Moon and stars in same picture ?? I'm confused !!

[Crotal Bell]

Usually when I take a moon shot I can't see the stars, and you kind people explained that's normal.
Last night when I started editing my moon shots I seemed to struggle not to see the stars ??

Furthermore, some of the stars appeared in front of the dark side of the moon, and I'm sure that's nothing to do with Pink Floyd

The stars are clearer on my original. Can anyone please explain what's going on?

 

[woof woof]

I think this is because the moon is relatively bright and some of the stars aren't so a good exposure for the moon might make stars invisible unless they're bright, like they have been recently.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I think this is because the moon is relatively bright and some of the stars aren't so a good exposure for the moon might make stars invisible unless they're bright, like they have been recently.

So what I can't understand is the stars on the dark side, presumably they are closer than the moon and catching the suns rays in front of it?

 

[woof woof]

So what I can't understand is the stars on the dark side, presumably they are closer than the moon and catching the suns rays in front of it?

If the "Stars" are stars like our sun they'll give off their own light but if they're planets they'll reflect the Suns light.

I think that's how it works

 

[ancient_mariner]

So what I can't understand is the stars on the dark side, presumably they are closer than the moon and catching the suns rays in front of it?

You know that stars are suns, like our sun approximately but many light years away? They can't reflect sunlight in any meaningful way because they are producing enormous amounts of it!

What you're seeing is probably secret Nazi bases.

 

[woof woof]

You know that stars are suns, like our sun approximately but many light years away? They can't reflect sunlight in any meaningful way because they are producing enormous amounts of it!

What you're seeing is probably secret Nazi bases.

What was it they said in The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy? Something like "The universe is unbelievably big. You might think it's a long way to the chemists but that's peanuts compared to space."

 

[Crotal Bell]

You know that stars are suns, like our sun approximately but many light years away? They can't reflect sunlight in any meaningful way because they are producing enormous amounts of it!

What you're seeing is probably secret Nazi bases.

Well whatever it is it's there on the photo and I'm too daft to know.

 

[Jannyfox]

If you've found stars between us the and the Moon be afraid. Be very afraid We'd be heading for Interstellar (space in) Overdrive

Probably camera generated

Or Pigs on the Wing

 

[TimHughes]

can you share an example with the mysterious stars?

 

[DemiLion]

Looks like a combination of exposure relate noise/grain and a sensor needing a clean, IMO.

 

[LeeRatters]

You aren't going to find any stars closer to earth than the moon

 

[TimHughes]

Looks like a combination of exposure relate noise/grain and a sensor needing a clean, IMO.

+1

I'm looking on a proper screen now and I see what you mean.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Looks like a combination of exposure relate noise/grain and a sensor needing a clean, IMO.

Possibly the former but the sensor is in a bridge camera and I can obtain images of a pure black sky. I've edited before and contrast seems to bring stars into focus on occasion but never like that before.

 

[Crotal Bell]

+1

I'm looking on a proper screen now and I see what you mean.

It's a bridge camera and as far as I can tell on all other photos the sensor is as clean as a whistle.

 

[Nod]

Since the shutter speeds and ISOs usually needed for the Moon are relatively fast, I wouldn't think that the spots would be noise but they could be. I'd suspect hot pixels or possibly satellites.

 

[Sangoma]

Are they on all the pictures in the same place relative to the moon?

The look like random noise spots, or if they appear in other pictures in the same pattern, hot pixels, as has been suggested. They may not show up on all photos, but when they do, they will be in the same pattern.

 

[Crotal Bell]

If you lift the exposure of the OP's image you end up with the following. I did the same thing with some images that I have taken of the moon and the black sky remained pure black.

View attachment 367274

That's interesting, so what does this teach me please?
Usually my photos of the moon are with a black background, when I edit the dots sometimes appear. I assumed they were stars coming into focus.

 

[ancient_mariner]

That's interesting, so what does this teach me please?
Usually my photos of the moon are with a black background, when I edit the dots sometimes appear. I assumed they were stars coming into focus.

Most likely that there's a lot of noise from the sensor - false 'positive' pixels - that appear as stars.

 

[TimHughes]

@Crotal Bell try taking a photo with the same settings and the lens cap on and process the same way. This will confirm for sure whether the effect is from your camera's sensor or somehow from the scene.

In astro photography, people use such "dark frames" to eliminate noise https://astrobackyard.com/how-to-take-dark-frames/

 

[wornish]

Every camera sensor will have "hot" very sensitive pixels that will be the first to show when you push the exposure very high.

 

[Sangoma]

Most likely that there's a lot of noise from the sensor - false 'positive' pixels - that appear as stars.

Yes, that is what it looks like.
There is a lot of noise in that picture, and there looks like there has been quite a bit of sharpening and contrast added (probably by the camera in producing the jpeg), both of which will give those "stars" from a noisy picture.

Using either the extended or digital zoom makes the noise worse.

You would probably get better results from a RAW file, then make sure nothing you do makes any over exposed indicators come on, you will see them start as one or two dots until whole area show up however your programme indicates it. (as you increase settings like contrast, brightness, exposure, saturation, sharpness (clarity)) etc.
Noise reduction will decrease detail slightly, which would be quite noticeable on a moon photo.

However, as there are no holes in the moon for the stars to shine through, so you know they can't be there, and if you are happy with the rest of the picture, just edit them out

 

[Crotal Bell]

Yes, that is what it looks like.
There is a lot of noise in that picture, and there looks like there has been quite a bit of sharpening and contrast added (probably by the camera in producing the jpeg), both of which will give those "stars" from a noisy picture.

Using either the extended or digital zoom makes the noise worse.

You would probably get better results from a RAW file, then make sure nothing you do makes any over exposed indicators come on, you will see them start as one or two dots until whole area show up however your programme indicates it. (as you increase settings like contrast, brightness, exposure, saturation, sharpness (clarity)) etc.
Noise reduction will decrease detail slightly, which would be quite noticeable on a moon photo.

However, as there are no holes in the moon for the stars to shine through, so you know they can't be there, and if you are happy with the rest of the picture, just edit them out

It was a RAW file, but yes I think you're right about the editing causing this, and it's helped me understand a lot, this thread was very educational.

 

[woof woof]

Keith, your recent moon pictures have inspired me to have another go

 

[Sangoma]

It was a RAW file, but yes I think you're right about the editing causing this, and it's helped me understand a lot, this thread was very educational.

Well, I think it was a good shot, it is very hard to balance detail with noise.
You took it at the right phase of the moon to get shadows and see the surface detail, and the processing I don't think was bad.
If you reduced the noise, you would lose some of the impact of the surface detail, however a casual glance would probably see the noise as detail

I zoomed in because I could not see the "stars" !
The "editing" may have produced the stars, but I don't think it was bad, and I think I would have just edited out the stars.

A couple of things I find help with moon shots if you don't do them already(except getting better equipment which I haven't got) is to crop before you start, this makes the changes quicker as you work, and to set the saturation and vibrance to the minimum. This will obviously make the picture black and white, but it does help with noise reduction. (if the moon looked pink you can add that later)

I've found I get best results by setting the ISO to 200, aperture wide open (not interested in the image outside of the centre of the lens, there is nothing there!) then take a series of shots with increasing shutter speeds usually the best one is the darkest you can still see the detail clearly.

I don't think moon shots are the easiest with a ordinary camera, and a small sensor does not make it easier

 

[Tringa]

Irrespective of the bright dots it is a great shot,

Dave

PS IF there were stars between the Moon and the Earth we wouldn't be discussing this now

 

[Crotal Bell]

Well, I think it was a good shot, it is very hard to balance detail with noise.
You took it at the right phase of the moon to get shadows and see the surface detail, and the processing I don't think was bad.
If you reduced the noise, you would lose some of the impact of the surface detail, however a casual glance would probably see the noise as detail

I zoomed in because I could not see the "stars" !
The "editing" may have produced the stars, but I don't think it was bad, and I think I would have just edited out the stars.

A couple of things I find help with moon shots if you don't do them already(except getting better equipment which I haven't got) is to crop before you start, this makes the changes quicker as you work, and to set the saturation and vibrance to the minimum. This will obviously make the picture black and white, but it does help with noise reduction. (if the moon looked pink you can add that later)

I've found I get best results by setting the ISO to 200, aperture wide open (not interested in the image outside of the centre of the lens, there is nothing there!) then take a series of shots with increasing shutter speeds usually the best one is the darkest you can still see the detail clearly.

I don't think moon shots are the easiest with a ordinary camera, and a small sensor does not make it easier

Thanks, I never thought about changing the saturation etc in camera before the shot, I wonder if the B&W mode is worth a try too?
I have to be honest, with the FZ82, the intelligent auto mode seems to do as well as all the various setting I have tried. This was the best one of the editing taken that evening, it may even be the same RAW file I honestly can't remember.

 

[Sangoma]

Thanks, I never thought about changing the saturation etc in camera before the shot, I wonder if the B&W mode is worth a try too?
I have to be honest, with the FZ82, the intelligent auto mode seems to do as well as all the various setting I have tried. This was the best one of the editing taken that evening, it may even be the same RAW file I honestly can't remember.
View attachment 367326

That one is very nice.

I was meaning to reduce the saturation in the RAW processing, but it may well work in the camera too, and B&W may also be worth trying, I haven't tried it, but I shall Good idea.