Prep To Get Mooned ... Tonight

[Grumpy]

Tonight’s full moon, if visible, is supposed to be 30% brighter and appear 14% larger than any other full moon of 2008, according to a current National Geographic News story:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081211-biggest-brightest-moon.html

This should be a great opportunity for photographers.

Best time for viewing will be right after sunset.

Wishing you clear skies tonight …

G.

 

[forestgnome]

The timing of the storm might be good. It may clear in time. Thanks for the note.

clear skies

 

[Grumpy]

Thoughts on moon shots exposure:

Expanses of dark sky surrounding the bright moon will confuse most auto exposure systems (usually leading to overexposure). For better results, switch to a manual exposure mode in which the operator controls ISO (digital), shutter speed and lens aperture. Not all modern cameras will allow this, but most of the better SLRs will.

Using ISO 200 (film or digital), the full moon exposure would be 1/500 sec at f/8. But remember, this is a starting point.

Determine the actual best exposure for the existing circumstances by bracketing. If you wish to change any of these settings to start (or optimized settings later) without changing expsoure, just figure the proper “reciprocal” combinations. (Examples: 1/500 sec @ f/8 for ISO 200 = 1/250 sec @ f/8 for ISO 100 = 1/500 sec @ f11 for ISO 400, etc.)

Use the longest lens you have to produce the most detailed shots of the moon’s surface. Longer lenses will increase the size and prominence of the moon in the frame if it the moon is used as a feature in a broader landscape.

Focus carefully.

Use a tripod, and good tripod technique.

Good luck.

G.

 

[DougPaul]

A few more thoughts on shooting the moon (there is some overlap with Grumpy's comments here...)
* The moon is a sunlit object made of dark rock. I've generally found exposures to be a stop or two more than that appropriate for a sunlit terrestrial scene (ie ~F/11 at 1/ISO). If your camera can highlight saturated pixels, just find the maximum exposure with no saturated pixels by trial and error.
* The moon about touches the edges of the frame with a 2000mm lens (for a 35mm camera). So use your longest telephoto shorter than 2000mm eFL.
* Set your aperture for the best lens resolution: typ ~F/8.
* use a tripod or at least prop the camera on a solid object
* Shoot RAW if you can. The moon is pretty low contrast and the ability to enhance it in post-processing will be helpful.

Some links:
* Moon exposure calculator: http://www.adidap.com/2006/12/06/moon-exposure-calculator/
* How to to take moon pics:
http://www.adidap.com/2006/09/18/tips-on-how-to-take-successful-moon-pictures/

Canon DR-XT, F/5.6, 1/400 sec, ISO 100, 480mm eFL, RAW
contrast enhancement and sharpening. 100% crop.
(6 Dec 2006)

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

Decided to try again...

Canon DR-XTi, F/8.0, 1/200 sec, ISO 100, eFL 480mm, RAW
contrast enhancement and sharpening, 100% crop
12 Dec 2008.

Note: this one is bigger than the previous one in part because the XTi has more pixels than does the XT.

Doug

 

[Grumpy]

Nice shot. Glad you were able to get it. The moon was, indeed, spectacular last evening where it was visible.

Anybody else have photos of it to share? (I don't -- missed the boat due to other obligations.)

G.

 

[rocket21]

I wasn't in a good position to get the moonrise due to trail maintenance stuff, but I did grab of photo of the moon this morning, looming between Mt. Passaconaway and Mt. Paugus, over Chocorua Lake:

 

[Grumpy]

That is a neat photo, rocket21!

You just proved that shooting the moon doesn't always mean having to use an ultra telephoto lens.

Couple of suggestions:

1) Crop tighter on top.

2) Try to darken and increase contrast in the image to make the moon stand out a little more graphically.

Thanks for sharing.

G.

 

[Tom Rankin]

I must note that even my 'trained eye' (I've spent 30 years observing the sky), did not discern the moon to be any larger than usual. Part of this is that the moon appears very large on the horizon when it rises, and then appears to 'shrink' when it is high in the sky. Also, the 30% brighter factor is less than 1/2 of a magnitude. A magnitude is roughly the extra brightness needed to discern that 2 stars are of different brightness, to a casual observer.

Obviously these 2 quantities can be photographed under carefully controlled conditions, the size being the easier one to measure. I've seen several comparison photos of the Moon's size, but never a comparison of how bright the Moon looks when exposed for equal durations at different distances.

 

[Brambor]

tiny moon

I was just sorting through old slides last week and found this shot. Sometimes the moon is tiny . I think this was shot at sunset. I remember the next morning I peeked out and saw a huge herd of elk all around my tent. When they noticed me, they quickly left, running over to the other side of the hill.

 

[Grumpy]

I must note that even my 'trained eye' (I've spent 30 years observing the sky), did not discern the moon to be any larger than usual. Part of this is that the moon appears very large on the horizon when it rises, and then appears to 'shrink' when it is high in the sky. Also, the 30% brighter factor is less than 1/2 of a magnitude. A magnitude is roughly the extra brightness needed to discern that 2 stars are of different brightness, to a casual observer.

Obviously these 2 quantities can be photographed under carefully controlled conditions, the size being the easier one to measure. I've seen several comparison photos of the Moon's size, but never a comparison of how bright the Moon looks when exposed for equal durations at different distances.

Not to be argumentative ...

I’ll agree that appearing 14% larger is not hugely significant – except to note that saying it is the largest the moon will appear in a span of X years makes it of interest. If nothing else, we know in advance it will loom relatively large in the sky, making for a good photo op if the weatherman cooperates.

Appearing 30% brighter means roughly 1/3 of an f/stop brighter, which some photographers might regard as significant. It would be less significant, photographically, shooting with a wide (exposure) latitude film like Tri-X pan than with a much narrower latitude film like Kodachrome 25.

G.

 

[Tom Rankin]

Not to be argumentative ...

I’ll agree that appearing 14% larger is not hugely significant – except to note that saying it is the largest the moon will appear in a span of X years makes it of interest. If nothing else, we know in advance it will loom relatively large in the sky, making for a good photo op if the weatherman cooperates.

Appearing 30% brighter means roughly 1/3 of an f/stop brighter, which some photographers might regard as significant. It would be less significant, photographically, shooting with a wide (exposure) latitude film like Tri-X pan than with a much narrower latitude film like Kodachrome 25.

G.

You are of course, correct. I was speaking mostly from a visual perspective, but discussing photography!

 

[rocket21]

That is a neat photo, rocket21!

You just proved that shooting the moon doesn't always mean having to use an ultra telephoto lens.

Couple of suggestions:

1) Crop tighter on top.

2) Try to darken and increase contrast in the image to make the moon stand out a little more graphically.

Thanks for sharing.

G.

I guess I forgot I was in the photography forum! I snapped that shot quickly from my vehicle and didn't do any after effects on it...was just posting in response to those wanting to see the moon