Exposure for capturing moon and landscape

g1 · June 25, 2005

I would like to capture a picture of the moon rising from the horizon

and set above a foreground landscape. Having already experimented I

found that the moon moves very quickly [esp with the earth moving too]

so a surprisingly fast shutter was required to avoid motion trail.

Wishing to achieve maximum sharpness over such distances meant that a

small aperture would also be needed. So, with this combination it

seems to be impossible to get a shot with enough exposure for the

foreground, and even if you did the moon would then be over-exposed.

So, I then decided a double exposure would be the best option, but I

am using digital! Can anybody give me some suggestions to render a

satisfactory result? I had considered painting the foreground with

torch/flash light but a fast shutter wouldn't allow enough time.

vivek iyer · June 25, 2005

Take two shots and combine them in PS. POW forum is full of such shots, you should know :-)

bruce_hooke · June 25, 2005

One trick is to make the photograph a day or so before the real full moon -- if you can get things right the moon will look full but the foreground will still have the light of the sun on it. The problem you are up against is that the moon is nearly as bright as a sunlit daylight scene. Depending on the scene a graduated neutral density filter might also work, but that, of course, compounds the problem of needing a fast shutter speed to capture the moon without motion trails.

lex_jenkins · June 25, 2005

There are some very recent discussions on the Nikon Forum related to photographing the moon. Perhaps you'll find some useful tips there.

bobatkins · June 25, 2005

Yup, just fake it like everyone else does. Not only is it easier, it will look a hell of a lot better too.

Here's a REAL moonrise.<div></div>

g1 · June 25, 2005

The whole point is that I want this picture, but I don't want to fake it. I love photoshop, have nothing against it, but I only pride myself in pictures captured in cam.

g1 · June 25, 2005

Thanks Lex, I'll take a look.... I never look there, being a Canon user.... :)

mark_chappell · June 25, 2005

I've only managed to do this once: moon very low on horizon, sufficient light on foreground

to give adequate exposure -- although fairly dark -- without blowing out the moon. Every

other attempt yielded either a well-exposed moon against a just-about-black background, or

a decently exposed landscape but a completely washed-out moon.

<A HREF = "http://www.biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/scenics/Dyer.html">Here is

the one that worked</a>.

vivek iyer · June 25, 2005

Well, then you should realize the limitations of a digicam for such photography and pick up an inexpensive film camera that will let you do multiple exposure on a single frame.

Having a bit more exposure lattitude does not hurt either.

g1 · June 25, 2005

Thank you Mark. So it is now possible! I am now looking at nothing to do with camera make/model, or the photoshop techniques!! The moon rises whilst the sun is still giving enough light to the landscape? So, what time of day and exposure settings are achieving the picture link you posted?

g1 · June 25, 2005

Vivek, thanks. If I cannot achieve with digital I will revert to film.

vivek iyer · June 25, 2005

G., I have been struggling with this kind of stuff as well (only to have the Sun(!) and not the Moon in a frame along with the foreground).

Still working on it. If I ever succeed, I will post it here.

g1 · June 25, 2005

Mark, your picture captures more detail than I can achieve in the foreground. For example, I figure a good time to capture is when the sun goes down and the moon rises [22/06/05 - sunset 21.27 - moonrise 22.41] in UK, but I only achieve <a href="http://www.photo-art-gallery.com/images/wingreen-moon.jpg" target="_blank">this result</a>. Not as good as yours. Plus this link is a result of PS brightening of the foreground whilst suppressing the highlights [ie moon], so this is a manipualted image. I really would like to achieve it all in cam without manipulation. Vivek, is the latitude of film able to do this?

jeff_conrad · June 25, 2005

It's not that difficult to get the correct exposure for the Moon and the

foreground; the trick is in choosing the right time so that the Moon and

foreground balance. More often than not, this means shooting on the day

before the full Moon, but the real idea is to have the Moon in the position

you want between zero and about 20 minutes after sunset. Closer to sunset

often is better for natural landscapes, and slightly later usually is

better for cityscapes (so that building lights are on).

The closer the Moon to the horizon, the more atmosphere its light passes

through, so the Moon gets brighter quite fast as it rises, increasing the

contrast between the Moon and the foreground. At 20 minutes after sunset,

this is a real issue because the Moon is rapidly getting brighter while the

sky and foreground are rapidly getting darker. In these circumstances, the

window for the right exposure can be as short as a minute or two.

Sometimes partial occlusion of the Moon by clouds can help avoid a Moon

that is completely textureless.

Nearly all of the Moon's motion results from Earth's rotation. The Moon

moves just over 0.24 deg, or just under half its diameter, per minute, so

long exposures usually don't work. Choose a time when the foreground is

light enough so that you don't need a long exposure. Unless you work at

high ISO, it probably will be difficult to use a small f-number. However,

if you want the Moon to appear large in the image, you need a long lens, so

that the "foreground" often will be quite distant, and great depth of field

may not be an issue. At ISO 100, I usually use anything between f/4 and

f/5.6 (and occasionally f/8), and seldom have a problem with DoF. YMMV, of

course.

You can get around the contrast issue to some extent by making two

exposures, one for the foreground and one for the Moon, and combining them

afterwards. If you want easy compositing, however, you need to make the

two exposures in rapid succession because the Moon moves so quickly.

Don't expect miracles from this approach if the sky is quite

dark, and especially there ares some clouds--the Moon must be at least as

bright as the clouds to be believable.

If the sky is clear, you can fake it, as Bob suggests, by combining a Moon

and foreground of your choice. If you do so, and want the image to look

believable, you need to be careful in matching the size of the Moon and the

direction of the foreground lighting. Many articles have been written on

how to do this.

I discuss Moon exposure in more detail at <a

href="http://www.calphoto.com/moon.htm">

http://www.calphoto.com/moon.htm</a>. One caveat: you always should take

calculated values of luminance and illuminance with a grain of salt, and

the values I give are no exception.

The image below was taken about 19 minutes after sunset, using Velvia 100F.

I spot metered the sky and placed it on Zone IV; I'm guessing that the Moon

fell on about Zone VII. Without the clouds, the Moon would have been

nearly without texture, and I don't think the image would have worked. Two

minutes later, the contrast was unmanageable, even with separate exposures

for the Moon and foreground.<div></div>

mark_chappell · June 25, 2005

I really would like to achieve it all in cam without manipulation.

I can't remember the details of my Dyer, Nevada moon image, but it was on Kodachrome

64

and an exposure of (very roughly) 1/60 at f5.6 or so. My image has been slightly

adjusted in Photoshop -- a little sharpening, a little additional hue, so it isn't

pure

in the sense that you may want. Still, the original slide is pretty good.

As Jeff says, it's just a matter of timing. In your example image I think the moon was too

high (therefore, it was brighter because it was viewed through less atmosphere, and the

landscape was darker because it was later after sunset than my image). And I've only

been able to achieve this once, despite a few other attempts.

jeff_conrad · June 26, 2005

I essentially agree with Mark's analysis, though I think the time after

sunset probably was the greater issue.

There's a fairly simple way to get at least a rough estimate of the best

days to photograph a rising Moon. As a general rule, a Full Moon rises

close to sunset, but the variation is enough that the day of the Full Moon

isn't always the best for balancing the Moon and foreground. A better

approach is to examine the difference between the time of moonrise and the

time of sunset. Because of the Moon's orbit around the Earth, the Moon

rises, on average, 50 minutes later each day. Consequently, in each month,

there is a day on which the Moon rises at or before sunset, followed by a

day on which the Moon rises at or after sunset. For a level horizon, the

best day to capture the Moon in a single exposure usually is one of these

two days. For example, for San Francisco in 2005:

<table>

<tr>

<th>Phase</th>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</table>

M Rise = Time of moonrise

S Set = Time of sunset

&nbsp t Diff = Time difference (moonrise − sunset)

Phase = Fraction of Moon illuminated (Full = 1.000)

A plus sign ('+') after the date indicates Daylight Saving Time; the sign

after the phase indicates that the Moon is waxing ('+') or waning

('−').

I usually like to have moonrise between 15 minutes before sunset and 10

minutes after sunset; from the table above, this gives six days (indicated

in bold) that represent good possibilities. Other people are less fussy

and give themselves more opportunities. The image I posted was taken on

3-25-2005.

If the horizon isn't level (e.g., the Moon rises behind a mountain), some

adjustments to the desired times obviously are needed. The Moon needs time

to go from the horizon to the altitude at which it becomes visible, so an

earlier time of moonrise usually is indicated. Allowing for the Moon's

motion is only part of the issue; because the Moon is higher in the sky

when it's first visible, it's brighter than when on the horizon, so it

usually is preferable to make the photograph closer to sunset than you

would do with a level horizon.

Nothing says that you can't photograph a rising Moon before sunset,

although the sky usually is less interesting, and when the Moon is just

above the horizon, it can be so faint that it's even difficult to spot.

Ansel Adams's <cite>Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico</cite> was made about

20 minutes before sunset, although the Moon was high enough in the sky

(about seven degrees) that visibility wasn't an issue. The drama in that

image was created by burning in the sky; a straight print from the negative

is rather mundane. The exposure for a moonrise prior to sunset is simple:

expose the same as for a normal landscape at that time of day.

jim_gifford · June 26, 2005

One more option, although somewhat difficult to arrange, is to light the landscape after sunset to balance the exposure for a comparatively too-bright moon.

As I told one fellow in a similar thread a year or two ago, you need a LOT of light for the landscape, and the procedure is this:

Synchronize your shutter with an airburst (at approximately 3,000 meters altitude) of a tactical nuclear weapon about ten kilometers behind your right shoulder. That should provide enough light for the landscape.

Call me before you do this, so I can be somewhere else that evening.

Be well,

g1 · June 26, 2005

Thanks for showing us your pic Jeff - it's a great example of what can be done making use of artifical lighting. Also thanks for the detailed post on moonrise/sunset.

Jim, do I throw a pinch of salt over my left shoulder at the same time??

bobatkins · June 27, 2005

This one's not photoshopped. However it's from a pre-digital time!

If you really want to do things the hard way just to prove to yourself you can do it, it's an interesting exercise, but these days, nobody else is going to care. In fact most people will probably chose a decent PhotoShop job that took 10 minutes over an image that you worked six months to get. Sad but true.

If you're just doing things for your own satisfaction though, do whatever it takes of course.<div></div>

vivek iyer · June 27, 2005

Fabulous shot, Bob!

josh1 · June 27, 2005

After seeing so many cut and paste photoshop moon pictures on photo.net its kinda refreshing to see some people still working at obtaining realistic looking ones. Nice work.

lex_jenkins · June 27, 2005

I usually prefer unadulterated photos but getting just the right shot of the moon at the horizon can be difficult, if not impossible, depending on where you live.

There have been cases where I've seen the moon oriented in a way behind a building or other structure that was really appealing, but either I didn't have a camera handy or the apparent size or phase of the moon wasn't quite right.

In case like this, I don't see any harm in using a few tricks to recreate what you already know exists in reality at certain times. It's not like pasting in Saturn where the moon should be.

jim_gifford · June 27, 2005

<<do I throw a pinch of salt over my left shoulder at the same time>>

If it works for you, sure.

The main thing is to synchronize the shutter carefully with the behind-and-above-you nuclear detonation. Bob Atkins' shot demonstrates what happens when your shutter is a little late... by the time his shutter opened, all the trees had been blown off the ridges in the foreground. Nothing left but the bare rock.

Pity...

vivek iyer · June 27, 2005

Jim, Postively shocking!

I did not expect you to give away ALL your technical secrets in one thread :-)

jeff_conrad · June 27, 2005

If the objective simply is to produce an image that contains a Moon, I

agree with Bob that compositing is by far the easier way to go. There's

nothing wrong with this approach; many amateur and commercial shooters,

including some big names, have used it for years. However, there still are

many shooters, amateur and commercial, who prefer to capture an event they

actually witnessed.

There still seems to be no agreement on what constitutes a "digitally

manipulated" image. I'm certainly not above combining two images to manage

contrast, and in a "fine art" shot, I have no problem removing extraneous

foreground clutter. Were I a realtor looking to sell a property, removing

the clutter and touching up blemishes on a building might raise serious

ethical (and legal) consequences, but that's another issue for another

time. I think Galen Rowell might have been a bit extreme in tagging

certain images as "digitally altered," but even he had no problem with

compositing a Moon image to manage contrast.

In the shot that I posted, I removed some lighted windows from a building

in the left foreground. It's nothing that I couldn't have done with a

mini-micro nuke, but even if such things existed, they'd be harder to come

by than Jim's fill-flash apparatus. Moreover, with the penalties for

domestic terrorism what they are, I didn't even want to think of going

there ...

Despite the slight alterations I made to that image, it's essentially what

I observed that night. The greatest deviation from "reality" probably was

my placement of the sky on Zone IV, which was at least half a step darker

than my actual perception of the scene. That decision represented a

personal preference that I've exercised since long before Photoshop came to

be.

It's something else entirely to produce an image of something that did not

(and perhaps could not) occur. An example might be the Moon above San

Francisco's Transamerica Building, viewed from Alamo Square (the one with

the four Victorian houses in the foreground): the Moon never gets that far

north. Here might be a case in which most people would prefer the

fabrication to the real thing in which the Moon was in a less dramatic

position; in any event, I'd guess that very few people ever would realize

that the fabrication was just that.

It's really not that difficult to get the exposure right for Moon just

above the horizon if you pick the right day. Getting an appealing

foreground may be another matter. Even if the desired foreground is

available, finding a day on which the Moon is in a specific position within

a certain time range relative to sunset (or sunrise) can be a real

challenge. One task, of course, is filtering the data to obtain a suitable

date; however, even with the appropriate tools, the dates that one obtains

may be few and far between.

An example might be a moonset over California's Mt. Whitney with alpenglow

on the summit; such a shot requires the Moon close to the summit at a time

very close to sunrise. I recently took seven years to get such a shot with

the Moon just where I wanted it. There were two good opportunities: the

first, planned two years in advance, was spoiled by the only overcast day

all week. The second, five years later, was successful, although the sky

was fairly mundane. I know several other photographers who have insisted

on the real thing for this shot, and waited patiently to get it, but I

suspect that the majority of published images have been "assisted." More

than a few people have suggested that I am nuts not to settle for a

composite. Perhaps they are right; however, my approach is my approach,

and I get the impression that at least some of the posters to this thread

have similar attitudes.

I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with a Moon shot

created totally in Photoshop; as with most things, it's a personal

decision. I would, however, disagree with someone who suggests that

restricting images to events actually witnessed is nuts. As always, YMMV.

Sign In

Exposure for capturing moon and landscape

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in