Not a good pic, but tech questions related

[Shutterinsect]

I actually like the first photo...

 

[dtornabene1]

Tom,

The polarizer was not a bad idea. It can stop down exposures allowing for longer shutter times. Better in this case is a neutral density filter. Either case, There is a great article addressing many of your questions in Popular Photography entitled The Five Second Rule. The article is in the February 2009 edition written by Dan Richards.

I think you would find this article very interesting. As far as setting to infinity, BigMike and others that commented are absolutely correct. Canon has always (at least since the EF mounts) given room past infinity.

I am not convinced this would be the best solution though. Looking at the first photograph, I like the trees just in front of the moon crisp and focused. Just an opinion.

Remember though, regardless of your temptation to stop down via aperture to get a longer exposure, you actually will loose sharpness. I won't bother explaining why here, most know this already.

I think what this photograph really needs is bracketing and made into a HDR. This way the trees lit by the street light and the moon get a different exposure than the sky. That would make for a great image!

-Nick

 

[Tom3]

Thanks for the info Nick; I think you're right this would have been a good candidate for HDR. The moon that day seemed huge, so I kind of rushed as I had little time and did not want to miss it; as a result I did not really think it properly.
Next full moon, I'l try to make some HDR shots and also I'll have read the article you refer to by then!

 

[dtornabene1]

Thanks for the info Nick; I think you're right this would have been a good candidate for HDR. The moon that day seemed huge, so I kind of rushed as I had little time and did not want to miss it; as a result I did not really think it properly.
Next full moon, I'l try to make some HDR shots and also I'll have read the article you refer to by then!

No problem Tom! But don't get me wrong, I don't think the first photograph is crap. I like it. I am not sold on the blue dot resulting as a fault of the polarizer. This looks like lens flare to me, most likely from the bright moon.

Either way, it is an easy fix. You don't have to go and re-shoot. If you have the image in RAW, make 3-4 exposures of the image and combine as a HDR image.

I think you might be surprised how much detail you will regain in the blown moon. Even if the moon itself is flat white, getting a circular outline would greatly improve the image. This is completely salvageable.

You rushed! How dare you! You know as a photographer you have hours upon hours to get a shot. No worries, I think you did fantastic, for what ever that is worth.

As an after-thought, here is a great explaination on HDR images:

http://www.popphoto.com/howto/3038/how-to-create-high-dynamic-range-images.html


-Nick

http://www.popphoto.com/howto/3038/how-to-create-high-dynamic-range-images.html

 

[Tom3]

I wish I had had the time... I've shot the second half of the series in raw, but I think they're mostly moon shots and the tree's not in. I'll look into that.

I've done quite a few HDR photos before, but never made several exposures from the same RAW file. Essentially the RAW file is simply a 12 bit / color instead of 8 bit so while there is obviously more info stored, I don't know if it'll work for these extremes (dark night, very bright moon), but if I find a good shot that I have in RAW, I'll give it a try and post it.

 

[Dionysus]

i dont think you need hdr...are you trying to capture a detailed moon? if so your exposures are way too long..people take for granted how bright the moon TRULY is, just because its out at night...especially a full moon.

Spot meter on the moon itself, and base your exposure on that, and id be surprised if your exposure is even close to being 1 second.

if you're exposing for just the moon that is.

 

[Tom3]

I did some moon only shots where I wanted details, and the exposure was very short, but I wanted the trees as well; so I guess, as Nick said, HDR might be the way to go, or maybe simply two shots put together in PS might have worked as well...

need to wait for the next full moon though

I noticed that the mirror lock feature really made a difference when shooting the moon; I had never used it before, but I see now that with such a long distance it matters.

 

[Dionysus]

whats even better, and is helpful to have around for any tripod shot, is a wireless trigger.

 

[dtornabene1]

I wish I had had the time... I've shot the second half of the series in raw, but I think they're mostly moon shots and the tree's not in. I'll look into that.

I've done quite a few HDR photos before, but never made several exposures from the same RAW file. Essentially the RAW file is simply a 12 bit / color instead of 8 bit so while there is obviously more info stored, I don't know if it'll work for these extremes (dark night, very bright moon), but if I find a good shot that I have in RAW, I'll give it a try and post it.

Hey Tom,

RAW is way more than bit count. It is the data the sensor recorded at the time of the shot. No compression and all (basically) digital affects on the image can be removed or changed without any loss of information. Far more than just a bit count.

By-the-way, you can get higher bit count images from RAW images themselves.

-Nick

 

[Tom3]

right, the lack of compression / processing can make a difference in some cases, but in the case of exposure for this picture, the bit count is really what matters.
I'll look into it tonight to see if it's possible to get both the details on the moon and the tree properly exposed

 

[Sw1tchFX]

When shooting the moon, you can't have long expsoures, you can see it in the 2nd pic, the earth just moves too fast.

Spot meter, shoot at ISO 100 or 200, f/8, go from there, if you need foreground detail, pull out your remote and do a long exposure, in photoshop, mask out the sky for whatever your real moon exposure was, and call it good.

 

[Tom3]

I did not realize the earth rotation would be significant, but it seems so.

After talking to you guys, I can't wait till the new full moon now

 

[Josh66]

whats even better, and is helpful to have around for any tripod shot, is a wireless trigger.

I think the next accessory I'm going to buy is a wired remote.
I love my wireless one, but it only works when you point it at the front of the camera...

 

[OldClicker]

I think the next accessory I'm going to buy is a wired remote.
I love my wireless one, but it only works when you point it at the front of the camera...

These work great. I have one for a Canon XTi and a Sony A350. 100 yards, through walls, any position. The receiver is light enough to just hang from the connector. - TF

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Wireless-Release-Digital-Powershot/dp/B001136Z0O/ref=sr_1_30?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1232063816&sr=8-30]Amazon.com: Opteka Wireless Radio Remote Release for Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT, XTi, XS, XSi & Powershot G10 Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics[/ame]

 

[Bigpopa]

I like this shot myself its got a erie feel to it........