including full moon in landscape. a question

So , never shot a moon in the landscape. it's gonna be full tomorrow.
and i'm visiting a hilly area.
So thinking of getting some shots of landscape with the moon included.
Shooting with wide angle, Is it possible to get the moon sharp and infocus?
Or i must have to Shoot the moon using telephoto , then shoot a landscape and then make a composite.
Please help

Depends on the look you are going for. The moon is surprisingly bright and if you expose to get details on of the moon, the landscape tends to be significantly underexposed. If exposing for the landscape, the moon over exposes to a point of being a big white blob. Also, using a wide angle, the moon is going to be quite small with little detail even properly exposed.

You can use a GND to somewhat mitigate this but shooting two images for a composite generally come out better. Go out and experiment. Try different things and see which one suits your needs.

I would shoot one frame exposed for the moon and another one for the ground and then merge the two. I wouldn't use a telephoto to make the composite as that would look unnatural.

rparchen wrote in post #16225389
... I wouldn't use a telephoto to make the composite as that would look unnatural.

Hmm.. Tele shots work well, even as composites. This is a three shot composite, one for the moon, one for the comet and one for the landscape.

The original moon in this shot was a white blob. I took a moon shot I had done before with a telephoto and resized it to fit over the blob.

I especially like skyline silhouettes, in which the treeline is black, the sky is a dark "midnight" blue, and the moon is properly exposed. These images can easily be done with a single exposure, and they generally require very little - or even no - editing. Here's an example of this type of image. I'm not sure if it's what the OP has in mind or not.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16232394
I especially like skyline silhouettes, in which the treeline is black, the sky is a dark "midnight" blue, and the moon is properly exposed. These images can easily be done with a single exposure, and they generally require very little - or even no - editing. Here's an example of this type of image. I'm not sure if it's what the OP has in mind or not.

that's exactly what i was talking about. can u share exif data of this photo please ?

ekfaysal wrote in post #16232821
that's exactly what i was talking about. can u share exif data of this photo please ?

Canon EOS 50D, 400mm, 1/60s, ISO100

Ed: Look like EF 400mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 - how come only need 1/60s @ ISO 100

x_tan wrote in post #16232858
Canon EOS 50D, 400mm, 1/60s, ISO100

Ed: Look like EF 400mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 - how come only need 1/60s @ ISO 100

Do you mean why isn't the shutter longer? As someone said above, the moon is quite bright in the camera's eyes. It's reflecting the sunlight.

goldboughtrue wrote in post #16232875
Do you mean why isn't the shutter longer? As someone said above, the moon is quite bright in the camera's eyes. It's reflecting the sunlight.

Yes, you're right.

Just check my own shot. I did one @ 300mm, ISO400, f/8 and only need 1/800s.

Everyone knows the sunny16 rule. Well the counter to that is the moony11. For the full moon, set the lens to f/11 and set the shutter speed to the reciprocal of the ISO . (ISO100 = 1/100, ISO400 = 1/400 and so on) This usually properly exposes for the moon, not the landscape around it.

ekfaysal wrote in post #16232821
that's exactly what i was talking about. can u share exif data of this photo please ?

x_tan wrote in post #16232858
Canon EOS 50D, 400mm, 1/60s, ISO100

Ed: Look like EF 400mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 - how come only need 1/60s @ ISO 100

Actually, that is not the correct EXIF. It couldn't be - there is no such thing as a 400mm f1.2 lens. If there was, the front element would be bigger than a big trash can lid!

The correct EXIF is:
Canon 50D
Canon 400 f2.8 IS lens
Aperture: f8.0
Shutter Speed: 1/60th of a second
ISO: 100

Even though it is a rather simple, easy-to-make image, I've had some nice success selling it - it was published as a two page spread in a travel magazine.

Attached is the original unedited image, for those who are interested:

Ansel Adams discussed the exposure of "Moonrise over Hernandez, NM" at length. He knew the exposure of the moon and just set his camera up and set it at that.

Tony-S wrote in post #16257343
Ansel Adams discussed the exposure of "Moonrise over Hernandez, NM" at length. He knew the exposure of the moon and just set his camera up and set it at that.

I'm guessing that was a film shot, as I don't think you can get the full moon, the well lit ground, and the stars all exposed like that in a digital shot without performing some major manipulations.

smasraum wrote in post #16273881
I'm guessing that was a film shot, as I don't think you can get the full moon, the well lit ground, and the stars all exposed like that in a digital shot without performing some major manipulations.

It still required "some major manipulations." Darkroom magic was AA's greatest obsession and arguably his greatest contribution to the art.