Learning how to shoot the moon

[Peeb]

Getting tons of great info here. I never thought about how a less-than-full moon actually has more shadows-craters-character. Shot this tonite and stacked 10 images with Registax freeware. Didn't know you could get this much detail from a consumer grade dx lens!

 

[Peeb]

I found Registax to be REALLY tricky to use and tweak. Any hints?

 

[katsrevenge]

I'm going to have to try this software! I love shooting the moon but I can never get it to look right.

 

[Peeb]

Just FYI, here is the 'before', uncropped and without processing:

 

[katsrevenge]

That looks a lot like some of the stuff I get with my 'long lens' Nikon p600. Here's one of them. My issue is the noise.

Yours look cleaner, I think.

 

[Peeb]

That looks a lot like some of the stuff I get with my 'long lens' Nikon p600. Here's one of them. My issue is the noise.

Yours look cleaner, I think.

The sensor on the D5500 is way bigger which no doubt helps. The lens on that p600 is pretty amazing, tho!

 

[katsrevenge]

I have so much fun with it. It's smaller/lighter so it's easier to throw in my bag than my DSLR. The 'moon' setting can do some artistic effects too.

I'd like to get a real zoom lens but... this is a hobby and I like doing things like not eating ramen. And I already have a bridge cam that takes semi-decent night photos.

 

[bulldurham]

f:/8 1/250, ISO 400 handheld...D7100 w 28-300mm at 300mm

"Super Moon"

Two weeks ago. One in daylight 4:01 pm, one at 12:35 am both handheld. Last two were shot with the D810 and 200-500mm at 500mm. Could they have been better with a tripod.sure, but it's a moon and if I want to count every crater then I'll go to Mt Palomar and have a serious look through a telescope.

 

[astroNikon]

That looks a lot like some of the stuff I get with my 'long lens' Nikon p600. Here's one of them. My issue is the noise.

Yours look cleaner, I think.

The photo is interesting. It shows good detail along the left edge and bottom but everything else is washed out.
If you took a photo of a brick wall from a distance I'm curious how that would come out once zoomed in.

 

[KmH]

Yo!
Put on your sock suspenders so your socks don't get blown off by these moon photos.
Just note that Damian uses a telescope as a camera lens.
Courses in Astrophotography
Do a forum search of threads started by a former TPF member - astrostu. He posted a good How To thread about photographing the moon with a DSLR and lens.

 

[katsrevenge]

That looks a lot like some of the stuff I get with my 'long lens' Nikon p600. Here's one of them. My issue is the noise.

Yours look cleaner, I think.

The photo is interesting. It shows good detail along the left edge and bottom but everything else is washed out.
If you took a photo of a brick wall from a distance I'm curious how that would come out once zoomed in.

If the weather permits I'd be happy to shoot at the neighbor's brick garage tomorrow if you'd like. LOL I know long lens bridge cams do have distortion but I'm not sure that is it. I *think* that the moon was just really bright in that spot and it washed it out. It was not completely full that night either. I have the 'digital zoom nonsense turned off BTW, it didn't look that great.

 

[TCampbell]

The exposure for the moon uses the "Loony 11" rule -- which says that if you use f/11 then the shutter speed is the inverse of the ISO setting. E.g. ISO 100 uses 1/100th. ISO 200 uses 1/200th, etc.

You don't have to use f/11... but if you use a different f-stop then you need to trade your stops of exposure accordingly. E.g. f/8 is 1 stop increase in light vs. f/11, so you'd reduce the shutter speed to collect 1 stop less light to "balance the books" by shooting at 1/200th (if using ISO 100).

I never bother to stack for the moon. If the seeing conditions are so bad that I need to use stacking on the moon then it's a good sign that I should probably just wait for a better night.

Planets are another thing... they need stacking.

The moon's "angular" width measures roughly 1/2º (about 30 arc-minutes) from edge to edge.
Jupiter's "angular" width measures merely 42" (arc-seconds) from edge to edge (60 arc-seconds are in just 1 arc-minute and the moon is 30 arc-minutes wide).

That means that while Jupiter is, in reality, much larger than the moon... it's so much farther away, that it appears much much tinier than our moon.

And THAT means that you'll need to magnify Jupiter quite a bit more (nearly 43x larger) to get it in scale to the size of the moon. Atmospheric distortions will have a much more significant effect on the planets than it has on the moon. So when you image planets, you normally do take about a minute's worth of video (30 seconds might be enough) and then use stacking software such as Registax or AutoStakkert. There are numerous YouTube tutorial videos on how to use these if you're having difficulty with them.

Here's a sample following the "Loony 11" rule (ISO 100, 1/100th sec, f/11). This is a single exposure (not a stacked image).


First Quarter Moon by Tim Campbell, on Flickr

 

[Peeb]

Unstacked image tonite: