Moon and Stars?

I took this photo last year and it's not adjusted in any special way other than "auto" tone control and cropping in Lightroom 3. Shot with 1D3 and 100-400 lens set at 400mm, camera set at ISO 2000, 1/1250, f5.6 and partial metering. How do the stars appear in what is the dark side of the moon? Shouldn't they be blocked out? Again this is not a layered or doctored photo other than the minor adjustments above. I originally posted this in the lens section in response to a post about moon shots and a couple people seemed to question its authenticity. Thanks.

Steve

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I suggest that the white spots are not stars. To expose the surface of the moon correctly, you are exposing at 1/1250, far too fast to get the stars as well. I suggest that they are either noise or "hot" pixels due to the high ISO in use.

The moon looks superb though

Thanks. I thought hot pixels typically show up in real long exposures. As I recall the sky pretty much looked like the photo - millions of stars out and an exceptionally clear night. That's why I took the shot. I've shot many night events (not moon shots) at high ISO with little to no noise. I shot at that shutter speed since it was handheld (thus the ISO 2000). The next time I get a real clear night with a sky full of stars I'll try again with a tripod and low ISO and compare.

cristphoto wrote in post #12164301
Thanks. I thought hot pixels typically show up in real long exposures. As I recall the sky pretty much looked like the photo - millions of stars out and an exceptionally clear night. That's why I took the shot. I've shot many night events (not moon shots) at high ISO with little to no noise. I shot at that shutter speed since it was handheld (thus the ISO 2000). The next time I get a real clear night with a sky full of stars I'll try again with a tripod and low ISO and compare.

Was this shot taken in Maryland? Just curious, that if it was, there could be dark enough skies on the eastern seaboard in this area of the country that one could see "millions of stars"

Could you post an original original. I'm not doubting anything you say but I'm curious as to what the cause might be. They're certainly not stars because there are just as many dots on the dark part of the moon which tells you that they are in front of it. My initial thought would be dust or condensation in the air and a strong light source behind you. It doesn't look quite right for that though.

Steve.

the jimmy wrote in post #12164732
Was this shot taken in Maryland? Just curious, that if it was, there could be dark enough skies on the eastern seaboard in this area of the country that one could see "millions of stars"

Yes - just outside the Beltway in the DC suburbs.

SteveInNZ wrote in post #12164927
Could you post an original original. I'm not doubting anything you say but I'm curious as to what the cause might be. They're certainly not stars because there are just as many dots on the dark part of the moon which tells you that they are in front of it. My initial thought would be dust or condensation in the air and a strong light source behind you. It doesn't look quite right for that though.

Steve.

The original was RAW. Here is the photo taken from Lightroom and I went back to the first step of importing - absolutely no changes at all from straight out of the camera as Lightroom doesn't change pixels. My lens and sensor are always clean as the camera has auto sensor cleaning and I always leave my lens cap on unless shooting. As I previously stated, the sky was full of stars and was a beautiful night - thus the reason for the shot.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Well exposed and very nice detail.

What you're seeing is noise and ISO 2000 is the likely culprit? Photographing the moon is a different animal than terrestrial night shooting. A bright object in a field of black is a very unforgiving combination at high ISO, even at a fraction of a second.

100 or 200 would be best when shooting the Moon and should produce no visible noise on such short exposures.

Nighthound wrote in post #12166855
Well exposed and very nice detail.

What you're seeing is noise and ISO 2000 is the likely culprit?

Like I said in another thread - it's noise. In that other thread it was much more visible, probably because the exposure had been boosted and over-sharpening carried out in Lightroom.