Shooting the moon!

[ogre1231]

Ok, so I'm not playing hearts. I'm actually trying to take pictures of the moon and I'm trying to figure out the best way. I'm using my 70-200 at 200. I tried shooting at av at 2.8 and at 11, i tried shooting at as quick an exposer time as i could and some time lapse and no luck. anyone have any suggestions?

[adsayer]

you need to go longer, much longer.

400mm didn't cut it when I last tried. Provided you have some sharp glass you can always crop. Your best bet is to go manual... @ 200mm the moon is going to be a tiny beast in your view finder and the chances are the metering will be way off so manual is your friend :) as the moon is deceptively bright you'll find that at f/4 and a ISO of 400-800 that the shutter speed should be suitable enough to get a clear shot of the moon.

enjoyyyyyy

ads

[FlyingPhotog]

If you're on a tripod:

In Manual Mode w/ self timer or shutter release:
ISO 100
1/100 sec
f/11

Bracket around these settings and you should have some success.

[kevinf]

On my 40D ISO 200 provides noise free images and allows for a smaller and sharper aperture and faster shutter to stop blur from the motion of the moon across the sky. Last settings I used were ISO 200, F10, and 1/50th second using mirror lockup and a 15 second timer to minimize camera shake as well. And to get a decent size you need at least 500mm. Shoot in RAW, expose to the right, and bring out the details in Adobe Camera Raw.

http://www.trickingq3.com/misc/photoshop/forum_posted/photos/800mm%20Moon%206-11-08%20-%20cropped.png

[Dusty]

Ok, so I'm not playing hearts. I'm actually trying to take pictures of the moon and I'm trying to figure out the best way. I'm using my 70-200 at 200. I tried shooting at av at 2.8 and at 11, i tried shooting at as quick an exposer time as i could and some time lapse and no luck. anyone have any suggestions?
Without getting longer FL the image will be small, at least try getting a 2x TC for the 70-200mm, use a tripod and as mentioned use mirror lockup and timer/release.

Good luck.

[ogre1231]

thanks for the info. i am using a tripod and self timer, but no mirror lock. i'll try that next time. a 2x TC is not in the budget as of right now, a 1dmkii is coming first. I'll try again tonight with those settings and see what I can get. assuming there's no clouds here in the UK. haha, who am i kidding, of course there will be.

[ogre1231]

which metering mode would work best? centerpoint? or will it matter?

[kevinf]

Take shots and chimp until you get it so the highlights aren't blown.

[Bubble]

which metering mode would work best? centerpoint? or will it matter?

not much different. Spot mettering also good.

Manual
iso: 100
f range from f/6.3 to f/11
shutter: 100 to 800

just play around with the f/s ratio until you get the image you like the most.

Some of my moon shoot here:

http://www.aphanphoto.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=5

They are all in M mode with the value i listed above. Good luck and keep trying.

[ogre1231]

I'm pretty jealous of the pictures you guys have take. I should post what i took last night and what i'm going to take tonight just for a good laugh. :D

[mattograph]

On my 40D ISO 200 provides noise free images and allows for a smaller and sharper aperture and faster shutter to stop blur from the motion of the moon across the sky. Last settings I used were ISO 200, F10, and 1/50th second using mirror lockup and a 15 second timer to minimize camera shake as well. And to get a decent size you need at least 500mm. Shoot in RAW, expose to the right, and bring out the details in Adobe Camera Raw.

http://www.trickingq3.com/misc/photoshop/forum_posted/photos/800mm%20Moon%206-11-08%20-%20cropped.png


Man, the proof is in the puddding! Great shot, Kev!

[bubba zanetti]

What you must allow for is what phase the moon is in. A full moon is a much different object than a waxing crescent. Also dont be put off taking a late afternoon photo as this one below was taken at 5:13 PM and adjusted.

Of course air quality will have a lot to do with it as well.

I find my 400 fine with obviously a big crop.

Date Taken 2005-05-18 17:13:41
Camera Canon EOS 20D
Exposure Time 0.01s (1/100)
Aperture f/7.1
ISO 200
Focal Length 400mm (640mm in 35mm)

http://wadjelaphotography.smugmug.com/photos/41080189_fxdGB-L-20.jpg

[ogre1231]

i think my 200 wont be good enough, but damnit i'm gonna try anyway

[jm4ever]

Try this site for some moon shot settings

http://www.adidap.com/2006/12/06/moon-exposure-calculator/

[ogre1231]

that looks like a pretty handy tool to use.
I tried last night, however, the clouds prevailed and I was stuck cleaning my house instead of taking pictures. Here's one from my first try. The moon sucks, but I like the clouds surrounding it. Anyone have any thoughts? If you check the exif, you can tell I was way off.
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh114/ogre1231/moonshot-2.jpg

[ogre1231]

Another one that's pretty bad. Though, you can kind of see the craters along the line between the light and dark. I can't remember what it's called to save my life. still, the 200mm is most certainly WAY too short of a focal length. I cropped the living daylights out of it and there's some major pixilation as you can tell.
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh114/ogre1231/moonshot.jpg

[Bubble]

why you use S mode? we all told you to use "M" mode. :)

[3Turner]

The fault in the shots you posted Ogre1231 is a slooooow shutter speed. Use manual mode like suggested above in previous posts. 6 seconds and 1/25 are way too slow....the moon is reflecting the sunlight so it's almost like taking a picture of the sun and exposing the surface to get detail. You'll get an exposure soon enough if the clouds cooperate with you. ;) Good luck.

[ogre1231]

why you use S mode? we all told you to use "M" mode. :)
These were before i asked for help. i mean these are why i did ask for help. :D

[ogre1231]

The fault in the shots you posted Ogre1231 is a slooooow shutter speed. Use manual mode like suggested above in previous posts. 6 seconds and 1/25 are way too slow....the moon is reflecting the sunlight so it's almost like taking a picture of the sun and exposing the surface to get detail. You'll get an exposure soon enough if the clouds cooperate with you. ;) Good luck.

Yeah, I realize that now. I haven't had an opportunity to take pictures since my first bit of shenanigans. I plan on putting to use the information I've learned as soon as the damned clouds let me.

[3Turner]

Well, hopefully you are not near Faye with all the storms around.

[ogre1231]

No clue where Faye is. I'm near Cambridge UK.

[3Turner]

Oops...Faye is over the easter coast of the US. No worries for you then :lol:

[ogre1231]

well, no worries of storms. england still has it's pitfalls.

[Bubble]

try again tonight and let us know how it goes. :)

[ogre1231]

I will assuming the moon comes out to play. it's not looking promising right now. Grrr

[cL0d]

This is what you can expect to obtain with the 70-200.
I've taken it at 1500mt, during a crystal clear night. 100% crop.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2792989285_a80484902b_o.jpg

[ogre1231]

that's good enough for me

[sgogula]

shot handheld with 55-250mm lens at 250mm, ISO 100, 1/50

[ogre1231]

I'm still waiting on the clouds to give me an opportunity to try to shoot again.

[ogre1231]

After not being home for a while and finally having a semi clear night and the moon out.... I finally got something better than I had. so here it is.

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh114/ogre1231/Moon-1.jpg

Tonight is looking like it will be a better night. Crossing my fingers.

[Fellipe de Paula]

Is seems way out of focus... But the overall exposure is quite good!

[ogre1231]

Thanks, I'm half way there. Just gotta walk it in a bit more. Good thing practice makes perfect. Or at least getting better.

[Bubble]

Thanks, I'm half way there. Just gotta walk it in a bit more. Good thing practice makes perfect. Or at least getting better.

keep shooting. Almost there. :)

[yonni]

I sure hope Romy weighs in on this thread. His moon shots are to die for.

[Kronie]

I sure hope Romy weighs in on this thread. His moon shots are to die for.

I agree. Here is my humble effort. Heavy cropping. Someday I want to get a telescope just to shoot the moon.

http://www.pbase.com/akrone/image/93072821/original.jpg

[liquidstone]

I sure hope Romy weighs in on this thread. His moon shots are to die for.

Lol...... here's one from an "overclocked" Sigma 18-200 OS. :mrgreen:

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/103241848/original.jpg

[Johnny9s]

Here is my first moon shot from when I received my new telescope. Looking forward to the moons return.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/2865133304_21dd3de29b_o.jpg

John

[cL0d]

WOW!

[funhouse69]

Be careful I also got the Moon Bug recently and I've gotten some very nice results with my Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. I believe the last one might have also had a Kenko 1.4 TC on it as well. Since then I bought a new Sigma 150-500mm Lens but was disappointed with the results so it is on its way back. I was thinking about the Canon 400mm f/5.6L but might go completely insane next year and get the 500mm f/4L IS. Then again for that much money I am sure I could buy a very sweet telescope setup.

I've found that there is no real set value as you can see below. You have to mess with the exposure but you can get a base from here. I didn't even realize until I went through these that they were all shot around the same shutter speed and within a stop or so of each other. So you can use these as a baseline.

These were all shot RAW (All I shoot) and processed with DPP, each one had sharpening added and may have adjusted the exposure a tad (usually no more than a half a stop either way).

Here are a couple of my favorites I've taken over the last few weeks. The first few believe it or not were taken Hand Held, The reminder are taken on a Tripod, with Mirror Lockup and a Remote Release.

1. ISO 200, f/8.0 @ 1/160th
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/368732065_rjR3L-XL.jpg
2. ISO 100, f/6.3 @ 1/160th
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/374219655_3BnAD-XL.jpg
3. ISO 200, f/7.1 @ 1/160th
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/375411280_dQcMV-XL.jpg
4. ISO 100, f/7.1 @ 1/100th
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/387431205_kWrPA-XL.jpg

[Rum Maximus]

How's this?

ISO 200 f/8.0 @ 1/400th using a Canon 400mm on an XSI.

[dan j]

Thanks to this thread I finally have a moon shot I'm happy with. Unfortunately, the best one was shot with RAW and I can't get it posted. This one is a JPEG.
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b173/Dan-imal/Sedona/IMG_0007mooncropped.jpg
I followed the moonie rule but f11 was too dark, f8 seemed to be better. This shot was taken with my P.O.S. Ambico tripods legs collapsed and the head lowered. Since I couldn't see the image without laying down I used Live View through my computer to focus manually.

It's not an incredible shot, but I was ready to give up until now. All of my previous photos were blurry and I couldn't figure out why. Obviously the tripod was a major issue.

Anyway, thanks for posting the sunny16rule and the moonie rule.

dan

[syndicate1]

First attempt at moon shot, using a canon dslr xsi, shot @ 250mm, f.8, iso 100, hand held

5.00pm Friday Dec 17th 2010

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c279/ikennedy/IMG_1101.jpg

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c279/ikennedy/IMG_1103.jpg

[InfiniteGrim]

I've been trying for the last few nights. My best so far...

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g165/InfiniteGrim/IMG_0620.jpg

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g165/InfiniteGrim/IMG_1686.jpg

Using my T1i with the 55-250 @ 250mm
I believe they are both
F/11
1/60 or 1/80
ISO 100

[hollis_f]

Using my T1i with the 55-250 @ 250mm
I believe they are both
F/11
1/60 or 1/80
ISO 100

Looking good. I'd drop down to f/8 and up to ISO to 200. Then you can use 1/250 for the shutter speed to minimise vibration effects.

[InfiniteGrim]

Looking good. I'd drop down to f/8 and up to ISO to 200. Then you can use 1/250 for the shutter speed to minimise vibration effects.

Thanks for the advice.

I'm a complete noob, I just got this camera 6 days ago! Its 15-20F for the last few nights yet I've spent several hours and a couple hundred photos of the moon. Its addicting.

For some reason the conditions are the same tonight yet the same settings I used for the above photos are not working like they did before.

Would you recommend turning IS off since I'm using a tripod? Also can I trust that the AF is focusing perfectly? I tried manual focus but I honestly cannot tell when I'm perfectly focused.

Thanks.

[syndicate1]

I've been trying for the last few nights. My best so far...

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g165/InfiniteGrim/IMG_0620.jpg

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g165/InfiniteGrim/IMG_1686.jpg

Using my T1i with the 55-250 @ 250mm
I believe they are both
F/11
1/60 or 1/80
ISO 100


So we are using the same lens I see....how come my pics above came out that way unlike yours?

Any advice on how to get them sharp like yours and what time of the evening is best?

Thanks

[TeleFragger]

So we are using the same lens I see....how come my pics above came out that way unlike yours?

Any advice on how to get them sharp like yours and what time of the evening is best?

Thanks

ta boot.. im trying with the same lens...
and i couldnt get mine to shoot at 250mm.... so off for my own topic...:lol:

[InfiniteGrim]

So we are using the same lens I see....how come my pics above came out that way unlike yours?

Any advice on how to get them sharp like yours and what time of the evening is best?

Thanks

I wish I could Tell you. I think I just got lucky because I went out on monday and tuesday night again and then for the eclipse and out of 300+ picture only 1-2 pictures had detail comparable to those pictures.

I also played around with my raw editor some more for the second photo.

Also as you can see you cannot see any surface detail on the second new picture. It seems like when the moon is oriented like that the sun's rays are hitting it in such a way that the craters dont show up. Ever picture that I have that shows surface detail is oriented like the first new shot.


Before
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g165/InfiniteGrim/IMG_1686.jpg

After

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g165/InfiniteGrim/Lunar%20Eclipse%202010/IMG_1686-1.jpg

I played with the "detail" tab of the editor. It seemed to add a lot more noise but it brings out the craters.

Two new ones


http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g165/InfiniteGrim/Lunar%20Eclipse%202010/IMG_0020.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g165/InfiniteGrim/Lunar%20Eclipse%202010/IMG_0137.jpg

I had to go through 100+ pictures to get those two above. Every picture that was sharp and had detail was at f/11. The first is ISO 400 and 1/800 shutter. The second is ISO 200 1/400 shutter. I'm not sure why but out of 5 shots taken at the same settings and time only one shows sharp surface detail. So you have to take the same photo 4-5 times before moving on to a new setting.

[04yellowf150]

well here is my 1st time taking a moon shot with my new 55-250mm lens. definantly alot harder to focus at 250mm lol. my image is blurry but i cant tell if its because of not the best focusing or the atmosphere or the lens being at 250mm lol. but here is my 1st pic
Canon T2i, 55-250mm lens
1/100sec
f5.6- probably should have raised that a lil bit
iso 100
250mm

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/04yellowf150/moon.jpg

[Trixster!]

100% crop from a 5D Mark II with 70-200 f4 IS and 1.4x II, giving a 280mm reach.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5161/5370555355_9e700b45d9_b.jpg (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5161/5370555355_9e700b45d9_b.jpg)

[mfiery]

Here's a 100% crop off my T2i and Tamron 70-300mm @ f/9, 1/160s, ISO 400. I've been using Live View and the 10x magnification to focus with a remote shutter release. Its difficult to focus manually at 10x since the camera shakes everywhere, but if you have one of the craters or the edge of the moon in the focusing box, the camera will nail the focus. It had more trouble on a full moon when it couldn't see the craters as well, the contrast really seems to help. Too bad we're almost at a new moon now!

[spit]

one thing its over exposed, just remember a brighter moon is no different then taking a daylight photo, more f/l and tripod mounted will be a big improvement

[spit]

BTW- not the image above, i was referring to the image on page 1 from the OP

[splinter1]

Here's a 100% crop off my T2i and Tamron 70-300mm @ f/9, 1/160s, ISO 400. I've been using Live View and the 10x magnification to focus with a remote shutter release. Its difficult to focus manually at 10x since the camera shakes everywhere, but if you have one of the craters or the edge of the moon in the focusing box, the camera will nail the focus. It had more trouble on a full moon when it couldn't see the craters as well, the contrast really seems to help. Too bad we're almost at a new moon now!

I'm having the same issue in live view as mfiery.
If I even think about touching the focus ring the live view image jumps all over the place and I'm finding it difficult to nail down the focus without thinking in the back of my mind that it could be a hair better.
Mfiery, are you using auto focus in live view on the craters?
Anyone else have any tips for minimizing live view shake when attempting to manually focus?
I'm getting good reuslts but this issue is driving me nuts!

[SteveInNZ]

There's no substitute for a rock solid mount. A standard photographic tripod is considered pretty wimpish in these circles. This (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=12198948&postcount=33) is what a real tripod looks like.

You need to make your tripod as stiff as possible. Don't use a quick release plate if you have one.
Use it without the legs extended and if it has a hook underneath, hang some weight on it.

Steve.

[dzaneh]

400 + 1.4 - f8 - 1/125 - ISO 100...

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b189/dzaneh/fullmoon-1-5.jpg

[Jason C]

I've been fiddling around with the moon and my limited gear for such, but its been a good way to learn a different form of photography as my new hip gets stronger.

Olympus E-P1 (2x crop) with Fotodiox EOS to M4/3 adapter, 70-200/4 L,
Manfrotto 055 XPROB tripod
1/1250th sec, f/5.6 (set on Canon body), 200mm FL, iso 200, 2 second shutter release. 1024x683 crop of original file.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5014/5454288475_75db7214cc_b.jpg


Jason C

[BioSci]

Here's a shot from April 9. Taken with a 7D and a 100-400L. Exposure was 1/125 sec, f/10, ISO 400. C&C welcomed.

http://mat99.ath.cx/POTN/Moon-400-crop.jpg

[martyn_bannister]

Nice shot. That "L" glass is good. Very good contrast and detail. What PP?

[Sorarse]

Focal length really does help for the moon.
2350mm f/10 mirror lens, think the shutter speed was around 1/125 and ISO probably 100 or 200 max.

http://www.88qv.com/net/173.jpg

[BioSci]

Nice shot. That "L" glass is good. Very good contrast and detail. What PP?Thanks. Not a whole lot of PP. I used CS5 to adjust the contrast (using a curves layer) and added a bit of unsharp masking. That, plus a healthy bit of cropping.

[solution]

Hello all,

So this is my first shot at the Moon
shot with Canon 40d and 70-200 f/4 IS
ISO 200 1/250sec and f/8
Any comment welcome

[ohata0]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5029/5823443697_69fdffe710_z.jpg (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5029/5823443697_69fdffe710_b.jpg)
shot with my vivitar 400mm f/6.3 @ 1/100s f/11 ISO 800

stacked 8 (out of 10) pics manually in photoshop, set opacity and added unsharp mask. 100% crop (kinda...click to see the largest free flickr has to offer)

also added some midtone contrast, darkened a bit (tried to expose to the right w/out clipping), and upped contrast using gradient masks on the some of the adjustment layers to prevent losing too much shadow detail.

for comparision, here's my first moon shot w/ the 7D and my 70-300 IS lens (used the same processing with the exception of stacking and pulling back on exposure)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/5828280911_bb8200eeb3_z.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/5828280911_bb8200eeb3_b.jpg)

[martyn_bannister]

Nicely done!!! What body?

[ohata0]

Nicely done!!! What body?

ah yes. forgot that...7D

[martyn_bannister]

ah yes. forgot that...7D

Seems pretty good resolution - is THIS (http://forum.mflenses.com/vivitar-400mm-f-6-3-t4-lens-the-lens-t33313,highlight,%2B400mm.html) the lens?

[ohata0]

Seems pretty good resolution - is THIS (http://forum.mflenses.com/vivitar-400mm-f-6-3-t4-lens-the-lens-t33313,highlight,%2B400mm.html) the lens?

yup, that's the one...the one that I got came w/ a nikon adapter...works well. The only odd thing about it is that it has 2 click stops for 6.3. You can rotate the aperture ring in either direction without the adapter, so maybe it has something to do w/ that. But, that's not a big problem...just a little weird.

I kinda wish canon had IS in their camera bodies...using a lens like this without IS makes it harder to focus. You have to adjust focus, wait for vibrations to die down, check focus, and repeat as necessary. Oh well.

[martyn_bannister]

I suspect that the ability to rotate the aperture either way might be an "auto/manual" kind of thing? The adapter mount in pics in the thread I linked to seems to have an "O" and an "L" direction with the same colours as the aperture ring? Perhaps one way ("L"?) is for manual aperture and the other ("O"?) is for "auto"????

I've not used a T4 lens before so I'm guessing.

You might be able to pick up a cheap Pentax DSLR with in-body stabilisation. Then you just need to T4-Pentax adapter :)

These "long thin" lenses seem to have a reputation for fantastic IQ for their age and design. Certainly your one seems sharp and detailed with very little CA :)

[ohata0]

Ah, about the O and L...that's actually "open" and "lock" as I understand it...you push the little metal tab on the top and rotate it to O to take off the T4-whatever adapter you put on. Rotate the ring to L to lock it in place.

there's still some CA in the image, you just can't tell because I converted to black and white to hide the CA :P You can't see any CA around the craters after pulling back on the exposure, but there's still a green ring around the edge of the moon, but other than that, not too bad.

But still, I can't complain...I really do like the quality of it over my 70-300 (@ 300mm)

I compared a single raw between my 70-300 and the 400mm, with the same processing done to both pictures, and even though the 70-300 had better conditions (it seemed a little hazy w/ the 400mm...maybe there was still some clouds that I didn't see), the 400mm was still a lot nicer. Lots more detail and definately sharper. And cheaper than my 70-300mm...which I got almost 50% off when I bought it w/ my camera from amazon.

I've added a comparision shot to my original post (so the 2 moon shots are close together)

[martyn_bannister]

Yes, the 70-300 doesn't seem quite as crisp to my eyes - but then it isn't stacked.....

I have an FD-EOS adapter which also has O/L markings but with that, it is the aperture that is Open (i.e. auto) or Locked (i.e. tied to the aperture ring in manual mode). Probably not related then.

[deronsizemore]

Here's my attempt:

Taken with the Tamron 70-300. It's been cropped pretty heavily as well as some adjustments in Lightroom and unsharp mask in Photoshop.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7990/moongo.jpg

[08photog]

Does the position of the moon in the sky make a difference? I am thinking that if the moon is high in the sky, overhead, then the atmosphere should be cleaner. Rather than shooting through the haze when it is closer to the horizon.

[martyn_bannister]

Does the position of the moon in the sky make a difference? I am thinking that if the moon is high in the sky, overhead, then the atmosphere should be cleaner. Rather than shooting through the haze when it is closer to the horizon.
Totally correct. The higher the moon in the sky, the less atmosphere to shoot through and therefore the "clearer" the view. Interesting point as to whether it ever gets to be "overhead" or not?

[hollis_f]

Interesting point as to whether it ever gets to be "overhead" or not?

Yes, it must be for somebody. For me, 52ºN tomorrow's full Moon will be fairly low in the South. But for somebody in S. Africa it will be in the North. Obviously, somewhere in between it will be directly overhead.

As a rough approximation the Moon can appear overhead anywhere within the tropics (Cancer and Capricorn) just as the Sun can appear overhead in these regions.

[martyn_bannister]

Of course. Thanks for that. I was being too lazy to actually think!

[08photog]

Thanks.
I have never seen the moon directly over my head either. But I knew that you would know what i meant

[DarkPhantom]

Did anyone manage to see a transformer on the moon? :P

Really nice shots, I'll see if I can take one with the 250mm - not really going to get a 500mm anytime soon.

[Geordie Amanda]

I took this a few nights ago from pretty near the city of Manchester (England) and the light pollution is quite high. I took several pictures in Manual and just kept altering the shutter speed till I got an exposure I liked. I used Live View to focus and lock the mirror up and then a 10 sec delay in shooting (on my sturdy manfrotto tripod). I used my 7D, 70-200mm f2.8 mkII and a X2 TC (mk II). I think the image is OK, but there isn't as much relief as i would like. DO you think that I would get more depth in the craters if I chose a less full moon? I definitely think that somewhere away from the city would help, as well as waiting till the moon was more overhead.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6182/6140465462_030c6201ec_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/66765220@N07/6140465462/)
Moon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/66765220@N07/6140465462/) by Geordie Amanda (http://www.flickr.com/people/66765220@N07/), on Flickr

[ohata0]

the moon is pretty bright, I don't think you need to get away from the city to shoot it. You'll get more depth in the craters when it isn't as full as you'll have more shadows. Shooting it when it's overhead would be best for seeing--less atmospheric distortion when it's above rather than close to the horizon.

Nice shot btw!

[Geordie Amanda]

the moon is pretty bright, I don't think you need to get away from the city to shoot it. You'll get more depth in the craters when it isn't as full as you'll have more shadows. Shooting it when it's overhead would be best for seeing--less atmospheric distortion when it's above rather than close to the horizon.

Nice shot btw!


Thanks for the advice....and the nice words :)

[mfiery]

A little dodge (highlights) and burn (shadows/midtones) can also help to accentuate the craters a bit even when the moon is full and you can't see a whole lot of definition.

[rick458]

Ive got to get some bigger glass, My T3 18-55mm gives a pea sized moon but i did get some deffinition

[Bernoulli]

Yes, it must be for somebody. For me, 52ºN tomorrow's full Moon will be fairly low in the South. But for somebody in S. Africa it will be in the North. Obviously, somewhere in between it will be directly overhead.

As a rough approximation the Moon can appear overhead anywhere within the tropics (Cancer and Capricorn) just as the Sun can appear overhead in these regions.

Since the Moon's orbit is tilted 5 degrees from the ecliptic, it's possible for it to be directly overhead anwhere between about 23 + 5 = 28 degrees north or south. In the 48 states that would include only south Florida and extreme south Texas. And that would only happen at the time of the year when the moon's orbital tilt puts it 5 degrees higher, not lower.

[Trev1100d]

First attempt at full moon, handheld - no tripod. Reasonably happy with the result, any suggestions on potential improvements?

573099

EOS REBEL T3
EF-S 55 - 250 IS
100% Crop
F-Stop: 6.3
ISO: 100
ET: 1/400
Focal Length : 250mm

[insom13]

My shots with 600d and 70-200mm f/4 is.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6213/6259012188_672ced40e2.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/insom/6259012188/)
IMG_7251 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/insom/6259012188/) by insom13 (http://www.flickr.com/people/insom/), on Flickr

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6194/6151238865_f33fbe5915.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/insom/6151238865/)
The Moon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/insom/6151238865/) by insom13 (http://www.flickr.com/people/insom/), on Flickr

[sloanbj]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7147/6789074779_8afb3364d3_z.jpg

[DOuFINKimSEXY]

70-200 + 2x entender @ 400mm
f8 1/400 sec iso400

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297860_10150366040756214_708491213_9982140_7388341 _n.jpg

[dfinn]

first attempt. t2i + 70-200 f4L

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6839109201_bab37356ab_z.jpg

[TeleFragger]

first attempt. t2i + 70-200 f4L

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6839109201_bab37356ab_z.jpg

not bad.. id crop in tighter.... will see more details...
you nailed it.. it is clear!!!

[Quadna71]

I thought I'd weigh in with my attempt. T3i, 200 f/2.8L, two-legged tripod (broken) with timed shutter - can't find my remote :(

Exposure 0.003 sec (1/400)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 200 mm
ISO Speed 100
Focus Manual

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7201/6968435915_c16c8f46fd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskoran/6968435915/)
Moon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskoran/6968435915/) by Quadna71 (http://www.flickr.com/people/chriskoran/), on Flickr

[ohata0]

first attempt. t2i + 70-200 f4L

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6839109201_bab37356ab_z.jpg

I ended up google searching your image and found your flickr (and thus your exif settings for that picture). On a side note, I don't seem to be able to do that (google search to find my flickr) with my pictures, so I guess it has something to do w/ the fact that I can copy and paste your html/bbbc code for your images, but I don't have that option, when I'm not logged in, for mine. Not sure if you want to change it or not...just letting you know about it.

Your picture seems a little bit noisy. Was the moon underexposed and you had to push the exposure in post? Or did it become noisy because of your post processing (contrast and or sharpening)?

According to your flickr, it says you shot that at f/14. Probably didn't need to stop down that far...f/5.6 or f/8 should be ok. 1/60 is fine on the shutter speed...I shoot at 400mm w/ 1/60s and that works well enough for me (although I think I depending on where in the sky the moon is, I may have to up the shutter speed a little because of my cheap tripod).

My tip would be to shoot to the right as much as possible, trying not to blow out the white spots, and then lower the exposure in post to have as little noise as possible. Since I like to add contrast, that ups the noise as well. My recent moon shots have been around ISO 200 f/6.3 1/60s and the moon wasn't completely full.

Still, it's a great first attempt, it's in focus and well exposed.

[Medevack1]

Here is Mine.
http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg32/Boosted236/IMG_4896.jpg
http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg32/Boosted236/IMG_4895.jpg

[dfinn]

I ended up google searching your image and found your flickr (and thus your exif settings for that picture). On a side note, I don't seem to be able to do that (google search to find my flickr) with my pictures, so I guess it has something to do w/ the fact that I can copy and paste your html/bbbc code for your images, but I don't have that option, when I'm not logged in, for mine. Not sure if you want to change it or not...just letting you know about it.

Your picture seems a little bit noisy. Was the moon underexposed and you had to push the exposure in post? Or did it become noisy because of your post processing (contrast and or sharpening)?

According to your flickr, it says you shot that at f/14. Probably didn't need to stop down that far...f/5.6 or f/8 should be ok. 1/60 is fine on the shutter speed...I shoot at 400mm w/ 1/60s and that works well enough for me (although I think I depending on where in the sky the moon is, I may have to up the shutter speed a little because of my cheap tripod).

My tip would be to shoot to the right as much as possible, trying not to blow out the white spots, and then lower the exposure in post to have as little noise as possible. Since I like to add contrast, that ups the noise as well. My recent moon shots have been around ISO 200 f/6.3 1/60s and the moon wasn't completely full.

Still, it's a great first attempt, it's in focus and well exposed.

Thank you. I honestly don't remember what ISO setting I used but if I had to guess I was probably at 100. Any noise is most likely from post but I really didn't do a ton of post on this. It could be over sharpened. I have since drastically changed the post I do and have also been playing with different software.

I'll go out and give this a try the next time we have a clear sky and full moon. I have since upgraded from a t2i to a 5d2 so the results may be a bit different.

[BigRedNole]

This was my first attempt. I woke up and the moon was out bright and shiny at ~5:30AM this morning. I quickly read some of the settings to use. This was done hand held with about 60s of prep on how to take a pic of the moon. I did not have too much luck this go around, but it got me a start. I only have a 70-200mm lens. No tripod today and I need to learn what "mirror lock" is and how to do it.


Cropped and some PP in Photoshop from info on another site on how to do it.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-bWC5jOXDaBk/T4Aa_tz2y2I/AAAAAAAAAvk/FgihCyJWMTQ/s640/Moon.jpg

[dhanson]

This is what the moon looks like through a small astronomical telescope. In this case, a Celestron C90 spotting/Astro telescope. It has a 90mm objective, f/10, focal length 1250mm. This is a cheap scope, selling for around $175. It was mounted on my inexpensive camera tripod. The camera is a Canon 60D, using a 'prime focus' mount (i.e. no lens on the camera, with the scope focusing its image right on the camera sensor).

This was shot by mounting the camera directly onto the back of the telescope using a 'T Adapter'. Then I aimed the scope at the moon, and focused using the telescope focuser and 'live view' on the Canon 60D, with max magnification. Then I slowly focused the telescope for the sharpest image in the magnified live view. I still didn't get it perfect, but pretty close.

The shot itself was taken at ISO 200, with a shutter speed of 1/50s. A better tripod would have been helpful here.

http://just.razzi.me/photos/505910/6d2ea6b.jpg

On Edit: That doesn't look as sharp as it does in Photoshop on my computer. I think the Razzi service I'm using must be doing a lot of compression on those images.

Here's a 100% crop of the top quarter:
http://just.razzi.me/photos/505932/b0a0d43.jpg

[TeleFragger]

^^^ nice i did the same..

however.. my t2i requires a 2x barlow to be able to focus on my telescope.. thus what you have in your crop picture is what i get in a full picture... i just havent had time but i need to stitch pics together to get a full moon pic now... using my 55-250mm the moon doesnt even take up 1/10th of the picture.!!!!

[dhanson]

Here's a different version of the moon image, reprocessed a little better:

http://just.razzi.me/photos/507397/6731c2b.jpg

I believe the reddish tinge at the bottom and the bluish tinge at the top are due to atmospheric prismatic distortion - the moon was quite low in the sky when this was taken.

[TeleFragger]

Here's a different version of the moon image, reprocessed a little better:

I believe the reddish tinge at the bottom and the bluish tinge at the top are due to atmospheric prismatic distortion - the moon was quite low in the sky when this was taken.


wonder if you use the red green blue siders in you editing software of choice if you can lighten the colors of the distortion?

[canadave]

This is what the moon looks like through a small astronomical telescope. In this case, a Celestron C90 spotting/Astro telescope. It has a 90mm objective, f/10, focal length 1250mm. This is a cheap scope, selling for around $175. It was mounted on my inexpensive camera tripod. The camera is a Canon 60D, using a 'prime focus' mount (i.e. no lens on the camera, with the scope focusing its image right on the camera sensor).

This was shot by mounting the camera directly onto the back of the telescope using a 'T Adapter'. Then I aimed the scope at the moon, and focused using the telescope focuser and 'live view' on the Canon 60D, with max magnification. Then I slowly focused the telescope for the sharpest image in the magnified live view. I still didn't get it perfect, but pretty close.

Thanks very much for telling us how you did these pics. Would you mind posting a picture, or describing in more detail, how the C90 mounts onto your tripod? Is there some kind of ring encircling the OTA of the scope that mounts onto the tripod? How do you maneuver the scope up/down/left/right?

[dhanson]

The C90, being a 'spotting scope', will mount on a standard camera tripod using the standard mounting screw. My tripod has a quick release plate, so I just screwed the plate to the bottom of the scope, and snapped it onto the tripod.

However, it's a pretty lousy setup. My tripod is a middle-range Velbon with a fluid head that I bought years and years ago for video work. The scope is really too heavy for it, so you get lots of vibration if you touch the setup even slightly, and I also get backlash when trying to aim the scope. If I manually aim the scope so that the target is in the frame and then tighten down all the head nuts to fix it in place, it will drift just enough to take the moon right out of the frame before it really locks in to place. This is a royal pain. I have to guess how much backlash there will be, aim the scope above the moon, then let it settle into the frame. I have no tracking, so when I do get it right, I have only a few seconds to get everything set and stabilized before the moon drifts out of frame.

My next investment will be either a decent equatorial mount with a motor drive, or I might build a 'scotch mount' and see how that works out. I got one good picture of the moon which I posted here, and about 100 other photos where the moon was out of focus, or partially out of frame.

[gratchie]

Hi, anybody used this opteka lens for astro/moon shots? I'm thinking of getting one

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-2600mm-Definition-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B001GKLLRY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340236768&sr=8-1&keywords=opteka+zoom+lens

[VaiFanatic]

This is what I managed to get with my shakey hands (no tripod around)

Not the best, but not bad for my second night with my new camera. Still getting used to things like aperture and exposure.

[Ace_Club]

Just took this tonight. My second time trying to snag a good shot of the moon.

T2i with EF-S 55-250mm
ISO 100, F11, 1/100, 250mm
Tripod mounted, no IS, and used mirror lock with timer.

[NCHANT]

The 55-250mm isn't a bad lens for this :) could do with more reach but oh well. All handheld :)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7114/7745378808_796b9aceea_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeymack/7745378808/)
Once in a Blue Moon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeymack/7745378808/) by Mikey Mack (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikeymack/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7260/7710095738_3c395f7c8b_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeymack/7710095738/)
Shoot the moon! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeymack/7710095738/) by Mikey Mack (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikeymack/), on Flickr

Full moons just aren't as interesting though.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8072/8319903881_afc65de23d_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeymack/8319903881/)
Full Moon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeymack/8319903881/) by Mikey Mack (http://www.flickr.com/people/mikeymack/), on Flickr

[Ace_Club]

Took another shot at this tonight, with arguably better results.

Shot with T2i and EF-S 55-250mm lens.
Settings: 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 400

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8381/8674286604_9c56846b20_b.jpg

[dgiglio3087]

Took another shot at this tonight, with arguably better results.

Shot with T2i and EF-S 55-250mm lens.
Settings: 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 400

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8381/8674286604_9c56846b20_b.jpg

you shot this with a 55-250mm? no way... crazy sharp man!

[Monique10]

Ace_Club: Did you sharpen in PP or is this an unprocessed image? Also, how much cropping?

[600dinmyhand]

I took some fair shots of the moon with a 450d and sigma lens, handheld but ive failed so far with the 600d and canon 55-200mm lens, is it a full moon tonight?

[Ace_Club]

Ace_Club: Did you sharpen in PP or is this an unprocessed image? Also, how much cropping?

Yes, there was some pp done on this image. As far as cropping, I don't know exactly how much. Definitely more than 50%.

[Monique10]

Yes, there was some pp done on this image. As far as cropping, I don't know exactly how much. Definitely more than 50%.

It's a fantastic image either way. I'd be very pleased if I could shoot one as good.

[Monique10]

Here's an effort from a few weeks ago:

[Ace_Club]

Wow, what lens and settings did you use?

[Monique10]

I used my ES 127 refractor. It has a focal length of 952 mm. I used my modded 60D (IR filter removed) hence the reddish tinge that I should have removed in post processing or used custom white balance. I used BYEOS for focusing, exposure, and capture.

Your image of the moon with the lens is much better than I ever achieved with my 70-200 II, EF 300/f4, or 400 5.6, but I never used BYEOS or live view to get the best exposure. One learns over time.