The Moon?

Steelafan · September 4, 2008

Here is a question. What is the best way to get a good Moon shot? Everything I tried doesn't seem to work. :dunno Either too bright or too dark. Can't find the happy medium. Any advice? :help

pathfinder · September 4, 2008

Steelafan,

You did not describe your camera or your shooting technique, but I suspect your were shooting in any one of the automatic modes.

You cannot shoot the moon with your camera in any of the auto modes, as the light meter in your camera will not meter correctly. You MUST shoot in Manual mode, where you dial in the aperture and shutter speed, and you may need to focus manually as well ( depends on your camera and lens). A tripod and a cable release help a lot also.

The moon is lit by the sun, and hence, needs the same basic exposure as a sunlit object here on Earth.

I wrote a thread about sunlit exposures here

and about shooting the moon in particular here.

Here is a moon from last December - a full frame image

Cato · September 5, 2008

Shot w/ Pentax K100D, cheapy Tamron 70-300mm lens, tripod

ISO 400 (should have set to 200, just plum forgot!)
1/180 s
f/13
Spot metering
auto-focus used
My default ACR settings

Fellow Jerseyan here...

Steelafan · September 9, 2008

Thanks for the input.

Steelafan · September 9, 2008

Cato wrote:

Shot w/ Pentax K100D, cheapy Tamron 70-300mm lens, tripod

ISO 400 (should have set to 200, just plum forgot!)
1/180 s
f/13
Spot metering
auto-focus used
My default ACR settings

Fellow Jerseyan here...

GO Jersey! :seamus

ziggy53 · September 11, 2008

Canon dRebel XT, ISO 200, 500mm Vivitar f6.3 lens (M42 screwmount, manual focus) at f8 plus Tamron 1.4x-F teleconverter (taped), 1/400 sec, RAW processed through RSE to 16 bit TIFF, TIFF cropped to 1127x1127, upressed, processed and then Green channel extracted and curves applied, USM. Downressed to 800x800 for viewing.

ziggy53 · September 11, 2008

This is a processed version to remove some of the graininess:

jogle · September 11, 2008

I haven't shot the moon normally, only in eclipse. (where it is about 5 stops darker then normal)

Take a look in here, the exif's are on the phtos: http://www.ogle.co.nz/gallery/3381966_6SNtT (the ones with 0 apeture are shot on a Nikon 800mm f5.6 with a canon adapter)

Set it to manual and experiment. Shoot a couple of stops down from wide open so the lens is reasonably sharp, keep your shutter speeds below 1/3 of a sec as the moon moves suprisingly fast across the sky. Turn your iso up as far as you need to to get a decent exposure. Use raw so you don't have to worry about white balance till later.

chuckinsocal · September 11, 2008

My First Moon Shot ...
Well at least the first postable moon shot for me.

Shot with a D80 a 70-300mm VR lens at 300mm 1/250th at f8 ISO 400. Hand held (VR Rocks!!!).

My first decent moon shot ever and hoping for C&C and any helpful hints.

Tomorrow night when I have more time I'll set up the tripod and remote trigger.

Thanks for looking.

Cato · September 12, 2008

Not bad, Chuck...

chuckinsocal · September 13, 2008

Thanks Cato ... I'm waiting for the marine layer to retreat back to the sea and the moon to come out from behind the low clouds so I can maybe do better with the tripod and remote trigger.

Albert Dickson · September 16, 2008

The Moon
Ok, I understand how we are exposing for the moon alone but what about while retaining some foreground detail. As you see in this image, I have completely blownout the moon inorder to retain other details. This is utilizing 2 stops of graduated ND filter over the moon. Maybe I needed 8 stops? Any thoughts, sugestions?

Cato · September 16, 2008

Dare I say... 2 shots? One for the moon, the other for the rest of the scene?

chuckinsocal · September 16, 2008

Hey Ziggy,

This is an awesome shot and I think I understand how you achieved it except I don't know what "Green channel extracted and curves applied" means and what it does for the shot. Can you educate me just a little?

Thanks.

pathfinder · September 16, 2008

Albert Dickson wrote:

Ok, I understand how we are exposing for the moon alone but what about while retaining some foreground detail. As you see in this image, I have completely blownout the moon inorder to retain other details. This is utilizing 2 stops of graduated ND filter over the moon. Maybe I needed 8 stops? Any thoughts, sugestions?

The moon is basically sunlit, and the foreground is in very deep shade indeed, so 8 stops of GND may be what you do indeed need. Try metering for the foreground and compare that to the proper exposure for the moon - not what an averaging meter reads, but what you find actually gives a correct exposure from your histogram.

Albert Dickson · September 16, 2008

pathfinder wrote:

The moon is basically sunlit, and the foreground is in very deep shade indeed, so 8 stops of GND may be what you do indeed need. Try metering for the foreground and compare that to the proper exposure for the moon - not what an averaging meter reads, but what you find actually gives a correct exposure from your histogram.

Thanks Pathfinder.
Ok. So the diference of the two readings being how many stops there is between the proper moon exposure and that for the foreground. So in practice, I can attempt to apply the needed amount of GND to expose each correctly or slide the exposure to the left a stop or two (histogram), use a lesser amount of GND and then recover some lost datail from the shadows in PP. Or have I completely gone off track?

pathfinder · September 16, 2008

In theory, yes you can, but I have never seen an 8x Graduated ND. I am not sure exactly of the number of stops, but from sunlit objects, to objects in the shade of a sunny afternoon is 3 stops, so after the sun goes down, I would not be surprised to see 5 more stops of lower light intensity.

The usual technique for this is to shoot two frames, one for the moon, and one for the forground and blend them in layers in Photoshop. Easy peasy.

The fancier, more sophisticated way today, would be to shoot an HDR shot and let the HDR software workout the details, since a proper HDR can handle the variations in light intensity from sunlit to nighttime shadows with aplomb. To capture a broad enough range of EVs - say 5 or 8 frames with a 2 stop difference in exposure for each frame, you will need to use a tripod and a cable release and move quickly because the moon is a moving object ( it does not seem like it until you try to follow it with your camera on a tripod and then it books right along ) and moving objects are not rendered well in HDR.

Here is shot from a 10D I did about 4 years ago that I think is a composite

Albert Dickson · September 16, 2008

pathfinder wrote:

In theory, yes you can, but I have never seen an 8x Graduated ND. I am not sure exactly of the number of stops, but from sunlit objects, to objects in the shade of a sunny afternoon is 3 stops, so after the sun goes down, I would not be surprised to see 5 more stops of lower light intensity.

The usual technique for this is to shoot two frames, one for the moon, and one for the forground and blend them in layers in Photoshop. Easy peasy.

Exactly!!! And the shot you show is on par with what I wish to achieve or get close to in camera. As you say, the moon is moving pretty fast. The shot I posted was a 10 sec. exposure (tripod mounted with cable release) so that I might capture some foreground detail. Any longer and the moon would leave a trail. I did bracket 5 frames + or -0.7 each but because of the longer exposures the moon had,of course, moved a bit from 1 - 5. I am fairly comfortable with blending layers and in HDR technique and could go this route though certainly no expert. I was just thinking about how to achieve the best posible exposure for this broad contrast situation while in the field. Thanks for the insight. I do truly appreciate it.

ziggy53 · September 18, 2008

chuckinsocal wrote:

Hey Ziggy,

This is an awesome shot and I think I understand how you achieved it except I don't know what "Green channel extracted and curves applied" means and what it does for the shot. Can you educate me just a little?

Thanks.

The "Green channel extracted" is just a method of using the "Channels" capability of PhotoShop to create the effect of a strong green filter. I basically discarded the red and blue information. It seemed to create slightly improved definition overall (at the possible expense of increased graininess).

The "curves applied" is just using a PhotoShop "Curves" adjustment to provide extra contrast but with more selective control of which tones get affected and by how much.

Cygnus Studios · September 18, 2008

The time of day should also be considered. Early in the evening is usually better. Once the sky turns completely dark, a full moon appears brighter and will cause you more exposure issues.

Here is my example:

F8.0
1/320
ISO 200
500mm

monchee10 · September 19, 2008

pathfinder wrote:

Steelafan,

You did not describe your camera or your shooting technique, but I suspect your were shooting in any one of the automatic modes.

You cannot shoot the moon with your camera in any of the auto modes, as the light meter in your camera will not meter correctly. You MUST shoot in Manual mode, where you dial in the aperture and shutter speed, and you may need to focus manually as well ( depends on your camera and lens). A tripod and a cable release help a lot also.

The moon is lit by the sun, and hence, needs the same basic exposure as a sunlit object here on Earth.

I wrote a thread about sunlit exposures here

and about shooting the moon in particular here.

Here is a moon from last December - a full frame image

So I feel like a proper twat having to ask this, but what does "MLU" stand for?

ziggy53 · September 19, 2008

monchee10 wrote:

So I feel like a proper twat having to ask this, but what does "MLU" stand for?

Mirror Lock-Up, primarily used to reduce vibrations in dSLRs and SLRs.

monchee10 · September 19, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

Mirror Lock-Up, primarily used to reduce vibrations.

Yeah, should have known that one, thanks Ziggy.

Cato · September 20, 2008

Is this becoming the "unofficial official post your moon shot thread"?

Here's a recent one from me. Shot @ 1000mm, won't say what lens as I fear I'll be laughed off the forum...:cry

windwood · September 21, 2008

D80, Sigma 50-500 @ 500mm, ISO 100, 1/100th @ f/11.0

leaforte · September 21, 2008

pathfinder wrote:

Steelafan,

You did not describe your camera or your shooting technique, but I suspect your were shooting in any one of the automatic modes.

You cannot shoot the moon with your camera in any of the auto modes, as the light meter in your camera will not meter correctly. You MUST shoot in Manual mode, where you dial in the aperture and shutter speed, and you may need to focus manually as well ( depends on your camera and lens). A tripod and a cable release help a lot also.

The moon is lit by the sun, and hence, needs the same basic exposure as a sunlit object here on Earth.

I wrote a thread about sunlit exposures here

and about shooting the moon in particular here.

Here is a moon from last December - a full frame image

T

Thanks for the links!:D

pathfinder · September 21, 2008

Another one of mine, from a few years ago

kdog · September 24, 2008

Here's the half-moon from a couple of nights ago.
Canon 40D, Canon 400mm F5.6, plus two TC1.4X extenders (784mm), ISO200, 1/80s.

BowtieX33 · September 27, 2008

My First
Here is my first try at the moon (and this board) from about a week ago. 5D with 200-500 Tamron, 1.4 tele, 1/125, ISO 320. Suggestions appreciated.

Ferguson · September 28, 2008

This is a bit different type of moon shot, look closely on the right. That's MARS, showing a bit of color and a disk. This was near its closest visual approach to the moon last december.

It's less a moon shot than a Mars shot.

F8 200-400 @ 400, 1/250th

pathfinder · September 28, 2008

That is better than my shot of that event - I could not get Mars in the frame with the moon that large

300mm f8 1/500th

The Moon?

Comments