Shoot the Moon

[TATTRAT]

Doesn't change how you photograph it, though.

Including zoom?

I see more details with the naked eye during a Horizontal Moon Ilusion than I see during a Super moon using an 18-200mm.

The moon isn't angularly larger near the horizon. It's the same size as it is anywhere else in the sky. If you shoot it with a 500mm at the horizon, it will fill the frame just as much as if you wait until it's at the meridian.

I seriously doubt you can see more detail on the moon when it's near the horizon since you're looking through such a much thicker slice of the earth's atmosphere.

Ever read about the Moon Illusion?

[FONT=istok_webregular]Set to peak on [/FONT]Sunday, June 23, the 2013 supermoon[FONT=istok_webregular] is noteworthy not only for the remarkable sight it will present to skywatchers but also because it will be the largest [/FONT]supermoon[FONT=istok_webregular] this year.[/FONT][FONT=istok_webregular]The event occurs when a full moon lines up with the Earth and the sun at a specific point in its orbit, called the lunar perigee. That’s the point at which the moon is nearest to Earth as it traces its elliptical path around our planet.[/FONT]
[FONT=istok_webregular]Since it’s closer to us, the moon appears up to 14 percent bigger and 30 percent brighter than usual.

http://www.khon2.com/2013/05/23/4195-autosave/[/FONT]

 

[480sparky]

.....Ever read about the Moon Illusion?...[FONT=istok_webregular][/FONT]

Yes. And the term illusion is not a coincidence. The shot with the fence was certainly NOT taken with a 50mm just because the moon 'looks larger'.

The simple truth is:

1. the moon is NOT larger when it's near the horizon and
2. the moon is NOT going to 'fill the sky' during a supermoon.

These are facts even the Babylonians knew 4000 years ago.

 

[FreshFromTheGrave]

I tried to photograph it, I failed dismally xD There was light cloud though so it was quite hazy and I only have a kit lens But I give myself a point for trying none the less

 

[Tailgunner]

.....Ever read about the Moon Illusion?...

Yes. And the term illusion is not a coincidence. The shot with the fence was certainly NOT taken with a 50mm just because the moon 'looks larger'.

The simple truth is:

1. the moon is NOT larger when it's near the horizon and
2. the moon is NOT going to 'fill the sky' during a supermoon.

These are facts even the Babylonians knew 4000 years ago.

Yes, it's an optical illusion, and when you put pen to pad, you can see that the math supports what youre saying. I'm not arguing the math or science, only what's being seen. So for a moment, suspend what you know fact wise and only talk about what you actually see. Think about it, it's called optical illusion for a reason, because it appears to be something it's not...but you're able to photograph it. Example: the above mentioned photo was taking at 50mm but appears to be 10X my moon pictures taken at 200mm.

 

[480sparky]

Yes, it's an optical illusion, and when you put pen to pad, you can see that the math supports what youre saying. I'm not arguing the math or science, only what's being seen. So for a moment, suspend what you know fact wise and only talk about what you actually see. Think about it, it's called optical illusion for a reason, because it appears to be something it's not...but you're able to photograph it. Example: the above mentioned photo was taking at 50mm but appears to be 10X my moon pictures taken at 200mm.

If that photo was taken with a 50mm, there's a HE11 of a lot of cropping that was done in post.

 

[Tailgunner]

Yes, it's an optical illusion, and when you put pen to pad, you can see that the math supports what youre saying. I'm not arguing the math or science, only what's being seen. So for a moment, suspend what you know fact wise and only talk about what you actually see. Think about it, it's called optical illusion for a reason, because it appears to be something it's not...but you're able to photograph it. Example: the above mentioned photo was taking at 50mm but appears to be 10X my moon pictures taken at 200mm.

If that photo was taken with a 50mm, there's a HE11 of a lot of cropping that was done in post.

I thought you said it was done with a 50mm lol I'm so confused...but what's new lol

 

[480sparky]

I thought you said it was done with a 50mm lol I'm so confused...but what's new lol

:er:

............. The shot with the fence was certainly NOT taken with a 50mm just because the moon 'looks larger'. ........

 

[Tailgunner]

I thought you said it was done with a 50mm lol I'm so confused...but what's new lol

:er:

............. The shot with the fence was certainly NOT taken with a 50mm just because the moon 'looks larger'. ........

So what did they use and their settings?

 

[480sparky]

I thought you said it was done with a 50mm lol I'm so confused...but what's new lol

:er:

............. The shot with the fence was certainly NOT taken with a 50mm just because the moon 'looks larger'. ........

So what did they use and their settings?

How should I know? It's not my photo.

But does it LOOK like it was taken with a 50mm?

 

[Tailgunner]

:er:

So what did they use and their settings?

How should I know? It's not my photo.

But does it LOOK like it was taken with a 50mm?

How should I know, I wasn't there lol

Ok, I understand how the angle of the shot combined with a large telephoto lens can achieve these results. I get that part, Ive shot the moon with a 50mm...and it looked pretty decent...%100 cropped.

My question is this, can you photograph a large moon illusion with reduced magnification/cropping or not? I mean, you have to be able to see something in order for it to be an optical illusion, and if you can see it, can't you shoot it?

 

[480sparky]

So what did they use and their settings?

How should I know? It's not my photo.

But does it LOOK like it was taken with a 50mm?

How should I know, I wasn't there lol

Ok, I understand how the angle of the shot combined with a large telephoto lens can achieve these results. I get that part, Ive shot the moon with a 50mm...and it looked pretty decent...%100 cropped.

My question is this, can you photograph a large moon illusion with reduced magnification/cropping or not? I mean, you have to be able to see something in order for it to be an optical illusion, and if you can see it, can't you shoot it?

As long is 1.) the moon is above the local horizon and 2.) there's no clouds, roofs, ceilings, trees, aircraft, falling ACME safes, etc. obstructing your view, yes you can photograph the moon.

But the simple fact remains: It's still the same angular size at the horizon as it is at the meridian. It's not any larger because of the 'illusion'. If anything, it's larger at the meridian because you're closer to it.

 

[Tailgunner]

How should I know? It's not my photo.

But does it LOOK like it was taken with a 50mm?

How should I know, I wasn't there lol

Ok, I understand how the angle of the shot combined with a large telephoto lens can achieve these results. I get that part, Ive shot the moon with a 50mm...and it looked pretty decent...%100 cropped.

My question is this, can you photograph a large moon illusion with reduced magnification/cropping or not? I mean, you have to be able to see something in order for it to be an optical illusion, and if you can see it, can't you shoot it?

As long is 1.) the moon is above the local horizon and 2.) there's no clouds, roofs, ceilings, trees, aircraft, falling ACME safes, etc. obstructing your view, yes you can photograph the moon.

But the simple fact remains: It's still the same angular size at the horizon as it is at the meridian. It's not any larger because of the 'illusion'. If anything, it's larger at the meridian because you're closer to it.

Yes sir, as I can shoot the illusion I'm ok.

One thing I miss about West Texas, used to see Moon Illusions all the time.

 

[MetroRuss]

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/weather/s0000141.html

Its not.looking.like the clouds will go away

 

[nitris223]

I was out last night taking some shots with my D5100 using my 55-300mm and a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter. Tried it with and without the teleconverter, none of them turned out real great. I think there might have been some thin clouds or haze going on. Last months pictures turned out better. One thing I seen last night which I thought would have been a neat picture was a layer drifting by the moon at a angle . The cloud was lit up across the sky to the left of the moon. I tried everything I could think of with the settings in aperature mode, shutter mode, and manual mode. I could only get a small portion in the center of the picture. New to taking pictures so I am not sure if it would even be possible to get the light in the clouds and still get a clear picture of the moon showing some of the surface detail. Tried both lenses 18 - 55 and the 55 - 300. Seems like when I would get some of the clouds , the moon would be over exposed. Glad it's a digital, just wasted time now and not wasted film. Not really wasted time because it is time spent learning the camera.

 

[480sparky]

I was out last night taking some shots with my D5100 using my 55-300mm and a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter. Tried it with and without the teleconverter, none of them turned out real great. I think there might have been some thin clouds or haze going on. Last months pictures turned out better. One thing I seen last night which I thought would have been a neat picture was a layer drifting by the moon at a angle . The cloud was lit up across the sky to the left of the moon. I tried everything I could think of with the settings in aperature mode, shutter mode, and manual mode. I could only get a small portion in the center of the picture. New to taking pictures so I am not sure if it would even be possible to get the light in the clouds and still get a clear picture of the moon showing some of the surface detail. Tried both lenses 18 - 55 and the 55 - 300. Seems like when I would get some of the clouds , the moon would be over exposed. Glad it's a digital, just wasted time now and not wasted film. Not really wasted time because it is time spent learning the camera.

Welcome to Dynamic Range.