Its a Full Moon

[vipgraphx]

This image was taken in my backyard. I was grilling tonight and looked over and saw that the moon was rising. I have been wanting to test out my 70-200 2.8 vrII, so I ran inside got my camera and tripod and took a few photos. I did one that was HDR and posted in the HDR section and these two are not HDR.

First one is no editing at all. Was shot in RAW and opened in CS5 with no processing and saved.

ogmoon by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

Second one is with some processing. I opened in CS5 camera RAW and chose tungsten as the WB to remove that sepia color it picked up.. I used NIK color effects detail extractor and bumped up saturation to get the colors out of the two trees. Then I used a skin softener to take out some grain that the detail extractor adds, next I used a color cast filter to get a deeper bluish tinge in the image and cropped with a black border.

full moon by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

I would have liked to get out that glare to the right of the moon out but to much small detail to take the time on this photo. I thought that the nano coating would remove stuff like this but I guess not. The moon was very bright and every angle I tried I kept getting that glare in different spots. Maybe a filter would help to remove stuff like that (any ideas)? Since the moon was so bright it almost looks like a sun with no detail....

CC please...

 

[shuttervelocity]

reducing the exposure would have helped. I'll post my picture taken with a Panasonic FZ100 hand-held if you don't mind.

 

[480sparky]

 

[vipgraphx]

reducing the exposure would have helped. I'll post my picture taken with a Panasonic FZ100 hand-held if you don't mind.

Sure go for it

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The subject doesn't seem to have much detail in it. Pretty sure the moon isn't paper white. Maybe tonight try again with a shorter exposure.

 

[shuttervelocity]

reducing the exposure would have helped. <img src="http://thephotoforum.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt="" title="smile" smilieid="105" class="inlineimg" border="0"> I'll post my picture taken with a Panasonic FZ100 hand-held if you don't mind.

Sure go for it

<br><br>Thanks!&nbsp; This shot was taken hand-held and then I played with a bit of curves and contrast in Photoscape.&nbsp; I think I took multiple shots and then chose the best among them.&nbsp; <br><br><img src="attachment.php?attachmentid=3936&amp;stc=1" attachmentid="3936" alt="" id="vbattach_3936" class="previewthumb">

 

[vipgraphx]

The subject doesn't seem to have much detail in it. Pretty sure the moon isn't paper white. Maybe tonight try again with a shorter exposure.

reducing the exposure would have helped. <img src="http://thephotoforum.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt="" title="smile" smilieid="105" class="inlineimg" border="0"> I'll post my picture taken with a Panasonic FZ100 hand-held if you don't mind.

Sure go for it

<br><br>Thanks!&nbsp; This shot was taken hand-held and then I played with a bit of curves and contrast in Photoscape.&nbsp; I think I took multiple shots and then chose the best among them.&nbsp;

Ok I went out just right now and took a handheld shot. I lowered the exposure to -5 F3.5 1/4000s with iso at 1600

Results


moon by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

 

[shuttervelocity]

 

[thereyougo!]

The subject doesn't seem to have much detail in it. Pretty sure the moon isn't paper white. Maybe tonight try again with a shorter exposure.

Sure go for it

<br><br>Thanks!&nbsp; This shot was taken hand-held and then I played with a bit of curves and contrast in Photoscape.&nbsp; I think I took multiple shots and then chose the best among them.&nbsp;

Ok I went out just right now and took a handheld shot. I lowered the exposure to -5 F3.5 1/4000s with iso at 1600

Results


moon by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

You don't need to surrender all that image quality by going so high on the ISO. f/8 and spot metering the moon should give you a workable shooting speed without going so high on ISO. If hand held you need to be having above an equivalent of the focal length in shutter speed. you certainly don't need 1/4000. 1/1000 with ISO of 400 even using the same aperture value would have had similar results. You could have shot it at 1/400 with absolutely no shake at all and had the ISO lower while having a slightly smaller aperture to grab the lens at a sharper aperture. It's reasonably well exposed now, but there is still not as much detail as you could have.