# Will the moon damage my camera sensor.



## martanh (Nov 9, 2011)

Tonight i saw the very beautiful moon above my house so I try to take yhe picture with my new D7000 18-105mm . I always use shutter speed  from 15-30s and f from f/9 -f/13. But now I'm worrying about sensor because I took photo directly the moon without any filter. Will it damage my camera sensor? Thank you so much for your answer.


----------



## Geaux (Nov 9, 2011)

nope, and too long of a shutter for the moon imo.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 9, 2011)

Earth's moon is illuminated by light from the Sun. As such, the proper exposure for the Moon is for an object lighted by SUNLIGHT.

I am not kidding you. Think in terms of a daylight, sunny daytime exposure setting, and you will have the right exposure for the moon. Photographing the moon will not damage your sensor.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 9, 2011)

X2.

The reason you had such a long exposure is because your camera meter took into account the dark sky.


----------



## martanh (Nov 9, 2011)

Ok thank you so much for all ur opinion, and do you think the time is too long for moonlight? I try to set it smaller but it gives a dark picture. One more thing i want to ask for advice is if i want to spend most of my time to take sunset or sunrise pic or even direct the sun , do i need any filer to protect my camera?


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 9, 2011)

15-30 sec exposure, and it's still dark?

Are you shooting at ISO 8?

Post an image, that would help a lot.


----------



## martanh (Nov 9, 2011)

Here is those pictures. 

#1  ISO 125 , f/9 , 30s






#2  f/13 , 20s





#3 f/9, 13s





#4 f/9,15s












Hope to receive some advice.
Thank you.


----------



## z1rick (Nov 9, 2011)

I made the same mistake when I first shot the moon, way over exposed. I started out at iso 200, f11, and 1/350 or so, then bracket up and down.


----------



## martanh (Nov 10, 2011)

Finally, I can post pics. ^^


----------



## LaFoto (Nov 10, 2011)

If you want to show structures on the moon, you have to take photos of it with daylight settings, as the moon is very bright. Your camera will "shout" "too dark" at you, but just ignore those "shouts", as the camera mostly sees the dark sky around it and therefore "thinks" "it is dark, I need a long exposure". If, however (like it may have been the case when you saw the moon and these clouds) you primarily want to show the light the clouds take up by the light of the moon, you might wish to let go of all the structures (craters and such) and overexpose the moon some to rightly expose for the clouds. That would ask for some longer shutter speeds, of course. So quite much depends on what you want to achieve with your photo. In all of these, though, I feel you failed in both as there must have been a strong wind going up where the clouds were so they dashed past the moon and you only get stripes because of your long shutter speeds. While - I must admit that - THAT effect might also be a desired one... but these don't look like you meant to show the motion... Try and error is so easily done with digital photography. You can do so many test photos with many different settings, and you will learn which setting works best for what purpose.


----------



## dots (Nov 10, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Photographing the moon will not damage your sensor.


 But it might damage the moon. Due to cheese oscillations.


----------



## KmH (Nov 10, 2011)

While the moon indeed shines from reflected sunlight, the Moon isn't very reflective (albedo). 

The moon only reflects an average of about 14% of the sunlight that hits it.

100% reflective is an albedo of 1.0. Fresh snow has an albedo of about 0.9, while charcoal has an albedo of about 0.04. The Moon's average albedo is 0.136.

But that's very bright compared to the balcknes that surrounds the Moon, so the cameras light meter can be fooled if the meter is used in an averaging mode like Evaluative/Matrix or even Center-weighted metering set to a large center size.


----------



## Ballistics (Nov 10, 2011)

Hope this helps: http://photos.sjrdesign.net/documents/photoguide_moon.pdf


----------



## dom yo (Nov 10, 2011)

haha KmH why do you know something like that. Cool fact though.


----------



## ann (Nov 10, 2011)

Don't want to detrail the thread, but last night flying home, I noticed the sun setting on one side of the plane and the moon on the other. It was a lovely moon at that level, and Oh , what i would have done for a camera at that time!  I would have been parallel to the moon and wouldn't have taken a long lens to fill the frame. Oh, well , another shot just for the heart.


----------



## KmH (Nov 10, 2011)

dom yo said:


> haha KmH why do you know something like that. Cool fact though.



My interest in photography was fomented by my interest in astronomy.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 10, 2011)

ann said:


> Don't want to detrail the thread, but last night flying home, I noticed the sun setting on one side of the plane and the moon on the other. It was a lovely moon at that level, and Oh , what i would have done for a camera at that time!  I would have been parallel to the moon and wouldn't have taken a long lens to fill the frame. Oh, well , another shot just for the heart.



It always strikes me as odd when people talk about this. This is a pretty normal occurance where I live, and was even more common in casper, WY at 5500 feet. Why does this happen? The moon would often be visible mid afternoon, too.

Anyway. My advice - spot meter off the moon and provide three stop's greater exposure. If the meter reads F:8 125, set it to F:8 1/15.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 10, 2011)

unpopular said:


> It always strikes me as odd when people talk about this. This is a pretty normal occurance where I live, and was even more common in casper, WY at 5500 feet. Why does this happen? The moon would often be visible mid afternoon, too.
> ............




In reality, it happens _everywhere_ during a full moon.  As the sun sets, the moon is rising.  Casper Wyoming hold no special place in the heart of celestial mechanics.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 10, 2011)

KmH said:


> dom yo said:
> 
> 
> > haha KmH why do you know something like that. Cool fact though.
> ...



Is the Ashton Observatory still there?


----------



## mangtarn (Nov 10, 2011)

how about center weighted metering? would that help?


----------



## ann (Nov 10, 2011)

I know, but to see that moon 30,000 feet (or what ever) above the earth was very cool.

Dan Burkholder has a pano with the sun going down on one side and the moon coming up on the other. (Not PS. just being in the right place at the right time)


----------



## unpopular (Nov 10, 2011)

480sparky said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > It always strikes me as odd when people talk about this. This is a pretty normal occurance where I live, and was even more common in casper, WY at 5500 feet. Why does this happen? The moon would often be visible mid afternoon, too.
> ...



HAHA! How stupid do you think I am!!!

What I meant was why don't I ever see it at lower elevations? Is it just atmosphere?


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 10, 2011)

unpopular said:


> HAHA! How stupid do you think I am!!!
> 
> What I meant was why don't I ever see it at lower elevations? Is it just atmosphere?



"Lower elevations" usually means more trees, buildings etc. to block the view.


----------



## KmH (Nov 10, 2011)

I see it here in Iowa, at about 1000 feet elevation, evey 28 days.

The Moon is visible some mornings too as just a sliver, and just like I mentioned above, will be visible again in the same part of the sky 28 days.

You can see the moon at mid-day too, once every 28 days.

The moon and the stars have 2 time periods. One cause by the Earth's rotation on it's axis measured relative to the stars (sidereal time - Sidereal time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), and the other caused by Earth's revolution around the Sun (solar time - Solar time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).


----------



## TCD photography (Nov 10, 2011)

martanh said:


>



Quick question, but why not get closer to the moon?


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 10, 2011)

TCD photography said:


> Quick question, but why not get closer to the moon?



Wait until 23 Nov..... it will be 32647.46381 miles closer.


----------



## TCD photography (Nov 10, 2011)

:greenpbl:


----------



## unpopular (Nov 10, 2011)

480sparky said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > HAHA! How stupid do you think I am!!!
> ...



Move ya dern horse! I can't see the moon!!

Ok then, I think the real  reason is because I remember this vividly from being a little kid on the playground, I prob just  didn't pay attention to it when I was older and living on the east coast and just figured it was something unique to where I was.


----------



## enzodm (Nov 11, 2011)

mangtarn said:


> how about center weighted metering? would that help?



no need to worry about metering: go manual, and be careful about focus. Just start from some of the values read here (except the OP ones: the moon moves, you have to freeze it with fast shutter times), and then adjust according to results, not to meter. The moon is moving but not so fast to have to be in a hurry.

ISO400, 1/60s, f/13 (approximately, old 400mm+2x teleconverter):




Mid afternoon, ISO100, 1/400, f/8:


----------



## biggoron (Nov 11, 2011)

i took this pic of the moon the other night. this isnt direct from my computer so its not as clear a shot. fb - iphone- photobucket etc...

gotta use daylight like settings to see the surface

edit: that looks so bad. i wish i was at home to upload the original off the camera


----------



## rateeg (Nov 11, 2011)

WHY WOULD A MOONLIGHT DAMAGE SENSORS???


----------



## martanh (Nov 11, 2011)

Thanks for all contribution especially the links because it explaina so detail and carefully about my prob. I love those pics your guy posted. It's so nice anw. Maybe i should shoot faster because moon is always moving eventhough it doesnt move too fast from my viewpoint. The reason that i dont get closer to the moon is because i want to have tree and their leaves under moonlight captures in my pics. But i shoot faster trees may be dark and i can sharpen the moon. And when i shooy longer tree is sharp and moon is blur . Are there no way to get both sharp?


----------



## biggoron (Nov 11, 2011)

martanh said:


> Thanks for all contribution especially the links because it explaina so detail and carefully about my prob. I love those pics your guy posted. It's so nice anw. Maybe i should shoot faster because moon is always moving eventhough it doesnt move too fast from my viewpoint. The reason that i dont get closer to the moon is because i want to have tree and their leaves under moonlight captures in my pics. But i shoot faster trees may be dark and i can sharpen the moon. And when i shooy longer tree is sharp and moon is blur . Are there no way to get both sharp?



you could take 2 pictures, one with the moon properly exposed, and 1 with the foreground properly exposed. then combine them in photoshop or another program. try to use a tripod though to make it alot easier


----------



## martanh (Nov 11, 2011)

Yes biggoron, that's what I regconize after posting my reply. Why dont I take two pics from the same angles and mix it together by Photoshop. However, it will take a little time to get a final product? So it will be great if there are some tips that can do in one shoot.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 11, 2011)

rateeg said:


> WHY WOULD A MOONLIGHT DAMAGE SENSORS???



Because people have irrational fears of things they don't understand.


----------



## KmH (Nov 11, 2011)

Sort of like:



> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke


----------

