Full Moon, Textured!

[LouR]

If you have any friends with a Nikon and a larger lens, beg to borrow it for a night. even with the perfect settings you aren't going to get much. This was shot with a Minolta 75-300mm (eq. 105-450mm) I have better photos, but only this one is on my site right now:

 

[Light Guru]

Well I don't have a longer lens, so I had to make do.

Working with what you have does not mean trying to force your equipment to do something it simply cannot do.

If you dont have a lens that can get tight enough on the moon then shoot a scenery that includes the moon. If you are really intent on shooting close up on the moon then rent a lens.

 

[DGMPhotography]

And if I don't have money, but still really want to shoot the moon? I assume you'll say something like, "sounds like photography isn't for you." However, I enjoy it nevertheless, and don't suppose I'll post any more moon shots until I have a better lens.

 

[Light Guru]

And if I don't have money, but still really want to shoot the moon? I assume you'll say something like, "sounds like photography isn't for you." However, I enjoy it nevertheless, and don't suppose I'll post any more moon shots until I have a better lens.

Did you not read my post. You can shoot the moon, but you may need to include it in a bigger scene. And renting lenses is CHEEP

 

[amolitor]

You could try stacking images. The astro guys do this to build up detail. Superresolution seems to be the keyword.

I don't think it works with a DSLR that has an anti-aliasing filter, though. I don't see how the math works out. It's possible that the AA filter in the DSLR is inefficient enough to make some SR techniques work anyways, but you'd probably need an enormous number of images.

 

[cynicaster]

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.

Consider this a great learning experience, then.

Be wary of the "cook book" approach to photography, where you say "if condition A is true then activate setting B on the camera, regardless of all else". In this case you said "it is dark out, therefore high ISO", and I think we all agree that is the wrong answer here.

Think of it this way. Depending on the situation, there are very legitimate creative and technical reasons for selecting all manner of apertures and shutter speeds, but there is never any good reason to place the ISO higher than it needs to be in order to make your desired aperture and shutter speed possible. I think you realize that 1/4000 is a very fast shutter for this situation, so the better approach would have been to push the ISO down to its minimum, and trim back on all that unneeded speed in the shutter to pick up the slack.

In case anybody wants to be a contrarian and say "there are no universal rules, shut up!" then I'd say if you're hell-bent on having fugly digital noise in your photo you can always add it in photoshop with a few clicks of the mouse.

 

[ceeboy14]

I should have said the same thing as per the sweet spot. Every lens has one and on the Tamron, crappy a lens as it is, that was 11. On the 55-300 it was about 9 or 10.

 

[ceeboy14]

I shot a lot of full moon shots before I had the longer lens.

 

[LouR]

And if I don't have money, but still really want to shoot the moon? I assume you'll say something like, "sounds like photography isn't for you." However, I enjoy it nevertheless, and don't suppose I'll post any more moon shots until I have a better lens.

There is no reason why you can't get creative with what you have. Have you considered putting the camera on a tripod outside and taking a shot about every 20 minutes for a composite? Or, as mentioned, including it in a scenic, either a landscape or cityscape? I have some great shots of the full moon over the Manhattan skyline. I even have one of the Statue of Liberty "greeting" the rising moon. It's not what you have, it's how you use it. Oh, and shoot RAW if you haven't done so. It will retain much more data, unlike a WYSIWYG Jpg.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Did you not read my post. You can shoot the moon, but you may need to include it in a bigger scene. And renting lenses is CHEEP

And you did read mine. I mean shooting the moon - just the moon in a close up image like this. Thanks though, I understand what you mean. I shall perhaps look into lens rentals...

 

[DGMPhotography]

* didn't. Anyway, thanks to the other commenters as well! All great ideas. I will have to look into that composite idea too!

 

[Ballistics]

http://photos.sjrdesign.net/documents/photoguide_moon.pdf

Sunny 16 isn't the best way to go.

 

[Light Guru]

Did you not read my post. You can shoot the moon, but you may need to include it in a bigger scene. And renting lenses is CHEEP

And you did read mine. I mean shooting the moon - just the moon in a close up image like this. Thanks though, I understand what you mean. I shall perhaps look into lens rentals...

Well lets read that post

And if I don't have money, but still really want to shoot the moon? I assume you'll say something like, "sounds like photography isn't for you." However, I enjoy it nevertheless, and don't suppose I'll post any more moon shots until I have a better lens.

Nowhere in your post did you say I want to shoot close up moon shots, you just say shoot the moon. Anytime your photo includes the moon you are shooting the moon evan if you are including sneery in the image also.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Meh, potato potato.

 

[KmH]

Don't use f/16, if possible. You don't want any focus softness caused by diffraction.

The Moon is 300,000 km away and DoF will be infinite even using a wide aperture.
A major issue relative to focus sharpness when shooting the Moon (or stars) is shooting through a 50 km thickness of moving atmosphere - If you shoot when the Moon is straight up.
If the Moon is closer to the horizon you're shooting through even more moving atmosphere. Shooting the Moon near the horizon the atmosphere you're shooting through is about 3 times thicker.

A big reason major astronomical observatories are put on mountain tops is to get the telescopes above as much of the constantly atmosphere as possible.
They carefully test so they select mountain tops that are below portions of the atmosphere that are more stable than usual.