First Attempt at Moon Shots C&C Please

[dhilberg]

These actually look decent, but they are a bit soft and slightly over exposed.

The Moon is very bright... Both shots are over-exposed.

Neither shot is over-exposed. I checked the Levels in Photoshop.

They are overexposed to my liking. There is little detail, and the edge of the moon in both images looks nearly pure white to me, although the first one is slightly better, IMO. While I'm certainly no expert, the moon shots I have done have been actually slightly underexposed (according to levels) in order to bring out the detail of the very bright moon. Properly exposed for the given situation, in other words.

C&C was requested and given. YMMV.

 

[astrostu]

Neither shot is over-exposed. I checked the Levels in Photoshop.

They are overexposed to my liking. There is little detail, and the edge of the moon in both images looks nearly pure white to me, although the first one is slightly better, IMO. While I'm certainly no expert, the moon shots I have done have been actually slightly underexposed (according to levels) in order to bring out the detail of the very bright moon. Properly exposed for the given situation, in other words.

C&C was requested and given. YMMV.

The term "over-exposed" is a technical one that means saturated such that detail is not able to be seen due to a lack of ability to differentiate between the brightest pixels. Technically, it was not over-exposed.

Over-exposed for your tastes is a different, subjective thing. But, having a shorter exposure will not change the ability to differentiate between shades since all shades will simply be less, with the same linear difference between them, assuming a linear response from the CCD (which isn't exactly the case due to how it's processed on the camera, but that's a different issue).

To bring out detail in a non-over-exposed image such as the moon where you do have a significant brightness range over the subject, one can (should?) use Curves. That way you can ramp up the dynamic range of the limb while keeping the rest of the moon at a neutral gray shade.

 

[DennyCrane]

The bottom line is, less exposure would have given more details. The edges are blown out. If we're talking histograms, the start contrast of a black sky with an object that's arguably brighter than a sunlit beach, a histogram can and will fool you. A lower ISO and a faster shutter will bring out more detail in this situation.

 

[battletone]

Is f/8 really needed on moon pics? I thought I read it was ideal to shoot the fastest aperture (or a stop or so down to your lenses sharpest aperture), and then use a fast shutter speed.

?

 

[dhilberg]

The bottom line is, less exposure would have given more details. The edges are blown out. If we're talking histograms, the start contrast of a black sky with an object that's arguably brighter than a sunlit beach, a histogram can and will fool you. A lower ISO and a faster shutter will bring out more detail in this situation.

I agree. I understand that the image technically wasn't overexposed, as I also checked the histogram, but it's exposed so far to the right of the histogram that the details are lost in the nearly white areas of the moon. It's like trying to read the writing on the end of a lit light bulb. It's a little easier to see if the bulb isn't so bright.

 

[dhilberg]

Is f/8 really needed on moon pics? I thought I read it was ideal to shoot the fastest aperture (or a stop or so down to your lenses sharpest aperture), and then use a fast shutter speed.

?

The reason I suggested f/8 is because that's typically a very sharp aperture for most lenses. Technically what you should be doing is finding your particular lens's sharpest aperture--which is usually about two stops down from maximum (wide open) aperture--and using that. Check out Photozone.de for tests/reviews of quite a few lenses. The MTF (resolution) charts are what you're looking for.

Also check out astrostu's Moon guide: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/147712-lunar-moon-photography-guide-astrostu.html

 

[Stosh]

I agree. I understand that the image technically wasn't overexposed, as I also checked the histogram, but it's exposed so far to the right of the histogram that the details are lost in the nearly white areas of the moon. It's like trying to read the writing on the end of a lit light bulb. It's a little easier to see if the bulb isn't so bright.

If the image wasn't technically overexposed, then you can simply darken the picture to make it exposed to your liking. As long as none of the highlights were blown out, you shouldn't lose a thing by darkening the image, unless of course you darken so much you bring some of the pixels down to 0. You probably have lots of room to increase contrast if you please.

 

[Felix0890]

Keep in mind that if you are using a tripod, you should have all image stabilizing features off as they can introduce some blurring from the IS trying to counteract something that's not happening.

 

[DennyCrane]

There's a "rule of thumb" for moon photography... f/11, the "loony 11". Personally, I need a little more aperture opening and find f/8 much better. Maybe when attempting a full-moon, since that's extremely bright and detail is at it's most difficult.

 

[DennyCrane]

OK, this is straight out of the camera. No shopping, it's just been cropped:

f/8
1/80th second
ISO 100.
This, in my humble opinion, is a correct exposure of the Moon. I think the biggest thing Nokili can do for his shots is using ISO 100 instead of 200.

 

[Stosh]

Nice shot. What focal length?

 

[DennyCrane]

Thanks!
300mm

 

[dhilberg]

Looks great! Nice detail along the terminator.

 

[JLB]

Below...ISO200 F8 1/200

Below...ISO200 F8 1/10

Below...ISO200 F8 1/800