Full moon photography

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PRSearls

. . . I shot a series at different shutter speeds,f/stops and ISO settings with a used 500 f/4 (series 1). The night sky was very clear and the moon was about 60 degrees above the horizon. My best capture was this one at 1/800 sec, f/4.0 and ISO 200 with a 1Ds III body and tripod. . . . etc

---

Yes I did have a peek.
Yes amazingly good.

Cheers for now,

WW

Some great photos there, Bobo. That second one spoke to me instantly:
'The moon was a ghostly galleon
Tossed upon cloudy seas'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FootLoose

Some great photos there, Bobo. That second one spoke to me instantly:
'The moon was a ghostly galleon
Tossed upon cloudy seas'

---

I wouldn't have come up with that description, but it is a great description.

Like it did for you the second photo jumped out at me.
Had a WOW factor for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FootLoose

Some great photos there, Bobo. That second one spoke to me instantly:
'The moon was a ghostly galleon
Tossed upon cloudy seas'

---

- - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rawill

I wouldn't have come up with that description, but it is a great description.
Like it did for you the second photo jumped out at me.
Had a WOW factor for me.

---

The full moon did neither Bess, nor her Lover, any good: did it?

WW

This picture is a little incorrect, at least not framed. And this is not full moon.

http://darekk.com/temp/cambr-moon-IMG_6294.jpg

The Moon is caught by branches of an old tree near such forgotten from almost 100 hundreds years very small old cemetery of Dutch or German settlers (ameliorants) on the verge of marshes, during deer rut echoing from trunks of trees.
Like Germelshausen, only noise of the broken bell and Gertrud were lacking in the low mist, even later ...

The Moon gives a reflection on the lens or filter. It is so bright (overexposed) to get branches.
The reflection would be probably invisible if exposition was shorter.

4 s
f#22
1600 ISO
focal length = 400 mm
2007-09-19 19:47

As this thread is a request for information I would suggest that it is not always neccessary to use a long exposure when including earthbound subjects in photo ....1600 ISO 1/250 f/5 "the Moon Catcher"
http://i44.tinypic.com/2nroldu.jpg
And for a bit of fun ... the original and adjusted to be more appropriate for the goal posts
1600 ISO 1/60 f/5.8 "Its a TRY !! "
http://i44.tinypic.com/2hncbo4.jpg
and yes the top one was edited:) There was a bank of cloud obscuring the bottom so it 'Had' to be placed on the horizon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcuknz

it is not always neccessary to use a long exposure when including earthbound subjects

---

But you used daylight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darekk

But you used daylight.

---

You could be right ... I simply do not remember ... but it was late evening when I took this one 200 ISO 1/13 f/5.6 although since I was using a Telephoto Adapter the effective aperture was probably around f/6.3 or so Full Frame with 950mm Angle of View.
It more compares with the photo in #25 that I was commenting because of.
http://i41.tinypic.com/n6xdhe.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jeeperman

. . . someone once telling me that many Nikons base ISO was 200. Sorry if that was incorrect. I am not sure if the Colin bit was to be a dig or a compliment but what ever, lifes too short.

---

No need for an apology - a good few Nikon DSLR's are base ISO 200, just not the professional ones . . ;)

It's time to test. Full Moon is going to be tomorrow, July 22nd at 19:15:27 UTC DST (359169,9 km between the centers of Earth and Moon), next one August 21st at 02:44:33 (365339,5 km) !!

Oh my god, guys, how did you make so sharp pictures ? You are so professional ... Do you use astronomical scopes ? Or maybe it depends on weather ? But today the air is clear ...
I made today few tens of shots and no one is so sharp.

http://darekk.com/temp/cambr-moon-IMG_9219.jpg

ISO 400 f11 1/250 s
360 mm + 2x extender --> 720 mm
(11 is the minimal F-stop with the extender)

This corresponds to
ISO 100 f8 1/125 s
what gave the same results (without the extender)

All images seem to be overexposed a little (by 0.5 - 1 F-stop).
So ISO 100 f8 1/250 - ~1/180 would be optimal.

The Moon was not resized in the above image.
White balance was set to daylight, because the Moon is actually a desert in full sun.

John, lots of good suggestions here so I won't add much in that. What I would suggest is you make a plan and follow a fixed pattern of trying a few different settings of f-stop and speed. The moon isn't going anywhere fast on each occasion and you'll have lots of time to experiment. Go through the shots afterwards and review the exif data of the best. You now have a starting point for the next time in just 28 days when you can further fine tune your own configuration for your camera and lens(es). You should soon be getting consistently good results. You'll be well prepared for the next full cold moon when we usually get better opportunities for crisp shots in this part of the world.

PS use the Photographers Ephemeris and find a place outside of the city to lessen the impact of light pollution.

This lens normally makes sharp images, so the unsharpness is caused by something related particularly to the Moon, like very high brightness and reflections inside the lens, low contrast, sensor in the camera with pixel sensors reflecting or diffusing Moon light at other pixels (? - rather not ...), hazy or polluted atmosphere, the air from the kitchen this image was shot through the window, mixed with the air outside the building having different temperature (and refractive index). But through binoculars details were rather better visible than in this picture, however I am not sure of that. So of this is true, this would be rather not about the air. And the extender also is not the reason.

http://darekk.com/temp/cambr-moon-IMG_9219_2.jpg

Edited much later:
Actually images can be sharp at least partially only subjectively - because of shadows shed by hills and walls of craters. So full moon is not good time to photograph the Moon, because of flat, shadowless light. And also to make impression of three-dimensions we need side lighting !! What is obvious.
The nearest III quarter will be Mon July 29th at 18:43:24 UTC DST, I quarter on Wed August 14th at 11:56:02, next one III quarter Wed August 28th at 10:35:02 and I quarter Thu September 12nd at 18:08:26.

I agree with Darekk. A full moon looks impressive to the eye but is very flat. Here is a shot from this morning, about 4:30 AM local time. Ideal conditions, clear sky, no wind with the moon high in the sky (less atmosphere to shoot through). Nice crater detail beginning to show along the right side. Canon 1Ds 3, Canon 500 mm f/4.0 IS (Mark I version) + 1.4x II Extender = 700 mm. Shot from a tripod, ISO 200, f/5.6, 1/640 sec. Cropped image. The best (sharpness) from about a dozen images.

(Click on the image to see it full-size).

Paul S

http://i39.tinypic.com/2gwi45e.jpg

I had taken this last year consisting of 9 panels stitched together. Original resolution is huge.

http://i43.tinypic.com/28md34h.jpg

These two images are outstanding, but this is not full moon. They were taken at slightly side lighting, in the first image from the left, in second one from the right. This is why craters are visible so well. If second one was stitched suggest, that it was shot through a telescope ?
However for example during last full moon the phase was 0.500 (full moon), but only 99.8% of moon's surface was illuminated by the sunlight in my area. So astronomical definition of the full moon (somehow defined moon phase = 0.5) is different then common definition (100% area of the Moon's disk in the sunlight). Moon phase doesn't depend on geographical coordinates of the observer because it is derived from positions of centers of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun, but illuminated fraction of the Moon's surface depends a little on the position of the observer.
I am wondering, which definition recognize werewolves ...

Indeed darekk, shot through a telescope.

Wow, your moon shots are amazing... The first I've heard of needing to exposures for a moon shot. May I ask why you recommend an iso of 1600 for clouds?

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobobird

Moon with clouds will require 2 exposures - one for the moon the other for the clouds then blend in post.

Clouds here were shot at iso1600, 1/30, f5.6. Moon was f8, 1/160, iso 100.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Z...10713_3683.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-d...20604_0677.jpg

Better still, take the shot during daytime. :)
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-a...10619_0020.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-T...11104_9814.jpg

---

Paul, John and Hasseb, your moon images are also amazing.

Thank you Christina. I have many more Moon images though not nearly full moon. I prefer to shoot when the Moon is at its terminator point. That's the time I feel you can get the most out of Moon's image.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2moy0p5.jpg