Beginner Capturing the moon

Adzman808 said:
RE your first question = I mean the settings that give good results, not the ones suggested by the camera

RE your second = I think that 2,288mph is hardly sloth like ;-) and personally I wouldn't shoot it using a very small aperture & a slower shutter. YMMV.

I agree with your end statement, but I didn't say anything about exposing differently for a waxing/waning moon, just that a half lit moon shot makes for a nicer image
Click to expand...

I never said use a small aperture. I do believe, if you re-read my last post, I said an aperture that makes the best of the lens. We've been discussing the "sunny 16" rule, yes, but that doesn't mean you have to shoot at f16... you can use a reciprocal shutter/aperture combo to attain the same EV.

It may be doing a few thousand miles per hour, but it's also quarter of a million miles away. Something going past you at 10mph directly in front you will require a very fast shutter speed. Something going past you at 10mph when it's 500 yards away will not. While it varies with magnification, on average, I;d say it takes around 30 to 40 seconds for the moon to traverse the frame... maybe 10 with a very long lens or a scope. That does NOT require a very fast shutter speed to freeze it. The most useful thing with a fast speed is the reduction in camera shake, that even a camera on a pod will suffer from at very high magnifications.

I assumed you did mean the aesthetics were what makes a half moon more interesting, yes... I did acknowledge that, but felt it was worth clarifying for the benefit of others, that a half moon, or quarter moon, would require the same exposure as a full moon in the same conditions.
 
Last edited:
Good points and definitely worth noting that half moon & full moon's are obtained with similar settings.

PERSONALLY, i'd always go with a fast speed - the sky has mist, thin cloud, heat vapour etc that can drift into the shot and although this won't be apparent through the VF it can easily reduce the image quality when viewed at 100%

I realise you were just adding to my comments, not disputing them, thanks for taking the time to do so
 
Pookeyhead said:
Even spot metering the moon will give a slightly underexposed shot, as it will try to render it 18%, or 15% grey depending on how the meter is calibrated, whereas the moon is a much lighter shade than that.
Click to expand...
Errrm... would you care to check your facts?
 
About what, the exact colour of the moon? ...or that a spot meter will under expose it slightly?
 
Last edited:
The albedo of the moon is 12% on average. It's actually darker than the 15% or 18% which a light meter assumes, so spot metering the moon will overexpose the shot.
 
Yeah.. apparently... although your figures are wrong... it's actually .07, which equates to 7% reflectance. However.... spot metering it results in an image darker than you'd like to perceive it. If you were stood on the moon, you'd notice it was pretty much a mid grey to dark grey mottle. However, our shared vision of the moon doesn't fit that ideal when viewed from earth, as the contrast between it, and night sky skew our perception.

The shot I posted was spot metered (here's the RAW). Most would consider it a little under exposed. How accurate it is would be hard to determine in reality. Colour accuracy is easy enough, but relative luminance relies on perception as much as absolute numerical accuracy. I'd still give a bit of +exp to a spot metered moon shot based on experience.

fjU5XBu.jpg
 
StewartR said:
The albedo of the moon is 12% on average.
Click to expand...
Pookeyhead said:
...your figures are wrong... it's actually .07, which equates to 7% reflectance.
Click to expand...
That's funny, isn't it. You'd think that a simple fact like the albedo of an astronomical body would be easy to pin down. Personally I would trust NASA, who say it's 0.12 [link]. On the other hand you might prefer to trust NASA, who say it's 0.07 [link]. Perhaps we can just agree that it's quite dark.

And there's a very interesting issue about the "correct" exposure here. I think I'm correct when I say that spot metering off the moon will cause over exposure, if what you want is an exposure that is technically accurate (as in the picture you posted). On the other hand you're definitely right when you say that spot metering off the moon will cause under exposure, if what you want is an exposure that looks right. It's a psychological effect caused by the fact that we usually see the moon against a dark sky, so we expect it to be light coloured, even though it's actually quite dark.
 
StewartR said:
That's funny, isn't it. You'd think that a simple fact like the albedo of an astronomical body would be easy to pin down. Personally I would trust NASA, who say it's 0.12 [link]. On the other hand you might prefer to trust NASA, who say it's 0.07 [link]. Perhaps we can just agree that it's quite dark.
Click to expand...

Same source, two different facts. That's confusing, and irritating! :) I think perceptual accuracy is what most people will be expecting, so I'd probably err in favour of that. A lunar astronomer or astro-physicist may get annoyed, but it's all about getting something that the audience perceive as correct. It's like white balance... correct is always the best treatment of an image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top