Why am i such a failure?

[UmphreyBogart]

so i've read and read and read but i just don't get how some people get such amazing moon shots. first, i can rarely get a shot that isn't just a white blur, second i have a horrible horrible time focusing on it and third i just don't know what i am or am not doing wrong. how are some of you guys getting such close up detailed shots with equipment similiar to mine?

here is one of my better photos which i think is just awful
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2072/2281389046_194f6e5afc.jpg?v=0

[Name Pending...]

I take it you are using a tripod? You need a rather quick shutter speed.

[UmphreyBogart]

yes and how quick? i will admit this was a longer speed i don't remember but i know it was longer

[weka2000]

Sunny 16 rule applys to moon as well.

[Karl Johnston]

I think you need a longer lens. Much longer. Also people tend to crop around the moon; that'll make it "bigger"

A lot of people taking the great moon shots are using telescopes, too, may want to explore that.

[Name Pending...]

I just did a quick search on the "sunny 16 rule". I could not any concrete info on it. The OP and I could use some help with this. ;)

[Stormin_24]

Here's a shot I took last year... Maybe the settings will help.. Image was definitely cropped as well...

Camera: Canon
Model: Canon EOS 40D
ISO: 200
Exposure: 1/100 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 280mm
Lens: EF70-200 f/4 L W/1.4X Tele
Date: Sept. 8/2008

Info: http://www.adidap.com/2006/09/18/tips-on-how-to-take-successful-moon-pictures/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/2851843918_9c35d069ed_o.jpg

[weka2000]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16

The moon produces a lot of light. Keep shutter speed up. Also the moon is not stitting still.
The longer your focal length the more movement you get so tripod is must and mirror lockup with remote or timmer will help

http://search.pbase.com/search?q=moon&c=sp
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=359876&page=6&highlight=moon

have a look at what others are using and their settings.

Another point to note is that there are ways to sharpen an image to really make it sharp with out it been over done.

[bbulldog]

try this online Moon exposure calulator, it worked for me
This was taken with the Walimex 1300mm

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

http://www.pauldaniels.de/photography/potn/IMG_3429.jpg

[Celestron]

so i've read and read and read but i just don't get how some people get such amazing moon shots. first, i can rarely get a shot that isn't just a white blur, second i have a horrible horrible time focusing on it and third i just don't know what i am or am not doing wrong. how are some of you guys getting such close up detailed shots with equipment similiar to mine?

here is one of my better photos which i think is just awful
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2072/2281389046_194f6e5afc.jpg?v=0


Hold it , Hold it , Hold it ! Small yes but an excellent shot of the moon going throught an "Eclipse" ! Color is great and detail of dark areas on the moon is just fine . First let me tell you that when the moon is going throught an Eclipse you will not find a pict that shows crisp detail of the moon especially in this size image . Moon eclipse this nice should make you proud to have ! Some ppl can't even get a shot this good during an Eclipse . So now add another shot of what you think is a bad shot only post a pict when the moon isn't in an Eclipse . Very nice shot ! Also i see you were able to capture some stars in the FOV which you cannot do with a full moon not in the eclipse .

[Sorarse]

What a lot of people forget when first setting out to photograph the moon is that it is bathed in full sunlight and needs an exposure that takes that in to account.

If you do not have a lens that fills the frame with the moon, inevitably your camera metering system will be fooled by the amount of blackness in the picture, which results in the moon being over exposed i.e. just a white blob.

This one was taken at 1/125s at f/11 with the ISO set to 200. If you start with similar settings you should be in the right general ballpark.

http://www.88qv.com/net/159.jpg

[troypiggo]

That's a great shot of the moon showing wonderful and unusual colouring during a not-so-common even. I'd be happy with it.

[Bill Boehme]

Hold it , Hold it , Hold it ! Small yes but an excellent shot of the moon going throught an "Eclipse" ! Color is great and detail of dark areas on the moon is just fine . First let me tell you that when the moon is going throught an Eclipse you will not find a pict that shows crisp detail of the moon especially in this size image . Moon eclipse this nice should make you proud to have ! Some ppl can't even get a shot this good during an Eclipse . So now add another shot of what you think is a bad shot only post a pict when the moon isn't in an Eclipse . Very nice shot ! Also i see you were able to capture some stars in the FOV which you cannot do with a full moon not in the eclipse .

I agree! An eclipse shot will be a bit blurred simply because of the long exposure needed. For normal moon photography, use ISO 100, f/8, and a shutter speed that varies from about 1/30 second for a new moon to about 1/500 second for a full moon. Bracket the exposures to see which shutter speed works the best. Use a tripod, mirror lock-up, and a remote shutter release. Focusing should not be a problem -- just use AF with center point only active and place the center focus box on the edge of the lunar disk or on the terminator.

[UmphreyBogart]

dumb question: how do i lock the mirror?

[Redlineracer12]

dumb question: how do i lock the mirror?

It's a custom function in the XTi/400D... I don't remember which one exactly, but it's in there.

[luigis]

My findings is that the quality of the glass is of terrible importance in astronomy shots. The 75-300 is not a good optic and when you use it for astronomy you get the worst from it.

I tried a Sigma 150-500 and the difference with a Canon 400mmL was astronomical (pun intended). Even when for terrestrial use the Sigma was very fine and sharp at 400mm pointing it to the sky was devastating.

This was taken with a 400mm f5.6 L
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3638/3525930915_7781904c0f.jpg

[renderwerks]

I'd be proud, that's a good shot. Maybe crop it down a little.

[Nighthound]

As I scrolled through the images here I didn't see any sign of failure.

UB, that's a quality eclipse shot and one you should be proud of. It's hard to arrive at an image that is considered perfect, especially when starting out. That's what keeps us pushing for improvement. I've been at it for several years and I compete with no one but myself. It's about progress and most of all FUN.

[Rrdstarr]

Yeah that is a nice eclipse shot! I took mine with the 75-300(kit) lens and it looked the same quality, only bigger!:D

[bjordan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16

The moon produces a lot of light. Keep shutter speed up. Also the moon is not stitting still.
The longer your focal length the more movement you get so tripod is must and mirror lockup with remote or timmer will help

http://search.pbase.com/search?q=moon&c=sp
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=359876&page=6&highlight=moon

have a look at what others are using and their settings.

Another point to note is that there are ways to sharpen an image to really make it sharp with out it been over done.

I remembered this thread and have a question. I took a shot last night of the crescent moon. At ISO 400, "sunny 16" would indicate 1/500 of a second at f/16. But, I used a 2x teleconverter which takes away two stops. So, I used f/8 at 1/500 sec. Is that right, theoretically at least?

[Bill Boehme]

I remembered this thread and have a question. I took a shot last night of the crescent moon. At ISO 400, "sunny 16" would indicate 1/500 of a second at f/16. But, I used a 2x teleconverter which takes away two stops. So, I used f/8 at 1/500 sec. Is that right, theoretically at least?
The phase of the moon is very important in determining the exposure time to get the right moon exposure.

First of all, do not use ISO400 as that will just add unnecessary noise. Use ISO100, f/8, and for a crescent moon, try about 1/50 to 1/125 second. For a full moon, the exposure time would be about 1/400 to 1/640 second.

[bjordan]

The phase of the moon is very important in determining the exposure time to get the right moon exposure.

First of all, do not use ISO400 as that will just add unnecessary noise. Use ISO100, f/8, and for a crescent moon, try about 1/50 to 1/125 second. For a full moon, the exposure time would be about 1/400 to 1/640 second.

So is this thinking correct? Full Moon is in full sunlight, so Sunny 16 at ISO100:
f/16, 1/125
f/11, 1/250
f/8, 1/500

But, I lose two stops to the converter, so f/8, 1/125
But, I'm using ISO400, so I'm back to f/8, 1/500

Isn't the illuminated part of a crescent moon in the same light as the illuminated part of a full moon?

BTW, I do understand that ISO400 is unnecessary for the moon, but it's all I have at the moment ;).

[Bill Boehme]

So is this thinking correct? Full Moon is in full sunlight, so Sunny 16 at ISO100:
f/16, 1/125
f/11, 1/250
f/8, 1/500

But, I lose two stops to the converter, so f/8, 1/125
But, I'm using ISO400, so I'm back to f/8, 1/500

No, it seems like you are confusing yourself about the teleconverter and factoring in the light loss twice. When you put the 2X teleconverter onto the lens, it will decrease the aperture by two stops and that is the light loss. If you are using Canon EF lenses and teleconverter, they will communicate the correct aperture information to the camera, so when the display on your camera says f/8 and ISO 100, you just need to set the same shutter speed as you would use for the lens without the teleconverter attached.

A real world example is always easier to follow, so here is one:
In this case, I am using a 400mm f/4 lens without a teleconverter. I set the camera to ISO 100 and stop the aperture down to f/8. To get the best exposure, I decide that 1/200 second is the "right" shutter speed.
Next, I want to get a closer shot, so I stick my 2X teleconverter onto the lens to give an effective focal length of 800 mm. As you know, the teleconverter loses two stops of light so now the largest aperture that I am now able to dial in is f/8 (f/4 lens minus 2 stops equals f/8 ). So, with the lens at its widest open setting of f/8, I set the camera to ISO 100 and 1/200 second shutter speed just as I did before.The only difference between the two exposures is that the diameter of the moon will be twice as large in the second case.

Isn't the illuminated part of a crescent moon in the same light as the illuminated part of a full moon?

No, the moon is a sphere and the brightest part is the center of the side facing the sun. At the edge of the illuminated side, the sun is hitting the surface at a grazing angle so it is not receiving nearly as much light. Think of the light that we get here on Earth. In the middle of the day when the sun is directly overhead, things are very bright, but in the early morning dawn and evening dusk, the light levels are very low. It is no different on the moon.

[Cole_Schmitt]

so i've read and read and read but i just don't get how some people get such amazing moon shots. first, i can rarely get a shot that isn't just a white blur, second i have a horrible horrible time focusing on it and third i just don't know what i am or am not doing wrong. how are some of you guys getting such close up detailed shots with equipment similiar to mine?

here is one of my better photos which i think is just awful
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2072/2281389046_194f6e5afc.jpg?v=0

DUDE, what are you talking about? Okay so maybe you're not right next to the moon, but that is one excellent shot! Not something you see everyday, or even every year.. I really like the shot! You might not have a 800mm Canon lens, but a shot like this is just as good!

[UmphreyBogart]

DUDE, what are you talking about? Okay so maybe you're not right next to the moon, but that is one excellent shot! Not something you see everyday, or even every year.. I really like the shot! You might not have a 800mm Canon lens, but a shot like this is just as good!


thank you

[A.S.I.G.N. Observatory]

Umphrey I think it is a great shot. Lovely colour. Just centre it. Well done.

Baz.

[bjordan]

No, it seems like you are confusing yourself about the teleconverter and factoring in the light loss twice. When you put the 2X teleconverter onto the lens, it will decrease the aperture by two stops and that is the light loss. If you are using Canon EF lenses and teleconverter, they will communicate the correct aperture information to the camera...

That makes sense. In my situation, the teleconverter does not communicate the correct aperture information to the camera, and I am setting ISO, aperture, and shutter speed manually without a meter. In that case is my thinking correct for a full moon situation? Maybe not. You said with ISO100 and f/8, you'd use 1/200. "Sunny 16" would be:

f/16, reciprocol of the ISO, so ~1/100
f/11, it would go to 1/200
f/8 it would go to 1/400, so I'd use 1/500 on my camera.


No, the moon is a sphere and the brightest part is the center of the side facing the sun. At the edge of the illuminated side, the sun is hitting the surface at a grazing angle so it is not receiving nearly as much light. Think of the light that we get here on Earth. In the middle of the day when the sun is directly overhead, things are very bright, but in the early morning dawn and evening dusk, the light levels are very low. It is no different on the moon.

If that were true, the edge of the full moon would be much dimmer than the center. But it's not... the area around Tycho (quite near the edge) is the brightest. Composition of the surface seems much more important than the tangential angle. And why would the edge be dimmer if the sun was grazing it towards us (crescent) instead of away from us (full moon)? It should be the opposite! The moon isn't a spherical mirror though. It's quite reflective, but the surface is irregular.

Much of the dimming on Earth at sunrise/sunset is because of greater atmospheric interference when the sun is low. The sun itself appears dimmer for this reason, and the landscape with it. Unless the moon is low to our horizon, there is no atmospheric difference between a full and crescent moon.

So a more appropriate analogy to the "grazing" effect would be: "which is brighter, a golf ball at noon viewed from above (full), or held at an angle overhead (crescent)? Just considering the highlights on the golf ball when taking a picture, they'd be about the same.

[Bill Boehme]

If that were true, the edge of the full moon would be much dimmer than the center. But it's not... the area around Tycho (quite near the edge) is the brightest.

The edge of the full moon is much dimmer than the center. Tycho is not that close to the edge when you think of the moon in terms of a sphere rather than a flat disk. Also, the visibility of Tycho has more to do with contrast than brightness.

[Bill Boehme]

That makes sense. In my situation, the teleconverter does not communicate the correct aperture information to the camera, and I am setting ISO, aperture, and shutter speed manually without a meter.

In this case, set the lens aperture to f/4 and you will know that the actual aperture is f/8. Then set the shutter speed based on the phase of the moon.

BTW, the example that I gave was not for a full moon, but an arbitrary value that would be approximately right for a first or last quarter condition.

[tpanchana]

Hold it , Hold it , Hold it ! Small yes but an excellent shot of the moon going throught an "Eclipse" ! Color is great and detail of dark areas on the moon is just fine . First let me tell you that when the moon is going throught an Eclipse you will not find a pict that shows crisp detail of the moon especially in this size image . Moon eclipse this nice should make you proud to have ! Some ppl can't even get a shot this good during an Eclipse . So now add another shot of what you think is a bad shot only post a pict when the moon isn't in an Eclipse . Very nice shot ! Also i see you were able to capture some stars in the FOV which you cannot do with a full moon not in the eclipse .

I will try this shot

[bjordan]

The edge of the full moon is much dimmer than the center. Tycho is not that close to the edge when you think of the moon in terms of a sphere rather than a flat disk. Also, the visibility of Tycho has more to do with contrast than brightness.

Here is a resized threshold edit of the first creative commons full moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon)I could find. I can't agree that "the edge is much dimmer than the center." It is obvious that some of the most extreme highlights are right at the edge (upper left).

The areas that are more reflective are simply brighter than the areas that are not. It has extremely little to do with light hitting the moon at an angle. I still think that there is a negligible difference in brightness between the highlights on a crescent moon and highlights on a full moon.

[bjordan]

In this case, set the lens aperture to f/4 and you will know that the actual aperture is f/8.

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. I studied engineering physics (including light intensity, defraction, optics, etc.), but that was long ago and I've never been formally educated on f-stops and such. Thanks!

[EiTheL]

It's a custom function in the XTi/400D... I don't remember which one exactly, but it's in there.

Its under custom functions, and its one of the values.... I forgot which one