• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why is it so hard to take pictures of the moon?

shark: don't bother with tripod. for the best pics, use a fast shutter speed, and a low EV.

edit: around the range of 200 for the shutter speed and -1 for the EV
 
200?

We're using B and holding down for 1-2 sec LOL.

I would like to catch a nice moonset at sea but that is going to be hard without fast shutter.
 
err, 200 = 200th of a second.

the problem with moonsets is that you need to use a fast shutter speed to make sure the moon isn't over-exposed and a slow shutter speed to make sure that you capture the clouds with the moonrays shining off them. i would suggest something like 1/2 second exposure time with a -2EV - or however low that goes.

depending on the camera you're using, you may be able to use exposure bracketing (which takes three shots at -x EV, 0 EV, and +x EV) and then merge the two together to get both the clouds and the face of the moon. or alternatively, use a center-weighed metering mode or spot metering mode (the camera adjusts the EV automatically depending on how bright the moon is)
 
Originally posted by: MeanMeosh
err, 200 = 200th of a second.

the problem with moonsets is that you need to use a fast shutter speed to make sure the moon isn't over-exposed and a slow shutter speed to make sure that you capture the clouds with the moonrays shining off them. i would suggest something like 1/2 second exposure time with a -2EV - or however low that goes.

depending on the camera you're using, you may be able to use exposure bracketing (which takes three shots at -x EV, 0 EV, and +x EV) and then merge the two together to get both the clouds and the face of the moon. or alternatively, use a center-weighed metering mode or spot metering mode (the camera adjusts the EV automatically depending on how bright the moon is)
Click to expand...

Great tip, thanks :thumbsup:. Hafta remember that next time I'm taking night shots.
 
Canon 1Ds and Digital Rebel.

Another thing is I'm never on land when it's the best time to snap.

I guess I'll have to wait for lightning. That's next on the plate.
 
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
Canon 1Ds and Digital Rebel.

Another thing is I'm never on land when it's the best time to snap.

I guess I'll have to wait for lightning. That's next on the plate.
Click to expand...

aww damn, that's hard too =D i've tried that so many times - like i'd take 200 pics of a lightning storm and maybe 20 will contain actual lightning. long exposures (think 30 seconds) and as low a EV as possible
 
The problem with automatic cameras is that people stop thinking about what they are doing. No not a knock at you, but this is definately a case of camera on, brain off 😛


Think of what you are photographing. The moon is a neutral gray object illuminated by direct light. For the full moon, the "sunny 16 rule" is a good starting place.

Check out the whole site about the moon

Now there are a lot of variables. Moon phase etc, but none of this is programmed well into any camera. You will have to (gasp) manually override the settings 😛
 
With all our high powered telescopes, why are there no closeup pictures of the stuff leftover from previous moon landings?
 
Originally posted by: HomerJS
With all our high powered telescopes, why are there no closeup pictures of the stuff leftover from previous moon landings?
Click to expand...

no point in taking them, im sure they exist, however you need 1 hell of a telescope to do that with, the observatory at my college had a 3 meter telescope and you wouldent be able to spot that stuff with it
 
Originally posted by: MeanMeosh
Originally posted by: Anubis
Its Not

another
Click to expand...

hey anubis, what kinda telescope are you using for those pics? what camera? are you using a t-mount adapter to mate the eyepiece and the lens?
Click to expand...

not useing a telescope at all

took those with a Nikon D70 and a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G lens, @ 300m, pretty sh!tty lens as well, i canprob get much better results with the 100-300f/4

used a tripod, shuter was like 1/125 or so, I dont think it was as high as 1/200 , f/8-11 range
 
Originally posted by: HomerJS
With all our high powered telescopes, why are there no closeup pictures of the stuff leftover from previous moon landings?
Click to expand...

Because nothing is that high powered.
 
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: MeanMeosh
Originally posted by: Anubis
Its Not

another
Click to expand...

hey anubis, what kinda telescope are you using for those pics? what camera? are you using a t-mount adapter to mate the eyepiece and the lens?
Click to expand...

not useing a telescope at all

took those with a Nikon D70 and a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G lens, @ 300m, pretty sh!tty lens as well, i canprob get much better results with the 100-300f/4

used a tripod, shuter was like 1/125 or so, I dont think it was as high as 1/200 , f/8-11 range
Click to expand...

hmm, what zoom ratio does the 70-300 produce? that works out to be 4.3x, right? so, are those just a crop from the full-size pic then?
 
Originally posted by: MeanMeosh
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: MeanMeosh
Originally posted by: Anubis
Its Not

another
Click to expand...

hey anubis, what kinda telescope are you using for those pics? what camera? are you using a t-mount adapter to mate the eyepiece and the lens?
Click to expand...

not useing a telescope at all

took those with a Nikon D70 and a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G lens, @ 300m, pretty sh!tty lens as well, i canprob get much better results with the 100-300f/4

used a tripod, shuter was like 1/125 or so, I dont think it was as high as 1/200 , f/8-11 range
Click to expand...

hmm, what zoom ratio does the 70-300 produce? that works out to be 4.3x, right? so, are those just a crop from the full-size pic then?
Click to expand...

zoom ratio? just do the division, i never think about that, zoom ratios are something that is reserved for P&S cameras both digital and non digital

i just know the length and the relative FOV the lens gives me

and no they arent just crops, i enlarged the crops to what they are now, nearly 2x i beleive
 
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: MeanMeosh
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: MeanMeosh
Originally posted by: Anubis
Its Not

another
Click to expand...

hey anubis, what kinda telescope are you using for those pics? what camera? are you using a t-mount adapter to mate the eyepiece and the lens?
Click to expand...

not useing a telescope at all

took those with a Nikon D70 and a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G lens, @ 300m, pretty sh!tty lens as well, i canprob get much better results with the 100-300f/4

used a tripod, shuter was like 1/125 or so, I dont think it was as high as 1/200 , f/8-11 range
Click to expand...

hmm, what zoom ratio does the 70-300 produce? that works out to be 4.3x, right? so, are those just a crop from the full-size pic then?
Click to expand...

zoom ratio? just do the division, i never think about that, zoom ratios are something that is reserved for P&S cameras both digital and non digital

i just know the length and the relative FOV the lens gives me

and no they arent just crops, i enlarged the crops to what they are now, nearly 2x i beleive
Click to expand...

oh ok, that makes a lot more sense. i was thinking 4.3x optical zoom, combined with a 6MP crop - and your moon pic still looks a lot bigger than my moon pics (i'm talking pixel-wise, i'm using a sony f717, which is 5MP and 5x optical zoom - equivalent of a 38-190). but if you enlarged it 2x, that works out to 300mm at 8.6x total zoom, which explains why your pics are so big =)
 
I seriously doubt the moon moves that much in 1000mS.

The ship moves a hell of lot more.

Take a look at this. Look at the numbers. That is caused by pitching. Camera was on a tripod but there you see the blurriness.
 
Originally posted by: MeanMeosh
shark: don't bother with tripod. for the best pics, use a fast shutter speed, and a low EV.

edit: around the range of 200 for the shutter speed and -1 for the EV
Click to expand...

I do long exposures with a tripod and they seem to come out fine. Might have to do with the brightness and using autofocus.
 
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
I seriously doubt the moon moves that much in 1000mS.

The ship moves a hell of lot more.

Take a look at this. Look at the numbers. That is caused by pitching. Camera was on a tripod but there you see the blurriness.
Click to expand...

thats because of camera shake, you bump the camera when you press the shutter and the camera shakes, that is what caused that bluryness

that is why they make remotes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top