How's this for a moon shot?

[dpastern]

This'll be the 4th time I've tried shooting the moon, I think that this is my best shot yet. What do you guys think?

Dave

edit: 300mm f4 + 2x tc + 1.4x tc using tripod, remote control and mirror lockup. I paid a bit more attention to focusing tonight than on previous attempts.

[Bernoulli]

This is a great shot! I don't think you could improve on it.

Except that it's upside-down!:D:D

[jwcdds]

I think for being in Australia, it's rightside up. :lol:

[Bernoulli]

Yes, I was kidding of course. It's a northern prejudice. My wife and I are planning in a couple of years to come to New Zealand and, hopefully, Australia as well and I'm very excited about seeing the southern sky.

[Sorarse]

Looks very good to me. Good exposure and lots of detail to be seen. Well done.

[RandyMN]

Am I alone in thinking the moon looks dark? Exposure maybe caught the details but the end result looks like nothing is over mid tone in the histogram.

[Bernoulli]

This could get philosophical, but dark compared to what? In this image, the average brightness of the disk is 29% and the average brightness (albedo) of the moon is only 12%, so this image is twice as bright as the actual moon. The moon looks almost white in the sky because it's starkly illuminated against a black background, but it's really the brightness of old asphalt.

When people photograph the moon, they often end up with pretty bright images for two reasons: 1. it matches what their brain is used to "seeing" in the sky and 2. their exposure meter may get faked out by all the black sky. If you look at the "Biggest Full Moon" thread, you'll see lots of these kinds of shots.

It really depends on what you want the shot to do. If you're imaging the moon in a setting, like rising above trees, I think you want the very light disk. If you're imaging for surface detail, which is my thing, you want to be close to the moon's real brightness. So it depends on what you're after.

I expose with the histogram just touching the right hand side of the graph, so my initial images are quite bright. Then I tone them down in post-processing. This results in less noise than starting with a darker image, even one that's exposed to be the final brightness I want.

For a quick, unprocessed shot, I like this exposure because you can see detail in it.

This is a long reply and I'm not dissing your opinion, but the exposure depends on what you want the image to do, and I don't think this is too dark. I think most images that are posted are too light!

[RandyMN]

When you bring up the point of "Dark compared to what"?

I agree that depending on the foreground/background subject, then the brightness can be adjusted according to your individual taste.

In this picture the subject is the moon and the only other thing to compare it to is the black of the sky.

I am maybe trained old school, but I try to make every image fall within the tonal range of the output device. In this case it's the web being viewed on the screen.

Obviously the exposure was good in bringing out all detail without clipping highlights or shadows, but in my opinion the tonal range falls far below the mid range of the histogram and simply appears dark.

I won't say my opinion is correct, but it is my opinion and I feel the image could be improved upon by bringing the tones of the subject itself a bit higher while leaving the sky balck.

[Bernoulli]

Randy - I don't disagree with you. I might jack the tones up a bit myself.

[dpastern]

The moon does look a bit dark. I could bump the ISO to 400 and drop the shutter speed another stop and try again. I'm a bit surprised though, since others recommend 1/200, ISO 200 and f11, I've already dropped the shutter speed and apertures by a half a stop and a full stop accordingly. If others get decent exposures with those settings, why aren't I? Sure, it's not a full moon, it's 2 days past, but the moon's light doesn't drop off that much.

Dave

PS my monitor is calibrated and Photoshop and DPP have been set up correctly

[RandyMN]

Youre exposure is fine. I think any modifications to brighten it could be done in any processing software you have. Either that or just do a minor adjustment from RAW.

[Bernoulli]

How about this? I just brightened it up and increased the contrast a bit.

[dpastern]

Is that all you did, wow! I didn't want to bump exposure etc due to added noise artifacts.

Might have a play with it when I get home from work (just leaving). Thanks guys.

Dave

[Bernoulli]

Start with a slightly overexposed image and darken it and you'll get less noise than going the other way. But this did turn out nice, didn't it?

[beachbum2277]

Awesome shot! What were your settings?

[dpastern]

1/160, ISO 200, f11 from memory. 300mm f4 + stacked convertors on manfrotto tripod. mirror lockup and remote release. on camera NR turned on on the Mark IIn (I have it on by default).

Bernoulli - thanks for the advice, much appreciated!

Dave

[Celestron]

Very nice Dave , like the sharp details of the crators ! WTG !

[dpastern]

Thanks :) Maybe there's hope for me yet. I'll probably drag the camera out again tonight to practice some more. What's a good range for the night sky shots (like milky way) - I presume use a zoom like the 35-80 should be sufficent. I don't have a proper mount, so exposures will have to be short. Is it worth it? I might even hunt for M42 and try a 30 second exposure at a higher ISO to see what happens.

Dave