Full Moon, Textured!

[DGMPhotography]

Hey guys, just thought I'd post my results of some photographing of the moon lately! I took your advice and increased my shutter speed. Believe it or not, I actually had to go up to 1/4000 of a second.... which I thought would be stupidly fast for a night shot, but it worked and I finally got that texture I've been looking for!



It looks pretty good if you don't view full-view, otherwise, I had to do a ton of cropping to get this, but now I know how so if/when I get a longer zoom lens I can definitely do some cool stuff!

So what do you think?

 

[Light Guru]

It's not "textured" it's out of focus.

Use a tripod.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I did use a tripod. And it was at 1/4000 of a second which wouldn't require a tripod anyway. It looks out of focus because this is probably a 1000th the size of the image.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Well maybe not a 1000th, but this is the original image.

 

[ceeboy14]

Why were you shooting at 1/4000? And, what lens were you using? I generally shoot at f/11 1/250 ISO 400 and get reasonably sharp, clear shots. With the exception of the daytime shot, I always use a tripod and remote release. Lens creep is often the biggest problem but at 1/250th it's rarely an issue. Some of the less sharply focused ones were shot with my old Tamron 70-300 POS some with my Nikkor 55-300, substantially better and if it wasn't colder than a brass monkey's private parts, I would have given it a go last night with the 70-200 2.8.

Moon & Venus
hand held at 1/1000 f/13

 

[480sparky]

Why were you shooting at 1/4000? And, what lens were you using?

Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D5100
Lens: 18.0-55.0 mm f/3.5-5.6
Image Date: 2013-03-26
Focal Length: 55mm (35mm equivalent: 82mm)
Aperture: f/5.6
Exposure Time: 0.0003 s (1/4000)
ISO equiv: 800
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Software: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.2 (Macintosh)


Unless you're shooting with a pencil-eraser-sized sensor, 55mm is way to short a focal length to be shooting the moon with and expect any detail. With info like this, I see no reason to use ISO 800 and 1/4000. ISO 100 and 1/500 would have been my choice.

 

[amolitor]

He was thinking nighttime -> high ISO, and then wound up with this ridiculous shutter speed.

The moon is lit by the sun, it's in daylight. Daylight exposure rules apply. 1/ISO at f/16 or a bit more exposure, is what you're looking for.

And yeah, you need a longer lens to shoot the moon.

 

[jwbryson1]

Looking at this post, I'm feeling like this and a bit like this and maybe this too, but in the end I'm just going to do this :taped sh: and suggest this :cheers:.

That is all. Carry on.

 

[ceeboy14]

Ooooh, whips...won't be long before Mishele gets in on this one. It's just information. The question may have seemed like more an admonishment than a query but he did ask the question:

"It looks pretty good if you don't view full-view, otherwise, I had to do a ton of cropping to get this, but now I know how so if/when I get a longer zoom lens I can definitely do some cool stuff!

So what do you think?"

So, I told him as did the rest of us. No biggie. Where's the brew and who's paying?

 

[jwbryson1]

Ooooh, whips...won't be long before Mishele gets in on this one. It's just information. The question may have seemed like more an admonishment than a query but he did ask the question:

"It looks pretty good if you don't view full-view, otherwise, I had to do a ton of cropping to get this, but now I know how so if/when I get a longer zoom lens I can definitely do some cool stuff!

So what do you think?"

So, I told him as did the rest of us. No biggie. Where's the brew and who's paying?

Look at the original, uncropped image. C'mon. It looks like a speck of dirt on the lens, not like the moon. Having to crop to that extent to get even close to seeing any kind of detail and then proclaiming that you've got an image with "texture" when none exists, to me at least, screams WTF? I'm really not an overly critical person. But c'mon...

I've said too much already. I'm shutting up now.

 

[amolitor]

All he means by "texture" is that it's not blown out pure white, and he's happy that he's figured out how to expose for the moon.

Good for him! I am happy for him.

 

[amolitor]

I have a similar shot of Jupiter:



This was shot with a substantially longer lens, but I was pleased to get what I got.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Well I don't have a longer lens, so I had to make do. When I say "texture," I mean that the moon is not just a white bright ball, but actually the moon. However, you are totally right about the ISO. I don't know why I kept it so high. I guess I instinctively kept it high because it was night. I will see if I can try again tonight with lower ISO and shutter speed. Thanks!

 

[jwbryson1]

Well I don't have a longer lens, so I had to make do. When I say "texture," I mean that the moon is not just a white bright ball, but actually the moon. However, you are totally right about the ISO. I don't know why I kept it so high. I guess I instinctively kept it high because it was night. I will see if I can try again tonight with lower ISO and shutter speed. Thanks!

Throw your camera on your tripod, shoot at a low ISO (100) and a shutter speed of around 1/200, f/11. Adjust as necessary.

I have photographed the moon at 200mm (300mm equivalent on my DX body) and I get very little detail of craters. Shooting at 55mm is just way too short of a focal length to get any kind of detail. But good luck with that.

 

[HughGuessWho]

Why would you ever need to shoot the moon at f/11 or f/16? There is certainly no DoF requirements. Just shoot at the sweet spot or more open.

On a side note, the best way to get texture (details) of moon shot is to NOT shoot it while full. A day or two on either side of full will render a much nicer shot with more details.