Request for Low Light Photography Advice

[ayotnoms]

hello all-

I've been going crazy. The full moon the last couple nights has been very photograph-able but I can't get a decent shot.

I don't have the gold standard in lenses but I figure I have equipment good enough to get a decent shot. It's got to be a problem with technique, right?

I've tried small aperature, high Tv; large aperature, low Tv; various focal lengths; and most combinations in between and yet I can only seem to get shots that either look like a single, soft focus headlight coming at me or something that looks like a light shining through a pinhole.

Does anyone care to share their experience on what has worked and what hasn't when photographing a low light subject like a full moon?

Many thanks in advance for your comments.

[Mike Panic]

http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/howtophoto/

[richpix]

Funny thing about the moon--it's so bright because it's reflecting sunlight. So, to get proper exposures of it you need to expose it near a daylight exposure. It's almost impossible to expose the moon correctly and get much in the rest of the scene exposed correctly (assuming you're only making the moon a part of the composition and not the only subject) unless there's a little light in the sky near sunrise or sunset.

The correct exposure of the moon will depend on how high in the sky the moon is. Higher up requires a shorter exposure or smaller aperture. The moon high in the sky will require an exposure of approx. 1/500 sec. @ f/5.6-6.7 at ISO 100, depending on atmospheric conditions (more haze = wider aperture).

Try shooting a series starting at 1/500 @ f/6.7 and opening up from there.

[mbze430]

shooting the moon or the sun uses the standard "Sunny f/16" technics. However it also depends on the phase of the moon. Mileage will vary. The sunny f/16 is f/16 apeture @ 100ISO with 1/125 shutter. Or 100 if your camera allows it.

You can download the attached file, and read the eXIF info. I don't know how to include it in the post...sorry...

I usually keep variation of the moon on sample. That way I can add them to different scenery.

[dhbailey]

I've gotten some great moon shots, mainly by shooting in TV and letting the camera set the aperture. My first shot is always way overexposed because the majority of the sky is dark, so I just keep pushing the shutter speed higher until I get the shots I want. That's what the LCD screen is for -- check yourself immediately, change your settings and try again.

The camera is always telling me that the picture will be underexposed or that my lens can't handle the aperture my shutter-speed requires but I take the pictures anyway and get some very nice shots.

The first error is in thinking that the moon is a low-light object. The second error is in thinking that your camera can figure out the correct exposure of a shot where there are basically two extremes -- very bright and very dark -- with no gradations in between.

Best advice I can give -- check each shot, change the shutter speed until you get the shot you want, and then keep on going a couple more shutter speeds and see how those work out. I've found that sometimes the mountains right along the edge are exposed just fine but the main part of the moon is overexposed, and when I change the shutter speed so the main part is visible (mountains, craters, etc) the mountains right along the edge are no longer so clear, they're too dark.

[Jon]

Yeah, "sunny 16" is the way to go for shooting the moon. And unless it's really clear, don't try shooting while it's low to the horizon if you want any surface details. Unless you've got longer (much longer) lenses available than you've listed in your sig, you won't get a very big moon, either. Even on a 20D, you need to be working at 300 mm or better, not 85 mm.

[ayotnoms]

I appreciate the excellent feedback.

Mike Panic: thanks for the link. I'm going to pore over it. Never can get enough aperature education. It takes alot to penetrate my 1" thick skull. 8-)

Richpix: why is your avatar hissing at me? LOL Thanks for the input. Makes alot of sense.

DHBailey: sounds quite practical. I'm going to try your method.

Jon: That's what I was afraid of. I'll have to work the [significant] details on affording a longer lens. In the meantime, no harm trying to absorb the advice on how to avoid the crappy photos I've been getting.

MBZE: you show exactly what I'm trying do. I'll check the EXIF data. Thanks for sharing.

Cheers and thanks, one and all!

[cactusclay]

You need to get a flash that is powerful enough to bounce off the moon in order to get a correct exposure.............I think it's called the 58000 ex. Ok, I'm just kidding, but what the other guys said sounds good.

[Andy_T]

You need to get a flash that is powerful enough to bounce off the moon in order to get a correct exposure.............I think it's called the 58000 ex.

The flash is actually not the problem ... but the battery weighs 1250 kg :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[ayotnoms]

Oh NOW you tell me.

No wonder I was getting no where with the B&H sales rep....kept insisting that I couldn't buy it even if I was more than happy to pay shipping for a 1250kg battery. I wanted my photo of the moon dammit!! LOL

[12345Michael54321]

The full moon the last couple nights has been very photograph-able
Personally, I find the full moon to be rather disappointing. A partially illuminated moon looks much more interesting, with the "raking" sunlight throwing the moon's face into sharp relief. The shadow and light appearance along the terminator is fascinating, and many craters are far more easily visible, as well.

Think of it this way - a full moon is like a face being illuminated from straight ahead, like on-camera flash. But a waxing or waning moon is being illuminated from an angle, and just as a rugged face shows all those crags and wrinkles that are signs of character, so does the moon's face show more character when illuminated this way.

Well, just my aesthetic judgement. If your tastes differ from mine, so be it.

[ayotnoms]

Think of it this way - a full moon is like a face being illuminated from straight ahead, like on-camera flash. But a waxing or waning moon is being illuminated from an angle, and just as a rugged face shows all those crags and wrinkles that are signs of character, so does the moon's face show more character when illuminated this way.

Well, just my aesthetic judgement. If your tastes differ from mine, so be it.

Point well taken.

I like the moon in it various phases but when its full and framed well (peeking through trees or clouds, for instance) it looks, well, photograph-able 8-)

As for tastes, wouldn't it be a boring world if everyone had the same likes/dislikes? I find it incredible, as an example, that no one who visits my home cares for my velvet paintings. LOL

[12345Michael54321]

Bullfighters or Elvis (or Elvis as a bullfighter) look great on black velvet. It's the people who like dogs playing poker on velvet who have no class.

More seriously, I recently saw a couple of amateur photographers at Great Falls of the Potomac nearly come to blows over whether flowing water should be photographed with long shutter speeds (to obtain the smokey look) or short shutter speeds (to freeze motion).

I kept quiet and tried to be ignored by them. Here are a couple of panoramas of the falls:

http://www.time4email.com/1316-1324b-1600.jpg (This one features a kayaker.)
http://www.time4email.com/1487-1491-1600.jpg

They run about 200k each. If you're on dial-up and would prefer the smaller versions, they're:

http://www.time4email.com/1316-1324b-800.jpg
http://www.time4email.com/1487-1491-800.jpg

[Marvinspu36]

I found this resource on the Luminous Landscapes website. You might find it useful. There is a shot of the moon, along with the histogram, part way down page. The histogram is a very useful tool for setting the proper exposure to get good detail and contrast. Once you set your initial f-stop and shutter speed, take a picture and look at the histogram. From the information there, you can determine whether you need to increase or decrease your exposure. Of course you have several options for adjusting exposure. There are also many other useful articles on the Luminous Landscapes website:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml

To see the other articles, just click on the Luminous Landscape logo in the upper left corner.

[Marvinspu36]

Just for grins, I thought I'd post the histogram for the sample moon photo mbze430 posted. If you compare it to the one on the Luminous Landscapes web page, you will see the similarity. The large number of dark pixels, as shown by the spike on the far left, and the broad distribution of lighter pixels to the right. mbze430's image has more lighter pixels, so the peaks are higher on the right than those in the Luminous Landscape image. That seems to result in a brighter image and better contrast, IMHO. Nicely done mbze430!

(Edit: One thing to note. If there are too many pixels to the far right of the histogram, portions of the image may be washed out. In general, I try to keep my images from having pixels all the way to the far right of the histogram. Don't know if that is right or best, but it has worked for me. Mainly you want to experiment with your pictures. After a while you will get used to looking at the histogram and knowing if your image will come out exposed the way you like it. Don't mean for this to sound like a lecture on histograms, as I am still learning too, just found the histogram interesting on moon shots.)

[mbze430]

thank you for your kind words.

Just another note. Forget about reading the histogram from the camera's LCD. At least not on the 20D, it will show almost nothing in the mid-tone and highlight area. Just stick by the Sunny f/16 rule. If you are in LA stick with the Smoggy f/11 :P LOL

[Marvinspu36]

Forget about reading the histogram from the camera's LCD. At least not on the 20D, it will show almost nothing in the mid-tone and highlight area.

I haven't done any night shots yet, especially not one with such disparity in gray levels. I'll have to try a couple and see what the histogram looks like on my 20D. In most of my shots though, the histogram has been very useful in determining proper exposure. Might not be true for this type of shot though.

Thanks for the input. Gives me something to think about and experiment with :) .