all the lenses today. Mostly, I was just pointing out that this is a very different kind of image that the ones we usually work on. That dark and lite sharpening trick with halo blending might work here. haven't ever tried it. See my previous answer. Try this trick! Professional prepress people almost always use it. It gives you an important extra degree of control with no real loss. Better to do this in RAW than in jpgs, but yes if jpgs are what you are using. I shot raw, converted to 16bit, then played with LAB curves. As long as all the detail is there, this should be absolutely no worse than doing it during raw conversion. There is no magic. Jim, just keep saying to yourself, there is no magic. Well, anyway this should be uncontroversial where digital cameras are concerned. John, please consider this post plastered with smileies as it is posted very much with tongue in cheek I don't use smilies myself, but the careful reader can discern my intent without them. I've always thought that anyone who actually needed them wouldn't get the point anyway, but experience is starting to make me think otherwise (Ginger and Jim, you two never seem to have trouble with my shades of meaning, so don't take offense.)

[Seamus]

rutt, ginger, pathfinder: this has become a very interesting thread! great images and i've learned quite a bit from rutt and pathfinders "tutorials".

:thumb
Ditto :thumb

Shay

[Stan]

Post tutorial repost.

The first was as shot because I could not see how to pull any more detail from it...


I think the dent at 10 o'clock is the shaddow of the not full moon.

Thank you both

[ginger_55]

Post tutorial repost.

The first was as shot because I could not see how to pull any more detail from it...


I think the dent at 10 o'clock is the shaddow of the not full moon.

Thank you both
You are in england, and I am on the southeast coast of the usa. it is interesting to me how our different moons have a somewhat different orientation.

There is a place on the moon towards the bottom, bottom rt on mine, just bottom, to bottom left on yours, where if it were a watermelon, the stem would have gone.

I did mine about 1 AM EST here, I wonder if that makes a difference. Interesting.

ginger (Still a full cloud cover here) I forget to use the smiles most of the time. Then when I am on AOL, I miss having them. Downloaded a smilie place and something bad happened to it. I figured AOL zapped it. Smile

[ginger_55]

rutt, ginger, pathfinder: this has become a very interesting thread! great images and i've learned quite a bit from rutt and pathfinders "tutorials".

:thumbThat info re the sliders in RAW, I would have paid a bunch to get that (yesterday I would have paid, today I know). It has really been bothering me. I didn't know if I "had" to make the histogram go from one side to the other, or just do it as I wanted to. By "had to", I mean what was going to work better in the long run.

So, I would kind of toss a coin......never remembered to ask anyone, and don't know how I would have phrased the question anyway. I do have the book on RAW, but I have way too many books to read, and who knows where the gems are that I need.

Pathfinder is great at picking that stuff up, IMO. (Not that I wanted to hear that my moon still sucked, and in honor of Rutt (John) I will not put a smilie there.
Smile.

I really, really needed that RAW info, wonder what else I really need. So many questions. And now we have a thread for it. That is fantastic. And Landscapes has moved away from wildlife which is also fantastic.

ginger (The reason the question came up and became an issue was because of the egrets. It always comes back to the egrets!)

[pathfinder]

That info re the sliders in RAW, I would have paid a bunch to get that (yesterday I would have paid, today I know). It has really been bothering me. I didn't know if I "had" to make the histogram go from one side to the other, or just do it as I wanted to. By "had to", I mean what was going to work better in the long run.

So, I would kind of toss a coin......never remembered to ask anyone, and don't know how I would have phrased the question anyway. I do have the book on RAW, but I have way too many books to read, and who knows where the gems are that I need.

Pathfinder is great at picking that stuff up, IMO. (Not that I wanted to hear that my moon still sucked, and in honor of Rutt (John) I will not put a smilie there.
Smile.
I really, really needed that RAW info, wonder what else I really need. So many questions. And now we have a thread for it. That is fantastic. And Landscapes has moved away from wildlife which is also fantastic.

ginger (The reason the question came up and became an issue was because of the egrets. It always comes back to the egrets!)
Ginger, I NEVER said your moon sucked. :rolleyes I would never say that! I said it could be improved upon by you, and I was confident that you would like to display your image of the moon to its very best advantage also. Otherwise you would not have added the lovely frame and script titling. What font is that your used for your titling anyway. I reallly like it!

And yes, I thought a little tip about RAW conversion might be helpful to many other readers of this thread. It was kind of an Aha moment when I first saw that tip. Use it in good health on all your shots:):

[Seamus]

my turn, Ireland, 25th March, 10:20pm. 70-200 with stacked 1.4 and 2x extenders, f11, iso 100, at 100.


http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/18212186-L.jpg


Thanks for the hints folks,

Shay.

[tmlphoto]

100-400 1.4TC 1/200 f/8 ISO 100
http://tmlphoto.smugmug.com/photos/18221867-L.jpg

"Blue Moon"
http://tmlphoto.smugmug.com/photos/18222396-L.jpg

[pathfinder]

Post tutorial repost.

The first was as shot because I could not see how to pull any more detail from it...


I think the dent at 10 o'clock is the shaddow of the not full moon.

Thank you both

Stan, I like this image much better. I think this is much better use of the available levels of grey. Your brightest spots nw clock about 235, 240, 225 range. Much closer to white than your previous image and it seems sharp to my eye.:thumb

[Kirwin]

Hi Ginger,

Your words were more visual than any image could portray.

It looks like a watermelon, that is what it looks like!
I wonder if it could be a sin, particularly without the full range of darks and lights or whatever.
God must have had a plan when he lit the moon, I am sure I violated it somehow.

I saw the moon before I went to bed at around 2 AM. I was taking the dogs out for their nightly "run" in the backyard. I never knew if they fulfilled the purpose of the run as I was mesmorized by the sight of the beautiful moon that appeared to be moving in a cloudy and clear sky. I thought of getting my tripod, but I was just too tired, so I watched it and enjoyed.

It went thru clear areas of the sky, or what appeared to be clear areas, undoubtedly there was moisture up there, it is a bright cloudy right now.
While in the clear areas it appeared to me to be very bright, much brighter than most of us are making it. The parts we think of as black were in my eyes grey. The lighter parts were almost shining they were so "white" appearing. The lighter parts encompassed far more of the moon than I would have wanted to show, though I would have liked to play with it.

Then the moon would dip beneath a "clear cloud", never disappearing, but changing the looks of the moon. It became duller, as a dime, but with a bright rim around the edge, in a photograph it would be quite fake looking, I would think. The whole experience was beautiful, truly breath taking. I wish I had not been so tired, but it was happening rapidly as the clouds raced across the sky, it would have been quite difficult to show in one photo. I am not good enough yet to do the multiples that would have done it some kind of justice. Even then, I think it was better as a memory and might be spoiled by laboring over a less than perfect image.

I did give the dogs their treats on the assumption they may have done their part, I read my book and went to sleep.

I just wanted to tell you about the moon I observed.

ginger

[pathfinder]

Thanks. Was using 20D which doesn't really have a spot (or does it?) I thought compared to the 1Dmkii, it was like getting a 1.3 TC for free. Yes, but you can do that easily in post in this case. As long as you get a nice sharp moon all in the shot, you're in business. I just cropped mine almost to the max in order to emphasize their inferiority compared to yours. No AF with 20D+100-400+TC. It's in the manual. 1Series will, but only center focus. Or the TCs screw it up? I used low ISO, but still got grain. Not sure what the issue. Cleaned all the lenses today. Mostly, I was just pointing out that this is a very different kind of image that the ones we usually work on. Try this trick! Professional prepress people almost always use it. It gives you an important extra degree of control with no real loss. I shot raw, converted to 16bit, then played with LAB curves. As long as all the detail is there, this should be absolutely no worse than doing it during raw conversion. There is no magic. Jim, just keep saying to yourself, there is no magic. Well, anyway this should be uncontroversial where digital cameras are concerned. I don't use smilies myself, but the careful reader can discern my intent without them. I've always thought that anyone who actually needed them wouldn't get the point anyway, but experience is starting to make me think otherwise (Ginger and Jim, you two never seem to have trouble with my shades of meaning, so don't take offense.)

John, I think the 20D does have a spot meter, but I can't find my manual to verify it. Isn't the meter icon on the top LCD in the spot mode when the icon is empty> That is my recollection, but I could be wrong about that.

You are right that the 20D won't AF with the 100-400 zoom + 1.4 Tx - The effective aperature drops to f8, and AF falls out of the ability of the 20D. Another reason to prefer fast primes. The 2x Tx + 300 f2.8 becomes f5.6 600mm, but still will AF with the center AF point on the 20D. I used that combo for numerous BIF shots in N Mexico.

I am not sure that making adjustments in LAB is as safe to the data of the image as the RAW converter is, because the data prior to RAW conversion is in a linear array, while after RAW conversion to a color space in Photoshop
the data is in a gamma corrected array which means that it is no longer linear - that is why adjustments prior to RAW cause so much less data loss. There is an article in the current issue of Photoshop User about just this topic. Good article too. So maybe.... there is some magic. The article said that Photoshop then just becomes a plug in for the RAW converter and that is just about my view too.

And I have left all smilies out of this discourse out of respect for your opinion about them....... NOT!!! :lol3

[rutt]

I am not sure that making adjustments in LAB is as safe to the data of the image as the RAW converter is, because the data prior to RAW conversion is in a linear array, while after RAW conversion to a color space in Photoshop
the data is in a gamma corrected array which means that it is no longer linear - that is why adjustments prior to RAW cause so much less data loss. There is an article in the current issue of Photoshop User about just this topic. Good article too. So maybe.... there is some magic. The article said that Photoshop then just becomes a plug in for the RAW converter and that is just about my view too.
Post this to Dan Margulis' color theory discussion group and see what happens. Want me to? Is the article online somewhere? If not can I buy the periodical somewhere. Give me the reference.

We don't have to have this conversation here. Nobody will be interested. But I'd like to get to the bottom of it. Give me the info and I will.

[ginger_55]

Thomas, you did get more contrast this time. And I got a weather report. Our skys are covered up with clouds. If your weather comes in this direction, I might feel like going out again..........not for the moon.

I wonder on the moon, if there shouldn't be some areas that are not grey around on the bottom rt side, or somewhere on the rt side. I mean they maybe should be lighter. I was forcing mine into grey last night, I am thinking it might have been a mistake. They wouldn't need to be blown, they could just shine.....

as in moonshine.......or is that something different. I am not sure how dark I like the dark parts, but if I were to work on mine from last night, it would be to not force the grey on the right side, but let the moon shine. (not at 255, not blown, just not greyish)

g

[tmlphoto]

Thomas, you did get more contrast this time. And I got a weather report. Our skys are covered up with clouds. If your weather comes in this direction, I might feel like going out again..........not for the moon.

I wonder on the moon, if there shouldn't be some areas that are not grey around on the bottom rt side, or somewhere on the rt side. I mean they maybe should be lighter. I was forcing mine into grey last night, I am thinking it might have been a mistake. They wouldn't need to be blown, they could just shine.....

as in moonshine.......or is that something different. I am not sure how dark I like the dark parts, but if I were to work on mine from last night, it would be to not force the grey on the right side, but let the moon shine. (not at 255, not blown, just not greyish)

g
I'm not sure what my favorite moon look is. There are quite a bit of ways you could go with the post processing. I like to add some constrast, but I'm not sure if I like the whites white hot. The full moon shots don't really let you see the craters, ie flat light is flat light. I think the more side lit view are probably more dramatic. HOpe your weather clears up.

[ginger_55]

This Camera Raw by Bruce Fraser has a wealth of info, but if I were to study it intensively, I might not see anyone here for a month. It mentions linear, it mentions stuff that used to be done in LAB that is done so much better in RAW.

It is only about 200 pages, but it does have the info. It is a bit technical for me, as in I have to interpret sentences or words before I can go to the next one.

It does make a good point, though, if we are not going to make good use of all this stuff RAW can do for us, why use RAW.

It says 34.99, but by now it is probably cheaper used at Amazon or avail at overstock.

Just thought I would tell you all. I have heard it said somewhere that I did not need this book, etc. Other people might not need this book, there is a lot in here I did not know, as I do not know anything about RAW.

What makes it difficult for me is the interaction of the controls, or that seems to be one thing.

g

[ginger_55]

I'm not sure what my favorite moon look is. There are quite a bit of ways you could go with the post processing. I like to add some constrast, but I'm not sure if I like the whites white hot. The full moon shots don't really let you see the craters, ie flat light is flat light. I think the more side lit view are probably more dramatic. HOpe your weather clears up.
Thomas, I like your response. It sounds like an artist's response. There is not one way to do the moon.......... I like that. It is your interpretation of the moon for you. This digital stuff is so technical, I think we sometimes lose sight of the artistic side where artists interpret the final results with varying truths among artists.

ginger