Moonlight exposure

Well, it always takes time to set up a large format camera...
 
If you do actually want to calculate out the whole thing, if a lens is opened to f/0.5, the image will be the same brightness as the object (optical purists will object that this isn't strictly true due to aberrations, but we'll ignore that - the figure is close enough). Armed with that, you can calculate the light loss along the way to the final image.
 
Well I'm lucky in that I can see the moon from the bedroom window. So last night set the camera up, then went to bed and lucky I woke up at 1:00am when the moon was quite high and took a couple of shots and went back to bed again. Until I get the film dev will not know if I've got the exposure right as the T90 says f8 @ 1/15 with 2Xs converter and 200 iso.... What is annoying is the converter will not let me set the lens to "A" (auto) to let the camera work the exposure out, when set to shutter or aperture priority.
 
Asha said:
Allowing for the converter, that sounds to me like the exposure will be in the ballpark [emoji106][emoji6]
Click to expand...

Hope so, while you can go through a roll of film by using a range of shutter speeds to get a result...using a spotmeter should reduce the errors for correct exposure, then the latitude of film should reduce any further errors and get something decent....erm in theory o_O;)
 
Steve Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ah, but there’s a difference, the weirdness of bright stars in a daylight sky.
 
Well the gear I have and where I live I can't see me getting anything better :(
What is probably letting me down is the 2Xs converter, not using a fast shutter speed and I don't live on top of a mountain so I'm giving up :rolleyes:
gk6d8GD.jpg
 
4wd said:
The moon itself generally looks better not full, you can actually see sunlight striking higher areas.

View attachment 254639
Click to expand...

Well it would probably be easier, but if you went on all the digi forums and said "you can't get a decent detailed shot of a full moon using available camera equipment"....then someone is going to say "there you go with a shot"o_O
For me if I had a decent 600mm lens (instead of 300mm with 2Xs converter) the shutter speed would be 1/60 for 200 iso @ f8,, but using 400iso film (which I didn't have) the shutter speed would be 1/125.....but then using a very good flat bed scanner this is the best I can get with a crop. :(
Somewhere away from the London area and the shot should be better, so that's that for me ATM.
 
I'm not sure urban light pollution makes much difference taking a shot of the moon, it is actually very bright you almost work at daylight settings.
A moonlit landscape is a different matter!

A built up and lit landscape with moon hanging over it could be a very nice shot.
 
Well all I was trying to achieve was to see some detail on the moon and all I'm getting is smudges of darkness and light. Maybe I was expecting too much and you have to fit a camera onto a telescope to see a bit of detail...anyway all fun and experience.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well all I was trying to achieve was to see some detail on the moon and all I'm getting is smudges of darkness and light.
Click to expand...
Wait for a day with a clear sky when the moon's visible and you should be able to get a usable shot with anything that has a long enough lens. This was taken with a Sony HX90...

Sony HX90 8GB 01 DSC01300.JPG

It's possible to get night shots with a bit of messing about. This was taken with a Panasonic TZ70. The camera was set to shutter priority at 1/60th and the meter chose f6.4 at 400 ISO...

Panasonic TZ70 8GB H05 P1030233.JPG

Neither of these shots reach the standards an astronomer would require.
 
There's the problem then, it's too far away just now :cool:
Atmospheric conditions and haze are hard to judge at night, worth trying again especially now things are cooling down for winter.
I seem to remember getting decent results with an old Olympus compact which had 10x zoom.
 
Mr Badger said:
Just when you thought you might have had the exposure thing sorted
Click to expand...

Well even using the equivalent 600mm (2Xs 300mm) lens the moon is still small, on the neg, to see if I've got the exposure right :(
t90-vista-R2-01015-0024 (11)-600px.jpg

For newbies trying film who are reading this:- by looking at the neg you can see if you have got the exposure about right i.e. if the subject looks too dense then it's well over exposed and if it looks too thin then it's well under exposed.
 
A digi camera mount breaker o_O three 2Xs converters with 300mm lens...h'mm image is a bit dark but well see what sort of shots it takes of the moon and elsewhere.
IMG_9755.JPG
 
Last edited:
What will that give you the equivalent of in mm (assuming it works and you can achieve focus)? However, I suspect that with 3 2x converters the resulting f number will be too high to give you a fast enough shutter speed to avoid motion blur (the moon moving in relation to the earth even if the camera can be kept steady)? Also, I wouldn't want to hang that lot off any camera mount, I'd certainly want the camera body hanging off a tripod mounted lens with that weight and leverage!

In respect of frame filling, as posted previously, I used a 400mm f6.3 with a single 3x converter (giving a 1200mm equivalent) to take this from my bedroom window many years ago when I was 16 - I hope your tripod is more sturdy than the one I used though!

 
excalibur2 said:
A digi camera mount breaker o_O three 2Xs converters with 300mm lens...h'mm image is a bit dark but well see what sort of shots it takes of the moon and elsewhere.
View attachment 255233
Click to expand...

Quite amusing with three 2xs converters and a 300mm lens, the smaller harvest moon wont fit in the 35mm neg frame i.e. it's too large now. So guys if you see a 1800mm prime lens o_O :eek: to buy it's not much use to see all the moon.;)
 
Surely you just have to "zoom with your legs" and walk a bit further back? :exit:
 
P.S. Surely with 3 two times converters, the combined focal length is 2x2x2x300 = 2400mm not 1800mm?
 
StephenM said:
P.S. Surely with 3 two times converters, the combined focal length is 2x2x2x300 = 2400mm not 1800mm?
Click to expand...

H'mm I think you're right (y), so if each converter loses two stops would that be 6 stops lost in total?
 
Last edited:
Yes, your f/2 300mm lens becomes an f/16 2400mm one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top