Rising Moon and city or landscape in ONE shot.

<p>A wile ago was an argument, you can't make a proper exposure on the land/city and the Moon in the same time in the same frame. It is possible in certain time of the hour, or, later on when the scenery is to dark, Moon is to bright, using Grad-ND filter to tone down the Moon bright light and balanced out with the ground/landscape/cityscape light.<br>

The following 2 image shot with a Nikon D3s and an old Nikon 300mm f/4.5 ED lens @f/8, hand held from my balcony, being lease to go down the garage ( 16 floor to B2 ) to fetch the tripod from the car. I would repeat the shot when the Moon higher and brighter and shot with tripod, my needed longer exposures as I used for the attached shoots. Please don't mention the noise, I shot with a high ISO.</p><div></div>

<p>2nd shoot.</p><div></div>

<p>Good timing Bela, although this is a setting moon, not rising. This morning I was taking an early hike with the dog in hopes of photographing the moon setting at 7:10 AM local time in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Unfortunately, just as it was getting light enough to include some foreground with the moon at about 6:50 AM, clouds got in the way. Here is the result in one, and the only, shot. Tomorrow morning might be better, with the moon setting at close to 8 AM. Canon 5D II, 24-105mm L lens at 105mm, ISO 640, f:4.0, 1/40s.</p>

<p>Here is the photo</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a photo from almost the same location from 11-7-14.</p><div></div>

<p>And here is the moon setting at Garapata State Park, Big Sur coast.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Glen. You mean you images is a setting Moon, if I understand right, not my. I facing east, and the only shot I can have, sunrise and moonrise form my balcony. I believe, the pollution over the city add a natural ND filter to the Moon and helping tone down the light of the Moon, so as long as the Moon in this area, and the sun just setting or in the lower horizon, you can haw an optimal lighting on both subject. otherwise, you have to use a Grad-ND filter for the moon of two exposure, as I do sometime, on tripod and fast exposure one after the other with proper setting for the light, then combine them together on PS.</p>

<p>Yes Bela, my photos are of a setting moon. I looked for photos of a rising moon, but could not find any that were taken with one exposure. I have never used a grad-ND filter for photos that include the moon, although taking two photos, one for the moon and one for the surroundings, and then compositing the two as you describe is effective.</p>

<p>I was back at it this morning with a clearer view of the moon from the same trail. I was trying to find sunlight on both the moon and it's surroundings that was correct at close to the "luny 11" setting (f:11, shutter speed = ISO). Here is a result using 1/320s, f:8.0, ISO 250, which is is giving exposure about an extra half stop to help with the foreground. I think that this image disproves the statement, "you can't make a proper exposure on the land/city and the Moon in the same time in the same frame."</p><div></div>

<p>Here is an earlier in the morning photo taken at 1/125s, f:8.0, ISO 320. Note that much detail on the moon's surface is lost due to overexposure. This image would be a good candidate for making a composite image by substituting a separate well-exposed image of the moon (or, if I owned a new Canon 5D IV with wider dynamic range, rather than my 5D II. The rationalization begins....).</p><div></div>

<p>I went out last night, intending to capture the moonrise against a background of rocky cliffs. Total disaster. Twilight had disappeared entirely, leaving the moon as the only light source. But the camera still tried to meter the entire scene, resulting in a drastically overexposed moon image.</p>

<p>This morning, different story. Sunrise and moonset cooperated nicely, and the result is this shot. Canon EOS 5DII, EF75-300 @300, ISO 100, f/11 @ 160/sec.</p><div></div>

<p>An embarassing example...<br />http://www.photo.net/photo/18310891<br />I was walking around my home at dusk in july, with my camera and a tripod, when I saw this coincidence. I found it a bit funny (that was 16 years ago..) and I made the photo. I don't remember which setting I chose. The church is buried in the dark, but there are still details. In post-processing, I did not made fancy masking, just playing with the histogram. There is a strange halo around the moon, probably due to my old AIS zoom (35-200/3.5-4.5) front lens.</p>

<p>Am I cynical, but the excitement about the Supermoon always seems rather overblown? I tend to agree with the statement from NASA</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Okay, the Moon is 14% bigger than usual, but can you really tell the difference? It's tricky. There are no rulers floating in the sky to measure lunar diameters. Hanging high overhead with no reference points to provide a sense of scale, one full Moon can seem much like any other.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There was a particularly-heralded supermoon on March 19 2011, if you all remember. I like a good moon as much as anyone, but perhaps feel that this story is not nearly as exciting as suggested. I am certainly not confident that a picture shows any difference and the lens choice can make any full moon seem huge or small depending on how you choose to take it. Still all harmless stuff, I suppose.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The full moon of November 14, 2016, is the closest and largest full moon of this year. By a somewhat new definition – one that has entered the world of astronomy from astrology – many will call it a <em>supermoon</em>. There are three full moons in 2016 that meet the definition of a supermoon – October, November and December. But this November 14 full moon is the most <em>super</em> of the supermoons! A super-duper moon!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So I am not sure this is really quite as exciting as the media would have us believe. Once they were called "perigee moons", when they passed largely unheralded. Rename them as "supermoons" and we all notice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So I am not sure this is really quite as exciting as the media would have us believe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, yeah, but it's better than focusing on elections. But, when the moon passes apogee, do we call it a "minimoon"?<br>

For me, though, a moon photo's main value is enhancement of a landscape shot, something that can be done at almost any point in a lunar cycle...</p>

<p>The best time to get it all in one shot is the 20 mins on both sides of sunrise and sunset. Set aside the 40mins and wait it out. The 40 min window also lets you get different colors in the sky and time incase you need clouds to get out of the way.</p><div></div>

<p>Before I went digital, I was still using a 4x5. Here's a moon and woods shot using an ancient Zeiss Protar 90mm lens on the 4x5. The moon is small, of course.</p><div></div>