Trying to capture the moon

[Steaphany]

James - He's shooting a superzoom, not a DSLR, so no mirror to lock up needed or available. Generally this type of camera cannot use a cable release either.

A tripod is essential and even lacking a remote shutter, try setting the Self-timer to 10 seconds, this way you press the shutter, step back, and let the vibrations dampen out by the time the shutter opens.

[rachel]

I just noticed, she is shooting in high dry Switzerland and and you are in low, moist, (currently) hot Oxfordshire. I think you will do much better in the winter.

Who? Me? None of those moon photos are from Switzerland. One of those is from Santiago, chile, which is plagued by pollution haze. I've had equally clear ones (on another thread somewhere) from Málaga, which is pretty humid,

Also, as regards the timer, 2s is enough for mine, so I stick to that. I'm too impatient to wait 10s and besides, have the idea that using the timer drains the battery faster.

[Steaphany]

Having now read to the end of the thread, I did a search and found the specifications on the Fuji FinePix SL300, so I now know exactly what the camera can do.

• File format - still image - JPEG (Exif Ver 2.3)
  Ok, this is fixed, no point arguing the issue, we'll move on

• Digital zoom - SL300 : approx. 6.7 x
  Just make sure to turn this Off, for Lunar photography, this will just degrade the image

• Aperture - F3.1 / F8 (Wide) - F5.9 / F8 / F20 (Telephoto) with ND filter
  There is no detail explaining why they list the aperture like this, but I'm concerned about the "ND Filter", Neutral Density filter, being associated with the Telephoto settings. No matter what focal length you set, just make sure the camera is not putting an internal Neutral Density filter in the optical path. That will just throw away light.

• Sensitivity - Auto,Equivalent to ISO 64 / 100 / 200 / 400 / 800 / 1600 / 3200* / 6400* (Standard Output Sensitivity)
  More then enough to get the job done

• Exposure control - TTL 256-zones metering, Multi / Spot / Average
  The problem with any Lunar photo is you have something really bright surrounded by something really dark, just set this to Spot, anything else will try to balance the bright Moon with the dark sky surrounding it.

• Exposure mode Programmed AE, Shutter Priority AE, Aperture Priority AE, Manual exposure
  Happy Happy Use Manual exposure, this is all you need

• Shutter speed - (Auto mode) 1/4sec. to 1/2000sec., (All other modes) 8sec. to 1/2000sec. (with mechanical shutter)
  More then enough to get the job done

• Focus - mode - Single AF / Continuous AF (SR AUTO, Movie)
  If you choose Auto Focus, use Single AF, there is no point getting the camera confused

• Focus - AF frame selection - Center, Multi, Area, Tracking
  Depending the the angular size, go with Center or Area, The best light dark edge to use for Lunar focus is the limb or edge of the Moon

• Self-timer - Approx. 10 sec. / 2 sec. delay
  As I said earlier, use 10 Seconds with a tripod

This will get you closer to where you want to be

[topol]

Thanks [yet again] for these comments - most helpful.
Most of my settings are as you suggest anyway, but for the ND filter, which I know nothing about. Does this mean that a filter is applied via the software, when f20 is offered?
Using the self-timer is next on the "to do" list.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Norm,

Most of my settings are as you suggest anyway, but for the ND filter, which I know nothing about. Does this mean that a filter is applied via the software, when f20 is offered?

I believe so.


As Brian said, our current UK weather (very unusual) is certainly not helping matters, last night in particular was probably the worst night to try it, in several years, for heat 'haze'.

You should aim for an exposure (moon brightness) like Greg's example shot (post #19), compared to yours, you didn't need the -2/3 EV in this example. Although how Greg got a moon that bright with those settings amazes me! NZ air must be great

I reviewed all my lunar shots (taken in batches weeks apart) while writing my reply, it was noticeable that my full moon shots were disappointing compared to the alternatives with a shadow edge. I tried to upload one - failed - and gave up

Give it a week and try again, but yes, autumn/winter may give clearer still atmospheric conditions.

If it's any consolation, most people start by photographing a full moon and being unhappy with the result, then the discover the benefit of the edge shadow.

Here's one I shot with my Nikon Coolpix P510 back in August 2012; 1/250s, f/5.9, iso400 at 180mm (1000mm FFE).

The original straight out of camera jpg (full size = 4608 x 3456px = 3.84 MB) to compare to your own.
Then a processed version of it at 900 x 950px = 87.5 kB, optimised to display here on web.

You will need to view both in Lytebox, click image in thread to activate, then fullscreen the browser (f11), then at full size the image, click "F" on keyboard. You have to see these at 100% to appreciate the differences, although it's not easy because you need to scroll around to find the moon in the big shot.





I know you're not into Post Processing (yet), but it helps ...

Post processing applied (Photoshop CC2015 + ACR 9.1):
Increase exposure by +0.5 stop
Cropped to remove much of the useless blackness, now just over 1800 x 1900 px
Noise reduced by Neat Image (although I could barely see a benefit, I did it anyway)
Downsized about 2:1, resulting in final image of 900 x 950 px
Smart Sharpened 120%, 0.3 px
Saved as jpg

It's not a great shot, and I have probably over sharpened it, but it does prove what I have achieved.

Now look at the difference between the shadow edge and the fully illuminated bits - see how the edge lighting on craters VASTLY improves apparent detail visible - that's why shooting a full moon is bound to lead to disappointment, it is all fully lit.

Like I say, give it a week (for the weather to cool down), then try again, by which time there will be a view similar to this.

Hope that helps, Dave

[Steaphany]

Now look at the difference between the shadow edge and the fully illuminated bits - see how the edge lighting on craters VASTLY improves apparent detail visible - that's why shooting a full moon is bound to lead to disappointment, it is all fully lit.

You are right on Dave, a Full Moon has no shadows and ends up looking flat, it's just like doing landscape photography near midday. To perceive the shape of the Moon as a sphere, you need the terminator with the lunar surface shadow details to be visible.

Just compare these

Lunar Eclipse You can't get any fuller than this	Afternoon Moon	Moon
June 26 2010 Eclipse, photographed when the Moon was just 4° above the horizon, only 28 minutes before setting. This image has up oriented towards the Zenith with a field of view of 0.63° x 0.63°.	Here is the Moon photographed at 2:41 in the afternoon, day light astronomy. This image has up oriented towards the Zenith with a field of view of 0.63° x 0.63º.	This is the Moon, photographed on January 30, 2009 at 00:39:27 UT. This image has up oriented towards the Zenith with a field of view of 0.63° x 0.63°.
Camera Sigma SD-14 dSLR Lens Orion Apex 1250mm f/13.9 ( 90mm Ø ) Maksutov Cassegrain Focal Length 1250mm Shutter Speed 1 s Aperture f/13.9 ISO/Film 100	Camera Sigma SD-14 dSLR Lens Orion Apex 1250mm f/13.9 ( 90mm Ø ) Maksutov Cassegrain Focal Length 1250mm Shutter Speed 1/80th s Aperture f/13.9 ISO/Film 100	Camera Sigma SD-14 dSLR Lens Orion Apex 1250mm f/13.9 ( 90mm Ø ) Maksutov Cassegrain Focal Length 1250mm Shutter Speed 1/5th s Aperture f/13.9 ISO/Film 100

[Dave Humphries]

That's a very interesting set of comparison images Steaphany,

While the eclipse photo does appear to show the spherical shape of the moon, surely the curve we're actually seeing there is the shadow of our planet projected on to a flat lit moon? Hence the lack of crater detail along its edge, unlike the other two shots. I hadn't even thought of this. Or am I confusing my eclipses?

"Terminator" - I knew there was a word for my oft repeated phrase "shadow edge" in post #25, just couldn't think of it

Yes, shooting a full moon is like a landscape at noon with the sun behind you - or shooting a tennis ball with a ring flash.

What you get with the terminator in shot is the effect of light 'glancing' across a textured surface, great for showing the detail.

[topol]

"Give it a week and try again, but yes, autumn/winter may give clearer still atmospheric conditions."
Will do, and it will give me the opportunity to try to absorb all the rest of the advice.

The partial moonshots are really more attractive anyway - IMO.

I googled Lytebox, and it seems Linux isn't supported - unless anyone knows differently?

Watch this space [as the saying goes].

[Dave Humphries]

I googled Lytebox, and it seems Linux isn't supported - unless anyone knows differently?

No, the Lytebox I am referring to is the thing you see here at CiC in your browser when you click on an image - when the page darkens and the images appears in a frame - I'm sure your browser, whatever it is, supports it.

[Steaphany]

On this very theme, the Carnegie Institution for Science & Carnegie Observatories post this image on their twitter page. This is the positive of a glass plate image of the Moon taken in 1938 with the 100-inch Hooker telescope, the world's largest from 1917 to 1949, and the Hooker telescope is still in operation at the Mount Wilson Observatory.

No details of the exposure were provided, but I thought the coincidence of this post with this thread interesting. It also makes a good quality standard to compare images against.

For anyone interested, the 100-inch Hooker telescope is available for use, check out the details at Viewing at the 100-inch Hooker Telescope

[Steaphany]

... surely the curve we're actually seeing there is the shadow of our planet projected on to a flat lit moon? Hence the lack of crater detail along its edge, unlike the other two shots....

You're right on target Dave.

[topol]

No, the Lytebox I am referring to is the thing you see here at CiC in your browser when you click on an image - when the page darkens and the images appears in a frame - I'm sure your browser, whatever it is, supports it.

Gotcha - thanks. OK with Firefox.

[Steaphany]

All three of the images that I post for the full versus crescent comparison were capture with single exposures. Once you get the exposure and focus right, I suggest that you shoot a series of identical images. The atmospheric distortions will be different from image to image, as will also be some of the noise.

Then you can use DeepSkyStacker or REGISTAX, both are Free, to merge the images together and Poof, atmospheric distortions are gone.

When you are ready to get really sophisticated, along with your image collections ( light frames ), you can also shoot bias, dark, and flat frames.

• Bias
  The purpose of a bias frame is to bring all the pixels on the ccd to an equal starting value.

• Dark
  The purpose of a dark frame is to remove the non-image related thermal and electronic noise that the CCD generated when capturing light frames.

• Flat
  Flat frames are used to address unwanted problems in the optical path, including dirt/dust, vignetting and internal reflections.