Moon with Tree and Deep Blue Sky

Getting the foreground (the tree at possibly 50 feet) and the moon (at

infinity, of course) in focus simultaneously with a full-frame DSLR is

not easy. I used f/16 in this attempt, which I am told causes

significant diffraction effects which blur out detail. Here there is

also a wisp of a cloud across the middle of the moon, showing up as a

dark portion over the otherwise light area at center right. Wilson

Choi's POW of some years back shows how to get DOF so large that even

the near foreground and infinity can be in acceptable focus. Use a

point-and-shoot with a small sensor!

photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4280221 (That shot would, I believe,

be impossible with a large format camera.) Getting the sky and ground

lit up at once in a moon shot is an even greater challenge, almost

impossible after it gets too dark. Just before sunset to just after

sunset seems the best time (as well as corresponding times in the

morning), since the earth is still bright during those times.

(Afternoon can work, too, if one looks a bit higher and can get a

mountain, buliding, tree, etc.) Here is a classic by PN's own Judy

Hamilton on her off-campus link:

heyjude.smugmug.com/San-Diego/I-See-the-Moon-on-Pacific/6250686_Uofdx/1/394863992_yn9Da/Original

Here is a No Words thread that shows some great work (although one of

mine--not so great--is on here, too): photo.net/no-words-forum/00Ytn9

Judy's appears here, too. Thom Polimeros' beautiful lead-off shot

shows that blowing out the moon is not always fatal to a good

earth-moon shot.

 I miss the clouds, but I generally prefer this version to the other that I commented on in which the vegetation was indistinct and the moon was completely white.  I haven't yet seen the other links you provided, but I generally believe the best approach to this scene with the distance and light differences you described it to blend two shots made at two different exposures and distance settings.  Admittedly, I've never done that, but it's what I think I should do, despite the extra computer work.

Thanks, Stephen.  Yes, blending two shots is very popular, but for some reason I am intrigued by the challenge of getting it all in one exposure.  Don't ask me why--although I think that the shots shown in the links indicate that it can be done and done well with one exposure.

My own rule is that, when Photoshop is used, it should (in general) be used to make the photo look more natural, not less.   That can work with moon-earth shots, I am sure, but sometimes they come off as obviously manipulated.

I often violate my own rules, of course.  Why should I become a slave to one of my own creations (in this case a rule which I have made up for myself)?

--Lannie

Hi Lannie,

Nice setting.

Now if the tress were at least 500 feet way, then the Infinity focus would provide good focus for both the moon and the tress with the focal length used.

On my older lens, the distance scales are accurate. If a subject is 20 feet away, I can easily improve my effective DOF by focusing on a further distant subject and stop down to cover a boarder range, say from 20 feet to Infinity. This way, I do not have to stop down the lens to very small apertures. As for DOF as a function of focal length, my shortest lens (Fisheyes) start with a 2 feet to Infinity  with any stopping down !

I like this scene , as the background blue is rich in its appearance, too.

Best Regards,  Mike

Thanks for the tips, Mike, and the other comments as well.

--Lannie

Lannie

This is a lovely image with the deep blue sky and soft white light.  I can see the man in the moon Lannie... do you see him?

Right in the center, I see two large eyes set close together, a small nose and a mouth opened as if he is speaking. 

deb

Thanks, Deb.  Yes, I can see him.  The moon speaks to me, too.

--Lannie