# Finally got a moon shot!!



## UUilliam (Aug 7, 2009)

I finally captured the moon.. after about 8 exposures and some playing in photoshop (one exposure that was the closest with the best clarity)

I was using the Optek 500-1000mm with a Opteka x2 extender
But tbh.. it doesn't change the focal distance so i guess the lens is 500mm without the extender and 1000mm with the extender...
so i guess the image was taken at 1000mm (although i made exif say 500...)
+ a 1.6x crop sensor = 1160mm or 800mm
No idea what the aperture was... (it is a ring thingie i just opened it full... no idea what it is...

Support: 
A £30 tripod... that was rubbish, anytime i locked the head in place, let the camera go, it then decided to fall a bit (so the moon wasnt in the view)
so put my thinkin cap on and used my monopod on my camera as a 4th leg to keep the camera at w/e height i set it at... still took allot of work... 

anyways here ya go...


----------



## Big (Aug 7, 2009)

Holy crap I see the lunar module...jk  It's too bad it wasn't clearer otherwise it would be a sick shot. Kinda the opposite of my problem, focused and sharp but not close enough...


----------



## UUilliam (Aug 7, 2009)

wow, quick reply...
Yeah the telephoto(mirror) lens was cheap (£120) so not the best optics, also it has a greenishy yellow CA around it, I tried to reduce it but didn't help much.

After a quick observation i noticed this...

(red circle)




Dust? or really the lunar module? :O lol(no its not an edit...)


----------



## camz (Aug 7, 2009)

I think it's marvin the marsian building his space modulator! 

Besides the softness I also see horizontal lines significant especially on the dark areas. What is that?


----------



## UUilliam (Aug 7, 2009)

I actually have no idea... Roads maybe?
the Aliens that visit earth every few days have now taken residence upon our moon for easier studying, It took them 8 Life cycles to reach us (with the average alien living 90 human years)
so to get back to their home planet they will use up roughly another 8 life cycles lol I'm a geek...


----------



## camz (Aug 7, 2009)

haha..hey the imagination can take you places partner!


----------



## Sachphotography (Aug 7, 2009)

camz said:


> haha..hey the imagination can take you places partner!



It's always so dark and lonely though........ :


----------



## astrostu (Aug 8, 2009)

Your optics need to be cleaned, possibly your sensor, too.  At least blow the lenses with some compressed air.  Those doughnuts are out-of-focus (since they're on the lens) dust particles.  You're also getting some weird cross-hatch texturing that I'm not sure about since I've never seen before.  Could they be wipe marks on the optics?

If you're using a lens that has an adjustable aperture, you should stop it down by about 1 to 2 stops (3 "clicks" of the f/number is equal to 1 stop, so going from f/4.5 to 5.0 is 1/3 stop, f/5.0 to f/5.6 is 2/3, and f/5.6 to f/6.3 is 1 full stop).

You also need a longer exposure as this is under-exposed.


----------



## AverageJoe (Aug 8, 2009)

I wonder if the tripod was slipping or if the moon was moving... have you considered that?


----------



## UUilliam (Aug 8, 2009)

the shot was actually over  exposed i pp'd it to show the details better.. might use Highlight tone priority next time
The optics are rubbish in the lens as i said it is an opteka 500mm - 1000mm Super HD ^2
mirror lens that cost £120...
it is okay mind you, not the worst optics i guess...
but i have no idea how to use the aperture rings... there is 2 rings... 1 that has the stops on it then one that say o -----------------------------> c on it (guessing open -> close but why would they do that....

@averagejoe
Tripod was slipping  as soon as i sat the monopod on the tripod (tripod supported the lens then i used the monopod to hold the camera body up by making the monopod go under the tripod as to trap it so it didn't move) it was fine


----------



## Stosh (Aug 8, 2009)

Ah yes, the never ending battle to get the perfect moon shot.  What a fun and challenging endeavor.  Here are some things to consider.

The moon moves.
The atmosphere boils.
Your tripod flexes and vibrates.
Your shutter and mirror create vibrations.

Extenders and barlow lenses are fun and tempting because they can seemingly multiply your focal length forever.  The problem is that every time you extend the effective focal length you're paying for it somewhere else - mostly with exposure time.  Most people want to expand the moon until it fills up the frame figuring they will get the most detail out of it.  This is usually not the case.  Your lens starts at f/8 and becomes f/16 with the 2x extender.  You have a 12.2 MP sensor on a 1.6 crop frame which means you're already diffraction limited at f/8 with any lens assuming it's perfect.  I'm not familiar with the Optek 500mm, but let's assume you are already 2x oversampling the resolution of this lens at its native 500mm.  In theory 4x oversampling would be better (shooting at 1000mm), but with all the other factors at stake, let's stick to shooting at 500mm.  This allows you to get a shorter exposure.  I think you'll find that increased sharpness will more than compensate for the smaller image size.

ISO:  try shooting at higher ISOs also to keep shortening your exposure time.  At some point the noise of high ISO will become more prominent than the details you're trying to freeze from the fast exposure time.  This is the line you want to ride.  Depending on how good the rest of your setup is, my guess is you'd be shooting at ISO 800 or so.  If you want to get really geeky, you can take multiple images and then download stacking software that will basically eliminate any noise and you can shoot at even faster ISOs.

Exposure time or metering.  The full moon is pretty low contrast.  Any partial moon starts having some serious contrast.  Review your shot on the histogram.  Keep the moon's detail at the lower end of the histogram which will shorten your exposure time.  You can boost the brightness later in PP.

This was already said before, but shoot when the moon is at its highest to reduce atmospheric interference.

Use the mirror lockup function to reduce shutter vibrations.

Use the self timer for 10 seconds or better yet use a remote shutter release.

Use your heaviest and strongest tripod and step away from your setup well ahead of when it will take the pic.

Last but definitely the most important:  Focus.  I assume you're using live view to find focus on the moon.  If you're not, then use it.  Never try to focus by sight through the viewfinder or by markings on the lens.  Also, while you're using live view, find a bright star to focus on, not the moon.  Make the star as small as possible - this will be the best focus.  It's easier for your eyes to see the star become a pinpoint rather than an object like the moon to come in and out of focus.

Good luck!


----------



## astrostu (Aug 9, 2009)

Stosh said:


> ISO:  try shooting at higher ISOs also to keep shortening your exposure time.  At some point the noise of high ISO will become more prominent than the details you're trying to freeze from the fast exposure time.  This is the line you want to ride.  Depending on how good the rest of your setup is, my guess is you'd be shooting at ISO 800 or so.  If you want to get really geeky, you can take multiple images and then download stacking software that will basically eliminate any noise and you can shoot at even faster ISOs.



NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Lowest ISO.  There is no reason to shoot at high ISO.  Any added noise onto something that's dark is bad.  And there's absolutely no reason to use anything but your lowest ISO on the moon unless it's perhaps <10% full or eclipsed.  At f/8, your shutter speed should be around 1/80-1/120 sec (depending on the phase and altitude, you may have to adjust) at *ISO 100*.

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest shooting the moon at anything but your lowest ISO, let alone ISO 800.


----------



## Jeffro (Aug 9, 2009)

So I guess your saying not to use 200 iso? Are you firm on that answer of no!? is that your final Answer! 

I have never tried but I guess lowest iso is the answer! Just joking around!!! the big no's everywhere just suprised me!!! LOL


Oh I checked out your site and it is nice!!!


----------



## Stosh (Aug 10, 2009)

astrostu said:


> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
> 
> Lowest ISO.  There is no reason to shoot at high ISO.  Any added noise onto something that's dark is bad.  And there's absolutely no reason to use anything but your lowest ISO on the moon unless it's perhaps <10% full or eclipsed.  At f/8, your shutter speed should be around 1/80-1/120 sec (depending on the phase and altitude, you may have to adjust) at *ISO 100*.
> 
> I'm sorry, but it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest shooting the moon at anything but your lowest ISO, let alone ISO 800.



Wow, what a well thought out and considerate post.
Absolutely ridiculous to suggest shooting the moon at anything but your lowest ISO?  Are you going to back that up with an even larger font next response?
I'm trying to help the guy out here.  Higher ISOs will shorten exposure times which will lessen the probability of other "bad" things happening like wind shaking the camera, vibrations though the tripod, or atmospheric interference.  Sure when you've done this many many times and are trying to tweak any tiny bit of increased data out of your moon shot, you'd eventually try for ISO 100 AND shooting through tele extenders or barlows to make the moon as large as possible for the most oversampling.  And then (as you already know) would take many images and stack them.  Stop trying to make the guy a professional his first moon shot.

I don't have large fonts to offer, but here is a shot from a few months ago taken at the dreaded ISO 800.  Let's see if anyone here is bothered by all the noise in the shot.  Oh yeah, and this is one exposure with a simple contrast stretch.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Aug 10, 2009)

EXIF says 400 ISO, but great shot regardless.

I typically shoot the moon at f/8 to f/11 and at base ISO (200 for me) and a shutter speed closely matching my focal length, (250mm).

It's a good starting point.


----------



## Stosh (Aug 10, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> EXIF says 400 ISO, but great shot regardless.


Oh shoot I was afraid of that after I posted.  I shot both in ISO 400 and 800 that night and never bothered to see which was which.

One more thing I need help on:


astrostu said:


> There is no reason to shoot at high ISO.  Any added noise onto something that's dark is bad.


OK, so the moon (which is practically the same brightness as mid day on earth) is dark and for dark things we want to use low ISOs.  Got it.


astrostu said:


> And there's absolutely no reason to use anything but your lowest ISO on the moon unless it's perhaps <10% full or eclipsed.


Ummm, <10% or eclipsed would seem to be even darker than the full moon.  So for even darker than dark it's OK to use higher ISOs.  I thought I had it, but now I'm confused.


----------



## Moglex (Aug 10, 2009)

Stosh said:


> astrostu said:
> 
> 
> > There is no reason to shoot at high ISO.  Any added noise onto something that's dark is bad.
> ...



I think what he means is that as the background is extremely dark it's best to avoid adding noise as it will be very obvious. Although, in the case of the moon, you could easily get rid of noise in the background, for other astonomical 'scenes' that may not be practical. (e.g. Imagine the Horse Head Nebula).




			
				Stosh said:
			
		

> astrostu said:
> 
> 
> > And there's absolutely no reason to use anything but your lowest ISO on the moon unless it's perhaps <10% full or eclipsed.
> ...



If the moon is < ~10% full then you will be photographing 90% of it using Earthshine (same for any part that is eclipsed) so you may well need a higher ISO.


----------



## astrostu (Aug 10, 2009)

Stosh said:


> astrostu said:
> 
> 
> > Lowest ISO.  There is no reason to shoot at high ISO.  Any added noise onto something that's dark is bad.  And there's absolutely no reason to use anything but your lowest ISO on the moon unless it's perhaps <10% full or eclipsed.  At f/8, your shutter speed should be around 1/80-1/120 sec (depending on the phase and altitude, you may have to adjust) at *ISO 100*.
> ...



I'm frustrated with responses of using a high ISO because I've seen them so many times and it's bad advice.  And I backed that up by explaining why.  I'm not trying to make the original poster a "professional," but there are fundamentals of exposure settings, and higher ISOs will necessarily add more noise.  It's not necessary for the near-full moon.  First you choose an aperture, then choose your shutter speed, and only if your shutter speed is relatively slow should you consider increasing the ISO.  It will add noise.  Noise is bad.  Learn good habits at the beginning.




Moglex said:


> Stosh said:
> 
> 
> > astrostu said:
> ...



Mostly correct on the first point, but my reason with the last point is per what I said above.  The very thin moon or eclipsed moon is much darker than a full moon.  In order to properly expose it with a decent aperture and ISO 100 (or 200 if you're using most Nikons) will require a very slow shutter speed of <1/30 sec where shaking and the moon's movement becomes an issue.  During a total lunar eclipse, the exposure time with the same aperture as during a full moon and ISO 100 can be well over 15,000 times longer and unless you have a telescope mount you will have to compensate by increasing the ISO.

Again, it's a basic fundamental of shooting:  Aperture and shutter speed first, increase ISO only if you have to because it WILL increase the noise.  Starting out with an ISO of 800 is simply unnecessary and if it's unnecessary then it shouldn't be done because it will negatively affect your photo.


----------



## EhJsNe (Aug 14, 2009)

Its fuzzy. XD  I cant imagine any optics are that bad, at such a high focal length, it could be just about anything, the moon moving, hand shake (from hitting the button, unless you have the timer set) mirror vibration, the wind blew and caused your tripod to move a teeny bit, or you could have just missed the focus (Very possible, especially with the small viewfinders of digital cameras)

I say keep the 2x extender off. Heres a shot with an old Sigma 500mm f/8 






I could have waited for more of the moon to be there, but you get the point, you can do that at 500, then crop it more if you want to toaly fill the frame...


----------



## Joves (Aug 14, 2009)

astrostu said:


> Stosh said:
> 
> 
> > ISO: try shooting at higher ISOs also to keep shortening your exposure time. At some point the noise of high ISO will become more prominent than the details you're trying to freeze from the fast exposure time. This is the line you want to ride. Depending on how good the rest of your setup is, my guess is you'd be shooting at ISO 800 or so. If you want to get really geeky, you can take multiple images and then download stacking software that will basically eliminate any noise and you can shoot at even faster ISOs.
> ...


  I dont think I have ever seen you get so excited. But yes you are correct.  I think the fastest fil I ever used for astrophotos was 400 but it was pushed. I never used anything faster than 100 for the moon.


----------



## Stosh (Aug 15, 2009)

I realize I should just leave this alone, but people seriously interested in shooting the moon need to take a more analytical approach.  Stop being so rigid because some book or article says "lowest ISO" somewhere.  Some people, equipment, and situations are different from others.  Yes, yes, we all know that lower ISO results in lower noise.  I didn't see any noise in any of the moon shots posted here.  To tell somebody that it's "ridiculous" to shoot the moon at anything other than 100 is frankly ridiculous.  You should analyze each of yours shots at the pixel level and you can usually see what's wrong with it or what needs to be improved.  Let me give some examples:

If you're having a difficult time with focus, ISO is irrelevant.
If you're having a difficult time with exposure, ISO is irrelevant.
If you're having a difficult time with image blur, _*higher*_ ISO _*will **help*_ for the time being, but eventually you should either shoot in a place with no wind, use a tripod/mount (or find a better one), or use mirror lockup function.  But for now you've got to deal with what you got so go higher ISO!
If you're having a difficult time with noise, guess what?  You should lower your ISO.  There!  I said it!

To sum this up, almost nobody but the seasoned moon photographers will have noise as their limiting factor in creating a nice moon shot.  When you finally get to that point, then you can follow the "book" advice above and shoot low ISO.  Again, it's basic fundamentals of shooting - find out what's wrong with your picture and fix it.

Besides, we can talk all day about theory, but can anyone see any noise in my shot at ISO 400?  All I see is JPG artifacts.  Remember, ISO 400 allowed me to expose my image 75% less time than ISO 100.  That's 75% less tripod shake, 75% less atmospheric disturbance, and 75% less wind shake.


----------

