Not Your Daddy's Moon Shot

--Lannie

very good.  the moon is surprisingly easy to take pictures of with relatively long lenses.  the Sigma must be very nice.  best, j

Nice!  You were right about the sky color...

Landrum,

The full moon can easily be recorded at 1/5000 second exposure using your lens at F/4, ISO 400.

 Stopping down only increase the exposure and does not improve DOF. Your lens will not show much chromatic aberration that F/4 would be required, either.

This image could have been done at F/2.8, 1/1000 second. The result would have shown some details on the moon, as well as the same background seen in this image.

A 1/2 second exposure with a 300mm lens can reveal motion blur due to the Earth's rotation, too.

I like the image, though.

Best Regards,  Mike

Thanks, Mike.

I typically like to shoot the moon at f/16 because the sun is shining directly on the moon.  When I am trying to get the foreground in focus as well, some stopping down is absolutely necessary, depending on how close the objects in the foreground are.   Last night I was at times stopping down to the smallest aperture I had.  What impelled me to select the particular exposure variables of this shot is beyond me.

Some of the others in the folder turned out better, but I wanted to be in place an hour earlier, so that I could get the sun and the earth in the same shot.  Unfortunately, an hour earlier there were some pretty thick clouds, and so I only got my first shots in just about three minutes before the sun set--and the moon (a day short of full) was already high in the sky, so that I could not catch the trees and  houses across the lake in the same shot.  So I went for the nearest tree, which was far too close.  Why I chose f/4?  I don't remember doing so.  If I had wanted a close tree in focus along with the moon, f/4 would never have given me that.

Jamie, my goal is to shoot more shots with the moon up while the sun is also up so that I can get both in the same exposure.  I have done that before, of course, but not with anything particularly worth capturing on the ground--an old barn or two is all that i have been able to find.  One of these days I will get a moon shot worth remembering.

--Lannie

Diane, all that I can say about the sky color is that deep blue well after sunset is only possible with a substantial overexposure.  I think that f/4 could work, but it was not a choice I remember making.  At times I was shooting manually, and the rest of the time I was shooting aperture priority.  I tried a lot of combinations of the three exposure variables (f-stop, shutter speed, ISO), but I don't remember selecting the ones for this shot, and I cannot imagine why I ever would.  So, something went awry, but it is at least not the worst moon shot I have ever made, if only because the clouds are interesting against the blue sky.

Had I stopped down and gotten the tree in focus, I think that I could have gotten a first class piece of kitsch here--but at f/4 and ISO 400 that would have meant a long exposure, since the tree was so close.

--Lannie

good to have goals.  the more arbitrary the better!  honestly, this one is fantastic.  better if you had exposed for the moon and pulled the rest up.  digital is so unforgiving at the top.  best, j

Jamie, here is something you posted on a shot of mine last fall shot at night:

The data came from an article that you cited on Photo Techniques.

It looks like I will have to start shooting with wider apertures.  I will be glad to concede that I should not have stopped down so much  in either shot.

--Lannie

I knew about this issue (I have taught optics at university level), but for a magazine to write about it is amazing.  Camera designers do know about it.  At least one of the compact Canons deploys a neutral density filter in bright light instead of stopping down.  After people learn that stopping down makes pictures sharper, they never forget.  Hazards of simple rules.  best, j

Thanks, Jamie.  I might just opt for the print and on-line versions.  It looks really, really good from what I have read so far.

It makes me wonder: why don't you write the DEFINITIVE book on digital photography, and call it Electric Pictures?

You have the expertise to do it, and you know the literature.  It would sure help a lot of us autodidacts out here.

--Lannie