Photographing the moon?

[jukas]

I've seen some very stunning photo's of the moon, but every attempt I've had at taking shots of my own have been very disappointing. Can anyone give me tips or a good how-to for photographing the moon?

[garethhhhh]

- Under expose as much as you can (This allows you to capture all the details in its surface without the moon appearing to be too bright)
- Try using a large apeture (small f-stop number)
- A fast a shutter speed to prevent blurring.
- Use a tripod
- Use the timer function or a cable release to minimize camera shake

here is recent link about shooting the moon: Click Here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26814)

Good Luck! :wink:

[Canuck]

Couple more ideas...
I shot a pic of the moon in Sept, 2003 and it was about 6 tries to get it right. You will more than likely have to shoot full manual as that one I was. If I recall correctly the settings were 1/60 sec, F7.1 but I had a near full moon to shoot. If you are interested, here is the site that I have been using to upload pics. In the Astrophotography section you will find 2 moon pics. Pic #1032 was the one aforementioned and there is another one taken in Nov, 03. I don't recall the settings on the other one but can get them rather easily. Keep on shooting and look at them and see if they are blown out (overexposed) or underexposed. It could be a lot worse, still shooting film. (What on Earth is film??? LOL!!) The ones I took were with a Canon EOS 10D and Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX lens at 300mm. I agree with was was already said and you should look into a cable release. That will cut down on jiggle caused by the photographer. You can get them from B&H looking like this for $50:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/164276.jpg

[PacAce]

I've seen some very stunning photo's of the moon, but every attempt I've had at taking shots of my own have been very disappointing. Can anyone give me tips or a good how-to for photographing the moon?

The moon is nothing more than an object that is lit by the sun. So, for most intents and purposes, your "sunny 16" rule should be applicable with a little adjustment based on experimentation.

In manual mode, start with f/16 and a shutter speed of 1/ISO and see what you get. Adjust your aperture and/or shutter speed "to taste".

Good luck.

[jukas]

Thanks for the advice, now I just have to wait for another good night, to test it out :D

[G3]

PacAce is exactly right. The "Sunny 16 rule" applies. All the black sky will fool your meter into grossly overexposing the moon if you try to let the camera set the exposure. Just use the ISO of the film or your ISO setting on a digital camera (or as close as you can get) for the shutter speed and f16 for the aperture. For instance, if you are using ISO 100, sety your shutter for 1/90 sec or 1/125 sec and you aperture for f16. Of course, you can shift the exposure and use 1/250 sec and f8 or some other "Sunny 16" equivalent.

[Tom W]

In addition to what PacAce and G3 have said, you should shoot RAW and bracket by about 1-1/2 stops +/-. Why? RAW will give you the opportunity to add or subtract exposure compensation as a 12-bit image, just as you can in the camera. Also, by spreading 3 shots wide enough, you will lessen your chances of blowing out the detail. That is, if your first guestimate is way to bright, your lower exposure might be lower enough to give you something you can work with in File View Utility software.

[JZaun]

Remember the earth is turning and the moon is turning. You need some speed in order to not have a blur. Depending on the stage of the moon it will be from dim to very bright so it make a few tries to get it right.

Here is a shot I took with a 10d, 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 lens at 300mm. Use a tripod and remote remolete release. I used manual focus, manual settings, iso200, AV = 5.6, Tv=1/30 sec. The moon was at the new (dim) stage and I also got Venus with it. Had it been brighter the speed would have had to be faster or the arpeture changed.

Keep trying you'll get it.,,, Try a couple of full auto shots also.

http://gallery.bytephoto.com/data/3098/51Moon_Venus1.JPG

JZaun

[Jesper]

I've seen some very stunning photo's of the moon, but every attempt I've had at taking shots of my own have been very disappointing. Can anyone give me tips or a good how-to for photographing the moon?

The moon is nothing more than an object that is lit by the sun. So, for most intents and purposes, your "sunny 16" rule should be applicable with a little adjustment based on experimentation.

In manual mode, start with f/16 and a shutter speed of 1/ISO and see what you get. Adjust your aperture and/or shutter speed "to taste".

Good luck.

PacAce and the others who agree with him, did you actually try this? I just did: f/16, 1/90s, ISO 100, 10D with 28-135. Got a completely black frame! :? And the moon is at about 3/4 full at the moment.

Experimented a bit and found out that f/5.6 with a speed between 1/10 and 1/20s gave the best results.

The Sunny 16 rule does not apply here.

[Tom W]

PacAce and the others who agree with him, did you actually try this? I just did: f/16, 1/90s, ISO 100, 10D with 28-135. Got a completely black frame! :? And the moon is at about 3/4 full at the moment.

Experimented a bit and found out that f/5.6 with a speed between 1/10 and 1/20s gave the best results.

The Sunny 16 rule does not apply here.

I took a shot at the moon last night, and was cognizant enough to actually write down the settings I used. There's a couple of other shots in the thread as well. Hopefully, you can get some exposure ideas from that:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28879

[jukas]

The sunny 16 rule seemed to reasonably work well for me last night. Here is a pic I took on a 10D 300mm F16 ISO 100 1/90 in RAW format. The first one cropped only, the second one has had some quick post production work done (i.e 5 min total) and is much closer to the brightness of the actual moon last night. The moon was just "ho-hum" last night, so I wasn't expecting spectaular images, I mostly just wanted to test it out. :D

Cropped Only
http://www.fallenchaos.com/images/crw_1708.jpg

Quick Color & Levels adjustment
http://www.fallenchaos.com/images/crw_1708-2.jpg

[scottbergerphoto]

I shoot the moon as I would any other point source of light. I either fill the viewfinder with the moon and take a reading or use a spot meter. Check your exposure against the histogram and adjust. Tripod and Cable release are a big help with a big lens. Here are some that could be sharpened more, but you get the idea.
http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/lunar_eclipse_11082003
Regards,
Scott

[Tom W]

I shoot the moon as I would any other point source of light. I either fill the viewfinder with the moon and take a reading or use a spot meter. Check your exposure against the histogram and adjust. Tripod and Cable release are a big help with a big lens. Here are some that could be sharpened more, but you get the idea.
http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/lunar_eclipse_11082003
Regards,
Scott

And for those of us without an external light meter and not enough lens, bracket, bracket, and bracket. In fact, it doesn't hurt to take a series of 6 or 7 shots with 1/3 or 1/2 stop differences. Then load them onto the computer, check the EXIF data against the image, and go from there.

For those of us with "short" lenses, the histogram probably isn't going to be as useful, since the moon is such a small portion of the image.

[scottbergerphoto]

For those of us with "short" lenses, the histogram probably isn't going to be as useful, since the moon is such a small portion of the image.
TomW,
The histogram is a representaion of all the tones in the image. Since it is usually very dark at night, the moon and stars are the only near white / white objects. There should be a peak on the right side of the histogram representing the moon and stars. You can adjust your exposure to move that peak as close to or as far away from the right end as you like. The closer to the right end(255) the brighter white it will be.
Scott

[Tom W]

The histogram would ordinarily be great, but in the case of this image, there just isn't enough bright stuff to work with.

Load the following image into PS or PSE and look at the histogram - a huge block of pixels at the dark end with nothing but a tiny little blip towards the right. Now, one can use that blip in levels, but I think that in this case, loading the image onto the computer and eyeballing it would work better than the histogram.

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/Moon_Histogram.jpg

I will admit that this is an unusual situation - the histogram has quickly become my friend most of the time. ;)

[Tom W]

Incidentally, this is a 100% crop of the previous image (or one like it - I took about 9 that night, 3 of which are exposed similar to this):

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/4x4moon1.jpg

Notice how the histogram is now useable, since there is much more information to the right. Bright stuff is much larger, as a proportion of the image, than it was in the original picture. I could adjust exposure just a bit brighter in levels, but there is a risk of losing surface detail.

[scottbergerphoto]

Load the following image into PS or PSE and look at the histogram - a huge block of pixels at the dark end with nothing but a tiny little blip towards the right. Now, one can use that blip in levels, but I think that in this case, loading the image onto the computer and eyeballing it would work better than the histogram.


My point is, that that tiny blip is where your highlights are. It doesn't need to be big. It's a reference point. It tells you where your highlights fall on the scale of 0-255. If that little blip is too far to the left, increase your exposure. That will move it to the right and increase it's amplitude.
I don't carry a laptop with me. My camera, two lenses ,a tripod and a ball or gimbal type head are enough. I have to rely on the meter and the histogram.
Regards,
Scott

[Jesper]

PacAce and the others who agree with him, did you actually try this? I just did: f/16, 1/90s, ISO 100, 10D with 28-135. Got a completely black frame! :? And the moon is at about 3/4 full at the moment.

Experimented a bit and found out that f/5.6 with a speed between 1/10 and 1/20s gave the best results.

The Sunny 16 rule does not apply here.

I took a shot at the moon last night, and was cognizant enough to actually write down the settings I used. There's a couple of other shots in the thread as well. Hopefully, you can get some exposure ideas from that:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28879

OK.... you used 1/250s, f/8, ISO 400. That's equivalent to 1/125s, f/16, ISO 400. If you'd be using the Sunny 16 rule, you should have used a shutter speed of about 1/400 - so you're exposing almost 2 stops more than the Sunny 16 rule.

My exposure was 1/20s, f/5.6, ISO 100. That's equivalent to about 1/3s, f/16, ISO 100 - which is 5 stops more than the Sunny 16 rule, if I'm calculating this correctly.

Why is there such a big difference in these exposures? By the way, when I tried, the moon was high up in the sky.

[scottbergerphoto]

For what it's worth I was going through Bryan Peterson's book Understanding Exposure. He recommends : ISO 100 f/8 1/250. At f/16 that's 1/60 sec.
Regards,
Scott

[Tom W]

Load the following image into PS or PSE and look at the histogram - a huge block of pixels at the dark end with nothing but a tiny little blip towards the right. Now, one can use that blip in levels, but I think that in this case, loading the image onto the computer and eyeballing it would work better than the histogram.


My point is, that that tiny blip is where your highlights are. It doesn't need to be big. It's a reference point. It tells you where your highlights fall on the scale of 0-255. If that little blip is too far to the left, increase your exposure. That will move it to the right and increase it's amplitude.
I don't carry a laptop with me. My camera, two lenses ,a tripod and a ball or gimbal type head are enough. I have to rely on the meter and the histogram.
Regards,
Scott

I understand that, but if I can barely see the blip on my computer, I doubt if I will be able to see it on the back of the camera, particularly if I don't want the bright light of the camera's screen to disrupt my night vision. Considering how small the blip was with the moon on the full picture, imagine how small it would be with only stars. I doubt if there would be any visible indication on the camera's tiny histogram to indicate what kind of exposure I might have gotten.

I'd much rather start with a successful exposure that someone else used and bracket from there. Then, when I get back to the computer, I can pick and choose the one that looks best.

[Tom W]

I took a shot at the moon last night, and was cognizant enough to actually write down the settings I used. There's a couple of other shots in the thread as well. Hopefully, you can get some exposure ideas from that:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28879

OK.... you used 1/250s, f/8, ISO 400. That's equivalent to 1/125s, f/16, ISO 400. If you'd be using the Sunny 16 rule, you should have used a shutter speed of about 1/400 - so you're exposing almost 2 stops more than the Sunny 16 rule.[/quote]

Actually, no. Going from 1/250 to 1/125 is a change of one stop in the bright direction. However, going from f/8 to f/16 is a change of two stops towards the darker direction. The equivalent would be 1/125 at f/11, +1 on the shutter and -1 on the aperture. I wasn't necessarily following the sunny 16 rule too closely here, as you noticed.

My exposure was 1/20s, f/5.6, ISO 100. That's equivalent to about 1/3s, f/16, ISO 100 - which is 5 stops more than the Sunny 16 rule, if I'm calculating this correctly.

Why is there such a big difference in these exposures? By the way, when I tried, the moon was high up in the sky.

Without doing much calculation, I would think that you'd be grossly overexposing at 1/3 second, f/16. The moon, while not as bright as the sun, is as bright as any other light-colored body reflecting direct sunlight. I'm not certain why you are getting a dark frame.

[WCannistra]

Just as an FYI....if anyone out there is shooting through a telescope and having over-exposure problems you can also stop-down the telescope aperture using a mask that is made to fit over the collector plate glass [assuming here a catadioptric telescope design].

In addition there are "moon" filters that cut the transmission down that one can get from businesses listed in Astronomy or Sky & Telescope magazine. These filters can also be used to create some nice coloring effects as well..particularly so when mixed with C41 black & white emulsion film.

Just my $02....

[mwinog2777]

Why shoot the moon? Aren't there enough pictures of the moon in books?

[WCannistra]

Why shoot the moon? Aren't there enough pictures of the moon in books?

Nonsense!