Moon shots....

[PhotoWorksbyDon]

<p>Hi, we've had a wonderful full moon here in the Bay Area. I've found that actually capturing the thing is far easier said than done and was hoping for some tips/</p>

<p>I've read a smaller aperture is best. I've also talked to some who say shooting it hand-held rather than with a tripod is best. At what ISO would work while still getting it tack-sharp?</p>

<p>Any other tips or suggestions appreciated!</p>

[phule]

<p>The same rules apply. For sharp photos, all things considered, it's best to shoot at 1/focal length. With crop-sensor cameras, 1/field of view is possibly better. </p>

<p>On a tripod, the Lunny 11 "rule" says f/11 at shutter speed of 1/ISO. Working out the equivalent exposure isn't that difficult, but here's a web app to help:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.calculator.org/calculate-online/photography/exposure.aspx">http://www.calculator.org/calculate-online/photography/exposure.aspx</a></p>

<p>It even has a "full moon" option in the drop down: "Subject in weak, hazy sun & Full Moon (as subject) </p>

<p>So, pick your focal length, calculate your field of view if using a crop-sensor camera, use that to pick your shutter speed, then work backward to your aperture and ISO. </p>

<p> </p>

[paddler4]

<blockquote>

<p>I've also talked to some who say shooting it hand-held rather than with a tripod is best.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a puzzle. Why? Unless a tripod won't work--e.g., a fast moving subject--a tripod gives greater stability and hence greater sharpness. That's why many landscape photographers always shoot with a tripod, even when using fast shutter speeds.</p>

 

[ajrobertson]

<p>Just for intersts sake, here are some shots and details form some of my recent lunar pics-you will not resolve a lot of detail until you get out into the 1000mm + focal length<br>

this is at 2032 mm thru my sct scope.<br>

Model: Canon EOS 40D;<br />ExposureTime: 1/200 s;<br />ISOSpeedRatings: 400;<br />ExposureProgram: Manual;<br />ExposureBiasValue: 0;<br />MeteringMode: Pattern;<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11807990-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p>

<p>this is at approx 600mm thru a smaller refractor<br>

Model: Canon EOS 40D;<br />ExposureTime: 1/125 s;<br />ISOSpeedRatings: 200;<br />ExposureProgram: Manual;<br />ExposureBiasValue: 0;<br />MeteringMode: Pattern;</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11534952-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="486" />a little overexposed here tho. remember at these focal lengths everything is conspiring against you! wind shutter shake, upper atmosphere jetstream speed etc etc etc.</p>

<p>have fun!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Don - I was surprised to learn that the preferred way of photographing the moon is with a telescope (okay, that's not so surprising), a web cam and some software. The reasoning is that, by merging a large number of images (which a web cam can keep streaming) you can get around atmospheric shimmer, as a poor man's version of the adaptive optics that large ground-based telescopes use. You can get resolution by stitching lots of images. The BBC's Sky At Night magazine has been doing a series on astrophotography - you might still find the relevant issue, or be able to get it as a back-issue. Good luck!<br />

<br />

However, all I personally have ever done is use a really long lens (in my case, 500mm f/4 and a 1.4x teleconverter, although that's still not really long enough on full-frame) and a DSLR. I was out on Wednesday night hoping to get a snap of the lunar eclipse, but I was clouded out.<br />

<br />

As Andrew R's shots show, while the full moon is spectacular, you'll usually get more interesting shots of the moon at any other time: when the sun is hitting it side-on, it's much easier to see the craters. (Btw, Andrew - nice shot of M42 that the forum decided to show me! I've had some success with a camera tripod and a big lens, but there's no substitute for a scope with a tracking mount - or a lot of stacking software.)</p>

[PhotoWorksbyDon]

<p>Thanks for all the pointers. The longest lens I now have is a 70-200 2.8L, no teleconverter, so I'm SOL for now on the mooning. The attached is the best I could get the other night.</p>

<p>Andrew - Incredible shots!</p><div></div>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>There are a number of things to consider, Don. Your 70-200 should be okay on a crop sensor [50D] but because you're going to crop later to make the Moon more prominent in your composition you have to get the best image first.</p>

<p>Consider atmospheric conditions, especially the differential between day and night temperatures. Larger temperature fluctuations cause distortion and diffraction in the atmosphere as the Earth releases the heat it accumulated during the day. That distortion is amplified by your focal length. You can minimize it by waiting for the Moon to be more directly overhead, which usually occurs later in the evening, after the distortion caused by thermal radiation has dissipated. The atmosphere functions as a lens/filter and by shooting when the Moon is low on the horizon it's equivalent to shooting across a lens rather than through it.</p>

<p>I like to shoot at f/11, 1/100th second at ISO 100, depending on atmospheric conditions and I typically shoot from a tripod with IS turned off. I also use Live View (zoomed to 10x) and manual focus to get the sharpest image. This typically generates an image that is between 1/2 and 1 stop under-exposed but the low ISO offers lots of latitude in processing. Also, being slightly under-exposed is preferred to to even slight over-exposure... for me.</p>

[ed_farmer]

<p>A few things that no one else pointed out . . . First the moon is lit by direct sunlight. Following the "sunny-16" or 11 rule will be a great starting point. Second, under all circustances, keep the shutter speed faster than 1/8 sec. The moon is actually moving fast enough to suffer motion blur at 1/8. </p>