Trying to photograph the moon.

[HughGuessWho]

DOF has nothing to do with it at that distance. F/8 for that lens produced the least amount of distortion.

I understand DOF has nothing to do with it. That was my point. I would shoot at 5.6 so I could use a quicker shutter speed. Sorry, didnt notice the lens, but I wouls think 9 would be way too high on any lens.

I was saying that there is more to aperture than just DOF. I find 1/250 to be a perfect SS for the moon, I've gotten shots slower, but @ f/8 I get the sharpest results.

Got ya

 

[JerseyJules]

I tried it again last night, I used ISO 100 then 200, 1/125 then 1/250 f5-F11 and still got tons and tons of noise ( I guess that what it is called) in the black portion of the sky..

 

[amolitor]

You do realize that the moon is tidally locked, so literally the only difference between any two moon photographs is the phase of the moon, right?

This is like shooting the Eiffel Tower in Paris, if there was literally only one place in the city where the tower was visible, and then only in the morning.

I mean, I've shoot the moon once or twice, but it makes me sad.

 

[JerseyJules]

You do realize that the moon is tidally locked, so literally the only difference between any two moon photographs is the phase of the moon, right?

This is like shooting the Eiffel Tower in Paris, if there was literally only one place in the city where the tower was visible, and then only in the morning.

I mean, I've shoot the moon once or twice, but it makes me sad.

Yeah I get all that..But I would still like to photograph the moon perfectly just to be able to say and know I did it..Get it? So why am I getting it looking like this without editing it??

 

[amolitor]

That's wildly overexposed, 2 or 3 stops at least. That's why you're getting all kinds of noise in the sky. Look, there's no detail at all in the part of the moon that's pointing at the sun, eh? You're getting a little detail down the sides, but not much.

Remember this thing is a brightly lit object. There's not even atmosphere slowing the sunlight down. It's like photographing a golf ball in the middle of a parking lot at noon on a cloudless day in the middle of summer.

 

[zombiemann]

Shooting "from the hip" (aka no tripod) at 300mm ISO 320 F7.1 SS 1/400

 

[JerseyJules]

That's wildly overexposed, 2 or 3 stops at least. That's why you're getting all kinds of noise in the sky. Look, there's no detail at all in the part of the moon that's pointing at the sun, eh? You're getting a little detail down the sides, but not much.

Remember this thing is a brightly lit object. There's not even atmosphere slowing the sunlight down. It's like photographing a golf ball in the middle of a parking lot at noon on a cloudless day in the middle of summer.

So lower the F-stop next time? Thanks Ill give it a shot.

 

[Flyhigh]

Here's my first crack at this-

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Of course, I added the "stars" in post... but this was shot at ISO 100, f/5.6 and 1/320 shutter speed... 55-200mm AF-S Nikkor glass.

 

[Aloicious]

You do realize that the moon is tidally locked, so literally the only difference between any two moon photographs is the phase of the moon, right?

This is like shooting the Eiffel Tower in Paris, if there was literally only one place in the city where the tower was visible, and then only in the morning.

I mean, I've shoot the moon once or twice, but it makes me sad.

while you're correct, its not quite a fair comparison....for practically everyone, the moon is an exotic and beautiful place we'll never be able to actually visit or get any closer to than what we can get through a lens. if the same were true of the Eiffel tower in your scenario, then all the images from that one spot, and at one time of the day would still bring awe and wonderment to people...

not to mention, that shooting the moon gets much more interesting the more telephoto you can get...this is through a 1600mm f8 telescope

 

[Ballistics]

You do realize that the moon is tidally locked, so literally the only difference between any two moon photographs is the phase of the moon, right?

This is like shooting the Eiffel Tower in Paris, if there was literally only one place in the city where the tower was visible, and then only in the morning.

I mean, I've shoot the moon once or twice, but it makes me sad.

What's your point?

 

[JerseyJules]

You do realize that the moon is tidally locked, so literally the only difference between any two moon photographs is the phase of the moon, right?

This is like shooting the Eiffel Tower in Paris, if there was literally only one place in the city where the tower was visible, and then only in the morning.

I mean, I've shoot the moon once or twice, but it makes me sad.

while you're correct, its not quite a fair comparison....for practically everyone, the moon is an exotic and beautiful place we'll never be able to actually visit or get any closer to than what we can get through a lens. if the same were true of the Eiffel tower in your scenario, then all the images from that one spot, and at one time of the day would still bring awe and wonderment to people...

not to mention, that shooting the moon gets much more interesting the more telephoto you can get...this is through a 1600mm f8 telescope

WOW!!! Just WOW!!! How do you shoot through telescope..

 

[Aloicious]

there are several ways to shoot through a telescope, I prefer a method called 'prime focus' which basically means you're attaching the camera body to the telescope directly and using it as the lens with a little adapter....there are other ways to do it as well, but I like prime focus method....

this is one of my telescope setups (actually the same night/setup I took that moon image with)...you can see my D800 body mounted on the back of the main (largest) telescope:

in fact, I'm not working this sunday night, if it's clear and good seeing, if it's not reserved already I may go out to the observatory and try to shoot the moon through their 3500mm f15 refractor scope...should be able to see some good detail with that...

 

[SCraig]

63% waxing gibbous moon through a Celestron SLT 1300 telescope using a 2x Barlow T-Adapter and a Nikon D-90. Fixed aperture f/5.0, 1/250 second at ISO 800

 

[amolitor]

Yes, smaller f numbers, faster shutter speed, or lower ISO number is what you're looking for.

My point with regard to the tidally locked thing is that there is literally no hope of "finding a new way" to photograph the thing, there is no remaining artistic expression to be found here. Even with stuff like the golden gate bridge and the eiffel tower you can have hope that maybe you're shooting it in a way that's new, or with surrounding context presented a litle differently, that you are somehow making a new and unique thing, however subtly. With the moon this is simply not the case.

If you enjoy the technical exercise, that's great! Go have fun, I fully endorse fun!