moon angle (pictures)

[Handruin]

I started another photo thread so that I didn't interrupt other people's discussions.

I'm looking for some help (I know I need plenty). I'm trying to take some pictures of the moon and I haven't figured out what it is I need for a decent picture. Below are a couple examples of what I was able to get after 20 minutes of playing around (none of which are worth writing home about).

I used a tripod for all my shots (and I fully realize the moon is moving). I tried all different F-stop ranges, but my results were very similar. I even tried my HOYA U/V filter on a few of them to see if it would reduce some of the solar glare (wishful thinking). The sky was very clear with no clouds to be seen by the naked eye.

The first one has a weird streak in it because an airplane flew by during my long exposure. I'm only posting it for fun. The second one I tried to take a picture to show some detail on the moon, but I only get a blob.

Here are the stats on the first image:

Shutter: 10 sec.
F/5.6
focal 33mm
ISO-400
evaluative metering
RAW
WB: auto
Custom function 2: long exposure noise reduction
Mounted on tripod and used 10 sec delay for shutter release to stabilize camera





Shutter: 1 sec
F/5.6
ISO-400
focal 85mm
evaluative metering
WB: auto
RAW
mounted on tripod and used 10 sec delay for shutter release to stabilize camera



What practices should I follow for taking a better picture of the moon? Should I be using lower ISO values? I realize I need a much larger zoom for more detail (and possibly a better lens). Am I missing any other fundamental aspect of this? Should I wait until the moon is only at 10% visible? Closer to the horizon?

 

[P5-133XL]

If it is possible, for your camera, spot meter the moon. It is far too bright relative to the background. If you can't spot meter, then use exposure adjustment to darken it. The 3rd alternative, if you can't do either of those is to use your camera's meter it to find a relative shutter speed/Fstop and then use manual mode to modify those settings till you get a good light grey. The point is to drop its relative exposure to get a light form of grey (rather than pure white), to get some detail, rather than just a white dot.

 

[Handruin]

Thanks Mark. I'm going to try everything you just suggested. Be right back...

 

[P5-133XL]

The moon is a very bright object and does not inhierantly need a high ISO. Since you are on a tripod, it will eliminate your basic camera movement, so a high ISO is not a big deal at that end. The real purpose of the high ISO setting to to ensure that the moon does not move too much across the sky and thereby giving you a blurry moon. Set your ISO as low as you can but still get a totally sharp picture.

 

[JKKJ]

1/30th at f8 rings a bell for the moon...maybe I remember it from Ansel Adams' process while taking his Moonrise over Hernandez image (I think he didn't have a light meter?)

P5-133XL is right, the moon itself doesn't need a lot of exposure, after all it's in full daylight.

 

[Handruin]

Thanks a bunch! I did as you suggested and basically ignored what the 20D was reporting for light. I was finally able to see a shed of detail on the moon with the following paramters:

shutter: 1/40 sec
F/6.3
85mm
ISO-200

This was the end result (large file)

I'm going to try a few more to see if I can get it any sharper. I think I can increase the shutter speed a bit more and I'll bump it up to an F/8.0. Hopefully that helps. I'm finding it hard to focus on the moon because my zoom isn't long enough. I can't see the details well enough to know if I'm focusing good.

 

[LunarMist]

The moon is usually exposed according to the sunny f/16 rule plus one stop (i.e., f/11), because a gay moon does not look right to the human eye/brain. Depending on focal length and (fixed) aperture of the telescope it should be possible to use ISO 100 or 200 on a nearly full without too much movement.

BTW, the lunar eclipse photo in my atavator was taken at a fairly slow shutter speed. Of course the fast films were not so good over 20 years ago.

 

[JKKJ]

a gay moon

What's a gay moon?

 

[LunarMist]

GRAY or GREY.

 

[Handruin]

This is the best one I was able to get so far. Thanks for all the tips. Lunar, I remember you saying that you took the picture in your avatar. I was hoping to get some feedback from you as well (and I did!). Thanks for putting up with me and all my questions.


shutter: 1/60th sec.
F/8
85mm
ISO-100


Click for full size.

 

[i]

Nice! That picture makes me wish I was still getting some use out of the telescope in my closet. Astrophotography was something I always wanted to get into, but my particular telescope (8" diameter Newtonian) isn't particularly well-suited to the job.

I wish we had a few more moons around that were easily photographed. Some planets have all the luck.

 

[Handruin]

Here is the most recent shot:

1/125 sec.
F/11
ISO-100
85mm
tripod with mirror lockup enabled to reduce shake

RAW image convert to monochromatic with a slight increase in brightness. This is now my desktop wallpaper. 8)

 

[Handruin]

That's a nice picture of Enceladus. A mutual friend of mine has a nice 5.5" telescope (make/model escapes me at the moment). He said there is a 35mm attachment available. I'm going to keep bugging him to allow me time on it. I even offer to buy the attachment. His telescope has the tripod which adjusts with the rotation of the earth. That will make for some nice shots.

 

[CougTek]

a gay moon

What's a gay moon?

Maybe when they all won't fit in San Francisco, they'll move there.

 

[Handruin]

Ouch.

 

[Stereodude]

You don't need to spotmeter, you just need to use the sunny F16 rule.

"any sunlit object will expose correctly at f/16 when the shutter speed is the same as the film speed ISO"

So, set the camera to F16, ISO to 100 and take a 1/100th of a second exposure and viola. After all, the Moon is a sunlit object.

 

[i]

It's not a tuba!

 

[JKKJ]

It's not a tuba!

:scratch:

That's a nice picture Handruin!

 

[i]

It's not a tuba!

:scratch:

No, really ... it's not a tuba. Apparently it's a viola.

Sorry JKKJ. I'm being exceptionally obscure this evening. The word Stereodude was searching for was "voila" and not "viola". Maybe Cougtek will fill us in on details, given that it's actually a French word.

 

[LunarMist]

"any sunlit object will expose correctly at f/16 when the shutter speed is the same as the film speed ISO"

ROTFLMAO :lol:

 

[Handruin]

Lunar, let me ask you something...I'm looking over the canon triple rebate and I'm wondering...

If I bought:

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ( $1,699.95 @ B&H )
EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro ( $469.95 @ B&H )

I would get the following in rebates:

$150 for 70-200mm
$60 for 100m
$300 for EOS 20D
=
$510 in total rebates

That's a free lens and $40 back...?!? Is that how their triple rebate works?

 

[Tannin]

Hoolie Doolie, Doug, you are getting into some fancy glass there.

* EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS
* EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
* EF 100mm f/2.8 macro

That's a nice looking setup. Interesting, isn't it, how my setup and yours are both growing rapidly (dunno about your credit card, but mine is looking a bit sick) — but we don't have a single lens in common, current or planned. My kit is:

* EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
* EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
* EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
- plus coming soon:
* EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro
* Macro Twin Lite MT-24EX
* EF 500mm f/4L IS

I'll keep on using the 18-55 till it bugs me. People say they are crap, but it seems to be doing the job well enough at present, and I imagine that between the 10-22 on the short side and the 60mm macro on the long side of it that I won't be using it all that much anyway. I'm inclined to think that I'll eventually get a TS/E 45mm f/2.8. But first, a real macro lens and then save up for the 500.

 

[CougTek]

The word Stereodude was searching for was "voila" and not "viola". Maybe Cougtek will fill us in on details, given that it's actually a French word.

Voilà in this context means exactly the same thing in both French and English. Voilà generally means "Here is".

• Voilà Doug qui prend des photos.
  Here is Doug making shots.

[/French class]

 

[Handruin]

I haven't bought either of those two lenses yet, but I'm really thinking about it. I'm really interested in a lens thats better in lower light situations. The f/4.5 of my current lens is making it tough. Now that I see the triple rebate program coming up, I want to fully maximize their offering. The 70-200 is a credit card killer, but everything I've been reading shows it to be a decent lens (if not just slightly heavy). The 100mm macro can also serve as a nice portrait lens if I'm not mistaken?

You have a nice collection growing there also. And, you also just bought a 2nd 20D! BTW, your 10-22mm looks good. I haven't responded to that thread. Thanks for posting samples!

 

[Handruin]

Did you buy the 50mm F/1.8? I didn't see it in your list anywhere. I'll probably add that to my list since it's so cheap.

 

[Tannin]

I nearly bought a 50mm f/1.8 several times, Doug, but I keep finding reasons not to — despite the fact that it's practically a gift. First up, I kept reading posts (elswhere) by people saying how fantastic the 50mm f/1.4 was, and how it was ever so much cooler and more manly than the 1.8, and so on. Eventually, I read a bit further and looked at test shots and decided that there really isn't a lot of point in the 1.4 as it's three times the price and not all that much faster and, tellingly, it is less than steller until you stop it down a little. If you're going to shoot at F/4.5 or f/8, why buy the 1.4?

With that question out of the way, on a completely different tack, I more-or-less decided on the 60mm macro lens. At 60mm and f/2.8 it's not all that far off the 50mm f/1.8. Is there any sense to having both? Maybe not. I doubt I'd use the 50 all that often, seeing as I'd have the 60 still mounted on the camera half the time after a wildflower shot. And finally, for everyday type shots (i.e., those actually rather rare shots I take which aren't telephoto, macro, or wide!), on a 20D, 50mm is a bit long. Something in the 25 to 40mm range would be more useful, I think. I might look at one of the 3rd party lens makers for this. But it's a fairly low priority at present. I have lots of muscling up the credit card in front of me. The more I spend on non-essentials, the longer it will take me to get the 500 I've set my heart on.

 

[Tannin]

The 70-200 sure is an expensive little thing. But look at it this way, what's the worst that can happen? You decide that you are bored with photography 12 months down the track (just saying) and sell your gear. On the 70-200, you'll get better than 80% of your money back, I should imagine. In fact, imagining that you sold all your gear on Ebay this time next year, you would probably drop more $ on the camera than you will on the 70-200. So why worry? And f/2.8 for a lens that long is plenty fast. Enjoy!

I guess that I'll be in a position to post some proper 10-22 samples next week - that lawnmower thing was just a quickie. The forecast is good, so I've 3/4s decided to shoot off on Friday night to a bit of box-ironbark country I haven't visited yet, over between Avoca and St Arnard (that's central-western Victoria, only a couple of hours drive from here, three hours by the time I find a good bit and pick a campsite). Naturally, my main priority will be the birds as always, but we will see what scenery offers itself for the 10-22.

Also, I'll try to remember to take a moon shot to post here. I don't have a tripod adaptor for the Canons (but maybe I can fit one onto the tripod I use my scope on anyway?), and bloody Canon Australia still haven't fixed my A95 (that goes onto the scope), so it might be a bit tricky. I do have a digiscoped moon shot aroun somewhere, just can't remember when or where I took it, which means I haven't a hope of spotting it on an 80GB drive full of pictures. Normally, on those rare occasions when I can't remember chapter and verse of a particular shot - the ones that are worth remembering and digging out, I mean - I just have to think of the places I'd have been likely to see the species in question, which gives me the approximate dates, and I can spot it fairly readily. But the moon ..... I could have taken that anywhere!

 

[Tannin]

OK, I found it.

Full-frame (i.e., not cropped, just resized). Gawler Ranges, South Australia, 29th December last year. Nikon Coolpix 4500, f/4, ISO 100, 335th sec, 21.3mm native or 103mm in 35mm equivalent terms, plus the Swarovski scope = 2066mm effective.

 

[Handruin]

That's a very nice picture, brilliant. That gives me a new angle on the moon!

I'm not sure if I should be reading your posts! You're persuading me to take a chance on the 70-200. I know some people wouldn't understand why I would buy such a thing given how much it costs.

Anyway, back to lenses. I agree with your logic on the 50mm. The F/1.4 is a lot more expensive for only a little bit more lens. I'm still interested in it for lower light applications, but if the lens isn't very good all the way open, then it doesn't make a lot of sense.

My thoughts on the 100mm macro (vs the 60mm) were that it is an EF mount rather than EF-S. I'd like to maximize the potential for future camera bodies if I ever decide to move on. Similarly I always seem to plan my computers for future upgradability. Yet I never upgrade them as intended...maybe I should listen to myself.

BTW, have you tried using picasa? It has the ability to star (flag/remember) special pictures. At first I thought I was too good for the tool...no way am I using that cheesy piece of software. Well, one afternoon I installed it for my sister and in the process of showing it to her, I grew fond of it. I don't use it for editing or anything like that. All I use it for is viewing and cataloging my pictures. It does a good job of updating with all the new images I put into each folder. It also auto-rotates during previews, and has a few other nifty features.

I know you have a significant amount of pictures, so it may not be able to handle your library. I remember a few threads from the past where you were looking for a better image catalog application. If you get bored some evening, give it a chance. You might be as surprised as I was.

 

[Tannin]

I had a look at the download page a week or two ago, Doug, but got scared off by this:

Picasa organises your entire collection while you watch, scanning the images on your computer and automatically sorting them by date.

It's a bit ambiguous. I don't want a bit of software moving stuff around on my hard drive! My collection lives and dies by the exact file locations. Without them, I could never find anything. Does Picassa actually move anything? Or does it just sort stuff in its own workspace, leaving the files themselves untouched?

 

[Will Rickards]

It doesn't move the files.
It does add picasa.ini files all over the place though.

 

[Tannin]

Thanks Will. Downloading now.

 

[LunarMist]

I tried the Picaso once, but think it works only on jpegs or such, not PSD or RAW files. I know it only found about 5% of the files, maybe 1% by file size. Realistically it would take several days to open every file in the native application. If hundreds of GB of files are changed each day the indexing would be a never-ending task.

 

[Handruin]

My version of picasa (2.0) opens RAW, PSD, videos, and many other media file types files. Occasionally a RAW image will look a bit odd, but 98% of the time it looks fine. The indexing/updating of files happens in the background (in real time) when you have picasa open. If you have hundreds of GB changing each day, then no, it probably isn't the right program for you.

As Will mentioned, picasa does not move your files. At least it has never done so for me. You can, however, drag and drop pictures into different folders within picasa and they will be physically moved on your hard disk. The sorting reference pertains to picasa's left-hand menu. Picasa will group your pictures into sections (years such as 2004, 2005 etc.) within the application. Your physical files do not move.

Another nice feature is the e-mail functionality. It works with gmail and other e-mail applications. Simply highlight the images you want, and then select the e-mail button. Picasa will automatically resize and send, but will not alter the original. At first glace picasa does seem like an amateur's tool. Maybe I'm just a big-ol' amateur, but it has worked perfect for me so far.

 

[LunarMist]

Well, my average PSD file is around 600MB (some are 1.2GB) with about 3-7 image layers and some adjustment layers as well.

 

[Handruin]

I'll try creating one that size and let you know what happens. WTH are you doing with such a large PS file?

 

[Handruin]

Here is some feedback assuming you're curious. I create a PSD file that was 15,000 x 10,000 pixels at 72DPI. I created a gradient background and added several of my full-sized images from my 20D into the image. It had about 6 layers in total.

The file is a bit over 1GB in size (1009.9 MB). I copied it to my desktop (shivers)...and I opened picasa. Within 5-6 seconds picasa added it into the archive. During this time I watched the memory usage for the picasa process spike to 650MB from an average 34MB. As soon as it was finished indexing the file, it dropped back down to 34MB.

Next, I double clicked the image to show it full screen. This took about 45-60 seconds to open the image at full screen. Picasa remains at 34MB of memory usage after the image opens. I believe it spiked upwards of 900MB while it was processing the file.

I'm not trying to pursued you to use the tool, but offer you some basic figures in case you had some serious doubts. If you have the PC resources, picasa will function with images this large. I assume if you're working with images this large to begin with, then you should have enough to use picasa.

 

[Handruin]

This is almost at full moon (full moon is Dec 15th).

shutter: 1/60th
F8.0
ISO 100
mirror lockup
RAW
converted to monochrome (no other post-processing).

I think it's a bit out of focus. I'll try again on the 15th.

 

[JKKJ]

Looking good.

How much of a difference does the mirror lock-up make? My D70 doesn't have the feature, and I've never been sure of the impact

 

[Handruin]

I don't think it has made a significant different because my shutter speed is quick enough to reduce the chance that a shaking camera might blur the photo. I also have the IS enabled to help with some of that.

I've been enabling mirror lockup just as a precaution. My tripod was built circa 1990 and can wiggle a bit when extended at the head section. So to reduce any chance, I've been using it. Also, it reduces the time I have to wait for a "delayed" shot. Normally the timer waits 10 seconds once the trigger is pressed, but with mirror lockup enabled, it takes only 2 seconds.