Moonlight exposure

Messages
5,812
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
Folks, any advice on taking a landscape shot in moonlight? Most of the internet say take a baseline shot check your histogram and try again which is no use for me.

I just need a start point, I can always bracket a few.

I'll be using neopan 100 in the RB67.
 

Andysnap

<span class="poty">POTY (Film) 2015</span>
Messages
15,546
Name
Andy Grant
Edit My Images
Yes
#2
You probably need to be closer...a step ladder...:D
 
Messages
3,059
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
Folks, any advice on taking a landscape shot in moonlight? Most of the internet say take a baseline shot check your histogram and try again which is no use for me.
Take a polaroid shot and, erm, check your histogram?


Seriously, have you got another camera (35mm or digital) or a phone app that you could use to meter the scene? (Based on the assumption that something like a Weston V won't read anything at night.)
 
OP
OP
steveo_mcg
Messages
5,812
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
You probably need to be closer...a step ladder...:D
:D

Take a polaroid shot and, erm, check your histogram?


Seriously, have you got another camera (35mm or digital) or a phone app that you could use to meter the scene? (Based on the assumption that something like a Weston V won't read anything at night.)
I'm dragging my bike and bivi gear up a hill and struggling for space as it is so I'd rather not take my Digi and I don't think my OM's will work due to the way their meter works, they will expose correctly but they'll not tell you what shutter speed they've used.

My spot meter is hopeless after dark (a little rubbish at dusk).
 

RaglanSurf

Forum Idiot'13/14 <span class=poty>FPOTY'17</span>
Messages
10,541
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
I think its unlikely you'll be able to expose correctly for the moon (which is surprisingly bright) and get a good exposure for the landscape which be darker than dark thing wearing dark clothes. A good starting point is to go with an aperture of f/11, ISO 100 and a shutter speed of 1/250 of a second. You may have to be clever and shoot one exposure for the moon and one for the foreground.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
steveo_mcg
Messages
5,812
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
I'm not too fussy about the moon itself, I'm hoping that I'll get the shot while its still to high to be in frame so its really just exposing for the landscape.
 

RaglanSurf

Forum Idiot'13/14 <span class=poty>FPOTY'17</span>
Messages
10,541
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
I'm not too fussy about the moon itself, I'm hoping that I'll get the shot while its still to high to be in frame so its really just exposing for the landscape.
Ah, that makes things a little different. You really need some sort sort of lightmeter and a away to calculate reciprocity.
 
Messages
9,393
Edit My Images
No
#8
A general guide is that sunlight reflected by the moon is about one millionth of that directly from the sun.

That is 20 stops. So on a cloudless night with a full moon, use a sunny 16 setting - then add 20 stops.

e.g. f16 at ISO 100 would need 8192 seconds. At f8 that would be 2048 seconds or 34 minutes.

And if you are using film, there's the reciprocity factor to consider! Although Fuji film doesn't suffer as badly from this as other makes.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
steveo_mcg
Messages
5,812
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
Ah, that makes things a little different. You really need some sort sort of lightmeter and a away to calculate reciprocity.
Yeah just wondering if I can cheat!

A general guide is that sunlight reflected by the moon is about one millionth of that directly from the sun.

That is 20 stops. So on a cloudless night with a full moon, use a sunny 16 setting - then add 20 stops.

e.g. f16 at ISO 100 would need 8192 seconds. At f8 that would be 2048 seconds or 34 minutes.

And if you are using film, there's the reciprocity factor to consider! Although Fuji film doesn't suffer as badly from this as other makes.


Steve.
Half an hour at F8, sounds fine. Open shutter, set alarm go back to sleep, I think I can manage that!!
 
OP
OP
steveo_mcg
Messages
5,812
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#12
Any one tried the negative EV settings ultimate exposure computer? http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#Light Intensity Chart

The ultimate exposure computer gives EV-3, if I have an iso 100 film and shooting at F8 what would my shutter be? Close to the 30 minutes above?

According to this table on wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value#EV_as_an_indicator_of_camera_settings, EV-3 at F8 needs only 8 minutes, call it 10 for reciprocity. So if I do a bit of judicious bracketing and open up to F5.6, I could do 2, 4, 8 and 16 minutes then get back to sleep for couple of hours.
 
Last edited:

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,010
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
Well moonlight shots take seconds not minutes......Just for a laugh and for comparison I set some of my cameras on auto exposure for a moonlight shot of the back garden and it came out sorta like daylight...Anyway at a guess (as I'm not an expert) the cameras fired after about 12-15 secs with 200 ISO film.
 
Messages
9,393
Edit My Images
No
#14
Also, you don't really want to give enough exposure to make the scene look like daylight (you might as well do it during the day) so give enough exposure to make it look like night.


Steve.
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,010
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
Also, you don't really want to give enough exposure to make the scene look like daylight (you might as well do it during the day) so give enough exposure to make it look like night.


Steve.
Hollywood used to use filters so their daylight filming shots looked like moonlit shots....well it fooled me in not knowing exactly what all moonlit shots supposed to look like ;)
 
Messages
9,393
Edit My Images
No
#16
Hollywood used to use filters so their daylight filming shots looked like moonlit shots....well it fooled me in not knowing exactly what all moonlit shots supposed to look like
For black and white film, I think it was a red filter with a bit of under exposure. Not sure what they do for colour - wait until night time perhaps!

EDIT: Although this suggests that infra red film was used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_for_night

And for colour, either tungsten balanced film in daylight or a light blue tungsten light filter.


Steve.
 
Last edited:

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,010
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
For black and white film, I think it was a red filter with a bit of under exposure. Not sure what they do for colour - wait until night time perhaps!

EDIT: Although this suggests that infra red film was used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_for_night

And for colour, either tungsten balanced film in daylight or a light blue tungsten light filter.


Steve.
Ah! and they probably cheated as well as we all assumed there was a moon out and it wasn't pitch black :D erm amazing that all the cowboy shots at night were quite clear o_O
 
OP
OP
steveo_mcg
Messages
5,812
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#19
According to this table on wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value#EV_as_an_indicator_of_camera_settings, EV-3 at F8 needs only 8 minutes, call it 10 for reciprocity. So if I do a bit of judicious bracketing and open up to F5.6, I could do 2, 4, 8 and 16 minutes then get back to sleep for couple of hours.
Got to try this at the weekend though I've not finished the roll yet. I did a lot of bracketing to hopefully get the shot, 2,4,10 then I thought I'd do 1 and 5 minutes for luck! Not sure what I'd have done with out Acros though the ten minute exposure would have been of the order of 20 hours with FP4!! You can tell I'm a city boy I'd not realised just how bright the full moon actually is away from the lights; I was projecting a very strong distinct shadow, think sunny 16/11 but still really dark.
 
Messages
14,145
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#20
Here a digital shot which may give you a starting point.
This is a moonrise with a bit of low level ambient street lighting (not enough to read by) behind me.

Shooting the moon (1)
by dicktay2000, on Flickr

5 seconds @ f7.1 and ISO 800

Just adust your film exposure time to suit.
This is anything but a moonrise. Low-ish moon at best? Those things can look crazy impressive when moon is just above horizon. Give me clear weather and a really long lens...
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,010
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
#22
The moon is starting to shine through my bedroom window again and full moon madness is starting to affect me again.
At 10:30 took a couple of shots (thin cloud around) of the moon fairly low down with the T90 and the spot reading was 1/15 @ f8 with a 2Xs converter at 200 iso. Tonight, if clear, will take a spot reading with the F4 with no 2 Xs convertor to see if the cameras agree....to get the correct exposure will have to take into consideration the 2xs converter plus the moon's brightness\whiteness which is probably fooling the meter to some degree........h'mm probably going over old ground again o_O:( but only need 3 more posts for 10,000 and do I get a prize from admin o_O :notworthy:
 

RaglanSurf

Forum Idiot'13/14 <span class=poty>FPOTY'17</span>
Messages
10,541
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
#25
:facepalm::banghead::crying:



Please, Please, Please make your final two posts prior to your 10,000th be of PHOTOS of the MOON!
Fixed that for you Asha :D
 
Messages
3,131
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
#26
I'd advise against shooting the Moon when it's full. It's much better to photograph it at a partial phase as the sunlight is then hitting it at a shallower angle, adding contrast due to craters and other features casting shadows.

Shooting the full moon is akin to going out to photograph something on Earth at midday with the sun shining directly down from above.
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,010
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
#27
I'd advise against shooting the Moon when it's full. It's much better to photograph it at a partial phase as the sunlight is then hitting it at a shallower angle, adding contrast due to craters and other features casting shadows.

Shooting the full moon is akin to going out to photograph something on Earth at midday with the sun shining directly down from above.
Well yes but I haven't got any decent shots of the moon yet on film to proceed further (and why I'm mad to continue esp when I have also to be lucky that a 2Xs converter would give sharp results ).... and hate to say that I only took two shots with the Nex 3, with Canon 200mm (probably @ 800 iso) and no problem enlarging the image, and the results were much better with the lens just propped out of the bedroom window. o_O
Anyway I'm on number 2 of 24 on the T90 so I'll wake you all up in the future with a moonshot post. :sleep:
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,010
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
#29
It's nothing to do with Nicola of that ilk, but tonight sees the appearance of the Sturgeon Moon! Fuller details at the link, including the dates for full moons for the rest of the year. ;)
https://inews.co.uk/news/science/sturgeon-moon-next-full-when-date-how-watch-uk/
Come on guys all out tonight and lets see your results, moon rise 20:47 and sets at 05:17 so ample time to get a shot providing you have a clear sky.
You have:- show your throwaway camera and pinhole and compact results etc so why not this :rolleyes:
 

Andysnap

<span class="poty">POTY (Film) 2015</span>
Messages
15,546
Name
Andy Grant
Edit My Images
Yes
#30
Weather permitting I shall give it a go (y)
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,564
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
#31
Come on guys all out tonight and lets see your results, moon rise 20:47 and sets at 05:17 so ample time to get a shot providing you have a clear sky.
You have:- show your throwaway camera and pinhole and compact results etc so why not this :rolleyes:
Interesting challenge proposal there Bri.
Unfortunately I can’t be a part of it as I no longer possess a lens of suitable focal length
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,010
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
#33
Interesting challenge proposal there Bri.
Unfortunately I can’t be a part of it as I no longer possess a lens of suitable focal length
Keep it under your hat but the real challenge is getting the exposure right for the minimum wastage of film o_O Could be expensive for LF.
 

RaglanSurf

Forum Idiot'13/14 <span class=poty>FPOTY'17</span>
Messages
10,541
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
#35
Longest lens 300mm ( that’s less than 70 mm on an slr!)......It would be one hell of a crop!
Surely if you climb the nearest mountain that would help?
 
Last edited:

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,149
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#36
It would be better if the mountain were directly below the moon at the moment of exposure, of course.

Two other possibilities suggest themselves. First, the amount of light bending which lenses rely on to work depends on the difference between the refractive index of the glass and air. Possibly if lens, camera and photographer were placed in a tank containing a transparent liquid of appropriate refractive index, the focal length could be increased?

Alternatively, if a suitably high resolution ground glass was used, it would be possible to photograph the part containing the image of the moon with a second LF camera with a short focal length lens and maximum bellows extension to get an enlarged macro photo.

I expect that there are other alternatives, if we think deeply enough about the problem.
 
Last edited:

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,564
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
#37
if a suitably high resolution ground glass was used, it would be possible to photograph the part containing the image of the moon with a second LF camera with a short focal length lens and maximum bellows extension to get an enlarged macro photo.
You know summat, I could be mad enough to attempt that!:naughty:

if lens, camera and photographer were placed in a tank containing a transparent liquid
This too could be an option ....................................For YOU!:LOL:
I'll supply a straw! :exit:
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,149
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#39
You know summat, I could be mad enough to attempt that!:naughty:
Putting on a more serious hat, the practical difficulty (apart from finding a ground glass screen that didn't degrade the image) would be that the image projected by the first lens on the ground glass would be less bright than the moon itself; the ground glass would subtract even more light, the second lens would cut the light even more and finally the bellows extension would be the final dimming. Given the speed that the moon moves at, getting a shutter speed to give a sharp image while getting an image at all recorded might be impossible.

We could, or course, calculate the light losses in advance, if we assume a figure a figure for the ground glass; although you may be able to supply a measured figure for the ground glass loss for your cameras?
 
Last edited:

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,564
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
#40
although you may be able to supply a measured figure for the ground glass loss for your cameras?
Along with a load of other things that I'm working on, I have that in hand with my Lunasix probe and lightmeter! ;)

Fortunatley the moon is going to be around for some time yet as it could be near Christmas by the time i actually get this project off the ground!:rolleyes:
 
Top