the moon

wallyboy

wallyboy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,805
Name
walter
Edit My Images
Yes
with a full moon to-morrow, what is the best way to take photographs of it,
what iso...aperture... shutter speed...i have tripod and remote shutter release, be gratefull for any advice, fingers crossed for clear skies
 
Try Manual Mode,F11,200th,iso 200.You shouldn't be far out with that,hope you've got a long lens,lets see the results aswell good luck.
 
There are some quite good moon shots (and some of mine :lol:) on other threads. Worth doing a search.
 
DSC_9193.jpg


This was taken with a lens as in the link below with a 2x TC attached

http://photography.shop.ebay.co.uk/...5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=650-1300+lens&_sacat=625

Apologise to those more professional and have better gear than me but that is all I could afford at the time.

Walter

Obviously you will be able to get photos of the moon with a 300mm lens and good ones at that, but don't be dissapointed if you don't get many moon details as a 300mm lens just isn't powerful enough. You may find it worth a punt with that lens in the link for around the £250 mark.

The biggest problems working at that magnification is focusing and more unusual without thinking about it is tracking the moon across the sky. The moon really "flies" across the heavens when working that close and I had to guess the moons track and wait for it to come into view.

No wonder there is gear out there to compensate for this movement

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
Walter

Obviously you will be able to get photos of the moon with a 300mm lens and good ones at that, but don't be dissapointed if you don't get many moon details as a 30mm lens just isn't powerful enough. You may find it worth a punt with that lens for around the £250 mark

Realspeed

cheers realspeed will give it a go, that is a nice pic of moon
 
Michael

did you have any problems with shimmering from the atmosphere? there are so many things to consider when trying to get a picture of the moon without astronomical photographic lenses.

Some of the ones I can across was

1 =cloud cover/haze
2 = focus
3 =tracking the moon
4= camera settings as its all manual with the lens I used
5= getting the right section of the moon to show up the craters
6 = camera shake or should I really say lens movement
7 = wired remote control still produced movement so used wireless instead
8= And finally wind, the slightest breeze had terrible lens movement
9= Cold, as the clearest time is usually mid winter late at night


That unedited photo I put up was at 2600mm and hours of waiting on several different days.

What atmospheric conditions can produce (unedited photo)

redmoon-1.jpg



Realspeed
 
Last edited:
The full moon isn't the best time to photograph it due to lack of shadows. Much better to photograph the waning or waxing crescent :thumbs:

This was handheld at 400mm, 1/200th and F8.


The Moon-2 by Paul S Wharton, on Flickr

Paul
 
Last edited:
If you got the time then manual mode is better, otherwise spot meter mode is probably best.
I got this one with my Tokina 800mm + 2x TC, which is about 2400mm equivalent on my D5000, it filled the entire frame top to bottom. The back was black anyway so i cut and pasted the moon onto a big black background so i could crop it how i wanted.


Full Moon by Morinaka_2010, on Flickr
 
Redpaul said:
The full moon isn't the best time to photograph it due to lack of shadows. Much better to photograph the waning or waxing crescent :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Morinaka said:
If you got the time then manual mode is better, otherwise spot meter mode is probably best.
Click to expand...

Two bits of very good advice. And you really can't beat long lenses. This is uncropped - on a 7D at 840mm! 1/500s, f8, ISO800

Moon%20840mm.jpg
 
going by what you guys have posted as pics, wont get nowhere near your quality, only have 300mm lens, still have a go tho all part of learning curve,
i'll be taking pics about 10 to-night, thanks for input guys
 
My recent attempt -

CanonMoon.jpg
 
wallyboy said:
going by what you guys have posted as pics, wont get nowhere near your quality, only have 300mm lens, still have a go tho all part of learning curve,
i'll be taking pics about 10 to-night, thanks for input guys
Click to expand...

You can still get a decent shot with a 300mm lens.

This was taken with my old Sigma 70-300mm lens.


The Moon by Paul S Wharton, on Flickr

Paul
 
Please don't think I'm being mean but it looks a little over exposed;)

A quick edit can pull back some more detail though:)

010-2-1a.jpg
 
Last edited:
Some great moon shots on here.

My first attempt at a moon shot taken about 20 mins ago.

Is there any post processing tips I could use to give the picture some added va va vooom!


The Moon 2 by rocafreestyler, on Flickr

Exposure 0.004 sec (1/250)
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 250 mm
ISO Speed 100
 
Last edited:
This is my first attempt at shooting the moon..

Canon 500D, 55-250mm lens. 1/800 @ F5.6, ISO 200, and a MASSIVE crop. 250mm is way too short to capture any real detail, although I think this looks ok for my first attempt :) Feedback gratefully received!

IMG-2677.jpg by R1ch85, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
R1ch85 said:
This is my first attempt at shooting the moon..

Canon 500D, 55-250mm lens. 1/800 @ F5.6, ISO 200, and a MASSIVE crop. 250mm is way too short to capture any real detail, although I think this looks ok for my first attempt :) Feedback gratefully received!
5938095831_e9583fe659_z.jpg

IMG-2677.jpg by R1ch85, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Considering it's a massive crop, you have done very well indeed and for a first attempt, :thumbs:

Rocafreestyler, Yours looks pretty good too, usually I only alter contrast and do a bit of a sharpen.
 
Last edited:
R1ch85 said:
This is my first attempt at shooting the moon..

Canon 500D, 55-250mm lens. 1/800 @ F5.6, ISO 200, and a MASSIVE crop. 250mm is way too short to capture any real detail, although I think this looks ok for my first attempt :) Feedback gratefully received!
Click to expand...

It's likely that the 55-250 will be sharper at f8 than f5.6 (almost all lenses are sharper when stopped down a bit, sometimes spectacularly so). I'd try with the same shutter speed, but f8 and ISO 400. I'd probably also try f11 and ISO800.
 
I only really take pictures of the moon when there is very little haze and cloud although some cloud going across the moon can give you a great atmospheric photo, although I haven't captured one like that myself. Focus is really critical even on something as bright as the moon. I always find myself adjusting focus numerous times and taking quite a few shots, not every one of them is usable. I only notice shimmering in the atmosphere in the optics, it doesn't appear to transfer to the image.


realspeed said:
Michael

did you have any problems with shimmering from the atmosphere? there are so many things to consider when trying to get a picture of the moon without astronomical photographic lenses. I have my camera and scope mounted on my tripod, but to be honest I would prefer a much sturdier head, but what I have does the job. As has been stated, the full moon is not the best of times to photograph due to lack of shadows. But to get some really good detail you take a fair few pics and then stack them in a programme such as registax I have not done this myself yet but do will do at some point. Another important factor as well is let your equipment acclimatize to the outside temperatures before taking your pics. I don't use a remote as I don't have one, sometimes I use the 2sec self timer instead to reduce shake.

Some of the ones I can across was

1 =cloud cover/haze
2 = focus
3 =tracking the moon
4= camera settings as its all manual with the lens I used
5= getting the right section of the moon to show up the craters
6 = camera shake or should I really say lens movement
7 = wired remote control still produced movement so used wireless instead
8= And finally wind, the slightest breeze had terrible lens movement
9= Cold, as the clearest time is usually mid winter late at night


That unedited photo I put up was at 2600mm and hours of waiting on several different days.

What atmospheric conditions can produce (unedited photo)

redmoon-1.jpg



Realspeed
Click to expand...
 
Walter

its not as easy as it seems is it? what I would say is you need a bigger mm lens and some of the postings on here should give you a better idea of what to go for

Realspeed
 
5931059931_1939022e40.jpg


Took that on my Canon 70-200mm at F8 last month, looking forward to the full moon tonight....can only see cloud atm though :thumbsdown:
 
michael23 said:
Considering it's a massive crop, you have done very well indeed and for a first attempt, :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thanks :) the crop really was large, if you put a rule of thirds grid on the original, the moon doesn't even fill one of the rectangles!

hollis_f said:
It's likely that the 55-250 will be sharper at f8 than f5.6 (almost all lenses are sharper when stopped down a bit, sometimes spectacularly so). I'd try with the same shutter speed, but f8 and ISO 400. I'd probably also try f11 and ISO800.
Click to expand...

I do have a couple of shots at F8, but I was at 1/200 and ISO 100 and they came out a little blurred. I opened the aperture to get a faster shutter speed instead of the upping the ISO :bonk:

Thanks for the feedback :thumbs: I shall bear that in mind next time I shoot. Doesn't look like it'll be tonight though, loads of unbroken cloud cover! :(
 
As others have said, I still think that full moon is not the best time to shoot as you don't get to see the detail of the craters brought out when they are casting shadows and the rims are in sunlight.

173.jpg
 
Scarecrow said:
As others have said, I still think that full moon is not the best time to shoot as you don't get to see the detail of the craters brought out when they are casting shadows and the rims are in sunlight.

173.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow, that is an awesome shot! :thumbs:
 
My first attempt at a moon shot the other night, i was quite pleased with it considering i only had 200mm FL :)


Moon by Carlos6868, on Flickr
 
buster321c said:
I struggled with this also , after many attempts
Click to expand...

Buster, I don't know what lens this was shot with, but I do know it was at f5.7, 1/100s ISO200. Most of the Canon lenses that can do 300mm have a max. aoperture of f5.6. Bu they are a lot sharper when stopped down a bit. Trying again with f8 and ISO400 may well give a better image.
 
hollis_f said:
Buster, I don't know what lens this was shot with, but I do know it was at f5.7, 1/100s ISO200. Most of the Canon lenses that can do 300mm have a max. aoperture of f5.6. Bu they are a lot sharper when stopped down a bit. Trying again with f8 and ISO400 may well give a better image.
Click to expand...

That was my thought too.
 
rocafreestyler said:
Is there any post processing tips I could use to give the picture some added va va vooom!
Click to expand...

Yeah shoot RAW then sharpen the heck out of the JPG. The RAW for my shot was soft but a 400% strength, 4.0 radius unsharp mask took care of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top