dan_mays1 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 <p>I was taking a picture of the "supermoon" the other evening and it came out ok. I was taking it from under a tree. It was a very large tree (largest pecan tree I have ever seen). However, the tree came out much darker than I wanted. I am wondering what I could have done to make the tree show up a little more. Would a longer shutter have accomplished this? I have four pictures of it here. I am not really looking for a crituque as much as advice. So, I hope this is the right forum for that. If not, let me know. Thanks!<br> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/austindan/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/austindan/</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjoder Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 <p>Dan, the basic problem is the tremendous difference between the bright light of the Moon and the very dark tones of the tree. It is a dynamic range the camera cannot capture in one shot. To expose each correctly would require very different shutter/aperture combinations. In your images it looks like you found kind of a middle ground--the Moon is overexposed and the tree is underexposed. Yes, a longer shutter speed would have revealed more of the tree, but at the expense of really blowing out the Moon. Here is one possible answer: Take two images, one exposed correctly for the Moon and another exposed as you wish for the tree, then blend the two in Photoshop. Other, more experienced folks I am sure will weigh in on this...BTW, for shooting the Moon, just use the SEARCH feature on this site and look for "photographing the Moon" or some such phrase. There are a variety of techniques out there.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJG Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 <p>The brightness range of the scene exceeds the ability of the sensor to capture it. A couple of suggestions: (1) Try HDR, where you make multiple exposures and combine them in Photoshop or other software to retain the detail you saw in the tree while not burning out the moon or (2) Use fill flash to light the tree slightly so as to retain detail. A longer exposure would probably eliminate any detail in the moon if it gave you actual detail in the tree.<br> This is a classic example of the difference between how we see and how the camera works--our eyes and brain do a great job of adjusting exposure for the individual things we want to see in a scene while the camera has to make one exposure for the entire scene and if the brightness range exceeds that of the sensor or film, then something will be too dark or too light.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_harvey3 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 <p>You would have to try a double-HDR technique, all done on a tripod without moving the camera. Bracket 3 shots for the moon exposure and then 3 shots for the tree exposure. Blend in Photoshop using the best tree shot and the best moon shot. Tricky, but it should be do-able. The range of brightmess between the tree and the lunar disk far exceeds the dynamic range of the sensor.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_mays1 Posted March 30, 2011 Author Share Posted March 30, 2011 <p>I havn't tried the HDR technique yet. This might be something good for me to test it out on. Although there will not be another "Supermoon" for 18 yrs, the moon comes up from that area every night. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_gaunt Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 <p>Given that the 'supermoon' was not noticably larger than any other (honest!) just try again next month and lie about it. The fill flash and HDR suggestions are good. However, I'd at least partly solve the problem by not waiting until it had gone properly dark before taking the pic. A lot of the best night photos are actually taken at twilight.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 <p>Another thought, depending on the background is to expose properly for the moon (try the sunny 16 or 11 rule), and use a flash for the tree, but dial down the power of the flash ( or cover it with a handkerchief) so the light it delivers is about 1.5-2 stops less than what you are using to expose the moon.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_smyth Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 <p>Can anyone recommend some HDR tutorials for taking the pictures? I'm fine with Photoshop, but just starting with photography.</p> <p>I tried taking some pictures of the moon with my Nikon D5000 and my 18~105 lens, but didn't get anything decent.<br> The best shot I managed to get was this one (Renegade is me):</p> <p> http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=26114.msg243041#msg243041</p> <p>Not very good. :(</p> <p>But I did take lots and I did use a tripod. I'm not sure if I did anything right so that I could do some HDR in Photoshop.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 You have very nice exposure for the moon in that shot. You have to remember that the moon moves across the sky. It will move rather quickly in the frame if using a long telephoto. HDR involves using a tripod and taking several shots at different exposures. On static scenes, the frame registration of elements in the scene will be the same. Set up your tripod and aim a telephoto lens at the moon. Place one of your focus points on the very edge of the moon. Turn away for about ten or fifteen seconds and then look in the viewfinder again. You will see that the moon has moved off the focus point. How far depends on the focal length of the telephoto lens you are using. If you want to use HDR with the moon you should be very fast in changing the exposure settings before the moon can move. I can see no value in using HDR for straight moon shots. If you want to include a lot of foreground or night sky clouds in the photo then that is a different story. James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_smyth Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 <p>> You have very nice exposure for the moon in that shot.</p> <p>Thanks James! It's good to know that I did something right in my 30 or 40 shots that I took! :)</p> <p>Thanks for the pointers as well. I'll be keeping those in mind in the future.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now