Cloudy Night in Southern Arkansas

I am new to the world of photography. I have been wanting a good 35mm

for a long time coming. But being that I am a computer techy, a

digital camera better soots my needs. I did not get the results I was

wanting with this picture. I was trying to get a more detailed shot

of the moon, but couldn't get my Nikon CoolPix 880 to do that. There

are all types of settings on the camera that I have no idea what they

do. All I know is that I didn't have the flash on ;)

Any suggestions on how to get a more detailed shot of the moon with

this particular camera? Or is it possible?

Any comments are welcomed!

Thanks,

Alan Vallance

alanv72@ccc-cable.net

Though you apparently wanted a detailed shot of the moon, I like this shot. Very moody. Admittedly, it would be nicer if the moon wasn't washed out and if some extreme cropping was done (I'm thinking at least half of the picture in area has to go).

What were the technical details of the shot? The branches look sharp, but the clouds appear motion-blurred. Thus, I'm guessing that you used a tripod, and that the Nikon used a long exposure time. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that, for a detail shot of the moon, you would need a fast shutter speed (since the moon moves). I bet other people can give you better advice.

You have discovered the first great truth of photography. No matter whether you are shooting film or CCD (digital)...no camera can do what our eyes can.

Any given picture can only capture a certain range of light. I believe they are called EVs (exposure values).

On one end of the spectrum is a dark forest, where the camera is having to strain to take in enough light to capture the details of the wood and earth. This is where a tripod comes in handy, as the longer the lens is open, the more light the camera can gather-the tradeoff being that the camera has to be held still.

On the other end of the spectrum is a prominant source of light, such as the sun or....that's right...the moon. Compared to it's surrounding environment, the moon's light is almost blinding at night. Just as your eyes would, the camera must squint to limit the amount of light flooding into it so that it can make out details. If the camera isn't allowed to squint, then the details are washed out because of the amount of light, just as your moon was in this shot.

This concept of straining and squinting, as I think about it, is all there is to exposure (the setting of shutter speed and aperture).

In this shot, it looks as though your camera was straining to make out the gorgious details of the clouds and trees, thus....the moon gets washed out. Had you been able to tell your camera that the moon was what you were most interested in (i.e. setting the exposure for the moon instead of the clouds)...you might've gotten a lot more detail of the moon, but the surrounding clouds and trees would be virtually black.

This is an excellent shot, and many photographers forgive a washed out light source such as the moon and simply focus on the scene as a whole.

Fortunately, because you are digitally literate (I assume)...you can use a new set of tools and have the best of both worlds.

Say you had taken that shot twice. The exact same composition both times, but for the first shot you would do the exact same thing you did for this picture, that is, expose for the trees and clouds. In the second shot, you ignore the clouds and "tell" your camera to expose for the moon. It is possible that you may need to put some sunglasses on your camera (i.e. a neutral density filter) in order to close off enough light to get the details, but it is possible. You get home, load the two images onto your computer, and use a photo editor such as Photoshop to cut the moon out of the second shot and superimpose it over the first "moonshot".

Once you understand the limitations of lighting imposed by your equipment, your mind will be set free to create the images you see with your eyes on whatever equipment you are blessed to be using.

Best of luck, and keep clicking.

Don