# Lunar (Moon) Photography Guide, by Astrostu



## astrostu (Dec 6, 2008)

It seems to be something that everyone tries to photograph at one time or another:  Earth's closest celestial neighbor, the moon (or Moon, depending on your grammar philosophy).  However, there is a lot of confusion floating around on how to properly photograph it.  People seem to be confused about whether or not they need a tripod, what kind of aperture to use, how to focus, proper shutter speed, etc.

Because of this, I have written a 9-page guide on photographing the moon:

*Click Here for PDF*
Guide last updated:  April 2, 2010
Current Version:  2.3 ~ 1 MB​
I am hoping that this will clear up a lot of confusion out there ... and a lot of very bad advice.  Although I know that this thread will quickly become buried on this forum, I am hoping that people will find it by using this site's Search feature or that I can simply refer people to this thread in the future.

Please let me know if you have any comments or questions about the guide, or suggestions for additional content.  You can either reply to this thread, send me a PM, or send me an e-mail.  *I'd really like to hear from you if you've used it successfully or even if you haven't, and what the result was.*  If you were not successful with this guide, I will personally try to help you (so I can figure out specifically what went wrong and make the guide better for others).

Please note:  I will be updating this guide from time-to-time.  When I do, I'll update the "guide last updated" date above as well as add a new post to this thread stating as such for folks who've replied.


----------



## sambrody44 (Dec 6, 2008)

Can we get a sticky on this maybe? If not then I'm subscribed!


----------



## pugnacious33 (Dec 6, 2008)

Thanks for this, i'll be sure to study it!


----------



## TwoRails (Dec 7, 2008)

Thanks for taking the time and effort, astrostu *!!*


----------



## Overread (Dec 7, 2008)

astrostu - have you pmed Terri with this - only it could then be added to the tutorials sticky we have on the site already  
At least then you can easily link to it when needed (Since nobody ever looks at stickies )


----------



## astrostu (Dec 7, 2008)

Overread said:


> astrostu - have you pmed Terri with this - only it could then be added to the tutorials sticky we have on the site already
> At least then you can easily link to it when needed (Since nobody ever looks at stickies )



If you're talking about the Articles of Interest thread, I find that no one reads those anyways, really.  I actually wrote a 4-part one on general astrophotography, and it was - to be honest - a real pain in the butt.  There was a 10,000-word limit which meant that I had to break the single guide into 4 parts, plus two short "replies" to finish out the part.

Plus, Terri couldn't actually extract some of the information so I had to do it, which lead to a mistake when removing the privileges from my account that allowed me to post that ended up deleting my account.  That's why if you go to those posts I made before around Sept. 1, 2008, it says that it's made by astrostu, a guest, with no other information.

Also, there's no way to easily update it once it's posted, I'd have to go through Terri again.  And I can't format it the way I want because it's basic HTML instead of advanced typesetting.

In summary ... no.  By making it a PDF available for download from my own website, I can update it when I want, I can easily change the formatting, and I can still direct people to this thread, which is what I STILL find myself doing with other astrophotography stuff since they don't read the Articles of Interest.

Please note that this is not aimed at Terri personally in any way, shape, nor form.  It's just something that's inherent in a message board site and she just happens to be the point person in this respect.


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Dec 7, 2008)

Very nice work there . But to be absolutely honest, I seem to get about as good photos as I can get by using spot-metering and autofocusing, and checking to see if everything is as it should be each time. Using a tripod, of course.


----------



## astrostu (Dec 14, 2008)

Alright, folks, the Guide has been updated to version 2.0.  Besides some general grammatical changes to the content, I have added a first page that includes a "Purpose of this Guide" and "Some Terms Explained."  I also added a Pet Peeve on over-sharpening to the end, and a Summary section as a last page so you don't have to take the whole guide with you.

I've also added some pictures to this version.  I've included a picture of the full moon along with the histogram to illustrate my point there and what the histogram "should" look like.  And I added a picture illustrating over-sharpening.

Enjoy, and let me know if you want any additions or have problems with it.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 14, 2008)

Great guide.  Thank you for taking the time to do this, astrostu.
:thumbup:


----------



## Vautrin (Dec 14, 2008)

What about adding something about stacking images for higher resolution using autopano?


----------



## Garbz (Dec 15, 2008)

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. It's hard enough to track an object through the sky as it is without having to line them up when the only points of reference (stars) can move if you don't setup your gear perfectly.

By the way stacking is a term with a very different meaning used quite extensively in astro photography.


----------



## astrostu (Dec 15, 2008)

Vautrin said:


> What about adding something about stacking images for higher resolution using autopano?





Garbz said:


> Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. It's hard enough to track an object through the sky as it is without having to line them up when the only points of reference (stars) can move if you don't setup your gear perfectly.
> 
> By the way stacking is a term with a very different meaning used quite extensively in astro photography.



I'm not sure Vautrin's talking about actual resolution, where resolution is the number of pixels that have meaningful information.  If you are, then Autopano Pro really won't help.

There is a fundamental limit to how high of a resolution you can get through Earth's atmosphere, with the BEST places on Earth being around 0.5 arcsec (1/3600° = 1 arcsec).  This would correspond to a moon that is about 1800 px in diameter, or 25" at 72 ppi.  And note that this is for the BEST sites, like on tops of mountains in the dessert with no wind and no humidity.

Now if by "resolution" you mean signal-to-noise ratio, or to bring out the signal of the moon over the noise inherent in camera electronics, then stacking will help.  Averaging two images will reduce the noise by an upper limit of a factor of 1.414 (sqrt(2)).  Averaging 9 will reduce the noise by an upper limit of a factor of 3 (sqrt(9)).

At the moment, though, the Guide is more aimed towards *what you need* to take the picture, and *how* to take the picture.  It is not really aimed at how to process the pictures.

However, if there is sufficient interest, I will add this in future versions.

Oh, and Garbz, AutoPano Pro will automatically align images for you, and it does a very good job of it.


----------



## rubbertree (Jan 10, 2009)

bumping this for those that are prepping for the big lunar event tonight. The moon is going to be closest to us tonight than any other night in 2009. 
Thanks again, Astrostu!


----------



## astrostu (Jan 10, 2009)

The guide has been updated to version 2.1.  There is one main change - correction of what "1 stop" is in f/number (1 change of f/number is 1/3, not 1 stop).  There is one main addition, a small note at the beginning that this guide is not to be hosted anywhere other than my own server, and to let me know if you obtained it elsewhere (obviously folks who get it from the link here are getting it from me).


----------



## astrostu (Jan 10, 2009)

rubbertree said:


> bumping this for those that are prepping for the big lunar event tonight. The moon is going to be closest to us tonight than any other night in 2009.
> Thanks again, Astrostu!



You're welcome.  Though I should note that your information is not correct - it gets closest to us once every lunar month.  The difference about January 10 is that that closest approach (perigee) occurs very close to a full moon (16.5 hrs before full), much like the event last month (Dec. 2008) when it actually happened about 5.5 hrs after the full moon.  Because the lunar orbit precesses, the location of perigee and apogee relative to the phase is not consistent, hence why this month it's closest approach is not during the full moon, just close to it.


----------



## rubbertree (Jan 10, 2009)

According to NASA, tonight's full moon will appear bigger and brighter than any other full moon in 2009. So I guess I shouldn't have said it will be the closest tonight in 2009.


----------



## Akoz (Jan 10, 2009)

kind of disapointed my area is over cast.  
hopefully someone on here can snap a great shot tonight.


----------



## craig (Jan 11, 2009)

Mostly off topic, but I thought you might be interested in this article and photo. I trust you have seen it already. Just thought I would throw it out there.


Stunning photographs of landmark captured over six-month period - Telegraph


Love & Bass


----------



## 12 Wyoming (Feb 28, 2009)

Thank you much for your time in putting this guide together. I tried in vein last night to get a good pic of the Moon and Venus. I really want to get good at this, but it will take a different lens for starters. A 135 mm  isn't cutting it, And I need to learn this new camera. Canon 50D.

Thanks again!


----------



## astrostu (Oct 26, 2009)

Hey folks - version 2.2 is out!  I've fixed up the grammar a bit, and adjusted some formatting to emphasize the more important points and hopefully make it a bit easier to follow.

The two main changes are that, first, I added a new section to the "Pet Peeves" part -- the "Sunny 16" and "Looney 11" rules.  Gah!!  DON'T USE THEM!!  While the Looney 11 one will probably get you a decent exposure, it completely ignores the idea of using your lens' sharpest aperture (as most people use it, anyway).  The second change is that I tried to make the last page, the "Summary," more of a, "If you are only going to print 1 page of this guide, print this one!!"  I tried to make it into a quick check-list for folks to use in the field.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 26, 2009)

Good summary page!

Though I think you're taking the "rules" a bit too seriously. Mostly it's worth remembering Sunny-16 and Lunny-11 for the sake of three clicks right on the thumb wheel = three clicks left on the index finger and volah I'm at f/8 with double the shutter speed. Good to remember as a starting spot, but I don't think I've ever actually seen someone shoot at f/16 on an APS-C camera


----------



## astrostu (Oct 26, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Good summary page!
> 
> Though I think you're taking the "rules" a bit too seriously. Mostly it's worth remembering Sunny-16 and Lunny-11 for the sake of three clicks right on the thumb wheel = three clicks left on the index finger and volah I'm at f/8 with double the shutter speed. Good to remember as a starting spot, but I don't think I've ever actually seen someone shoot at f/16 on an APS-C camera



Unfortunately, I have.  Many times on this forum.  I've even seen people give feedback advising that they really should have shot it at f/22.


----------



## Overread (Oct 26, 2009)

Yep I've seen it to - moreso more recently than before, but that might just be because I am reading more macro threads. But yes more people are trying to push to f22 and beyond - the really sad part is that some appear not to even noticed the softness appearing in their work as a result.


----------



## Stosh (Oct 26, 2009)

Nice write-up astrostu.  Now when is your write-up for stacking coming out?  I believe I've just about mastered exposure.  Now I'd like to take the next step and learn how to use Registax.  I have it and all I can say is "Holy overwhelming Batman."  Know of any good tutorials written for hi res camera stacking techniques?


----------



## astrostu (Oct 26, 2009)

Overread said:


> Yep I've seen it to - moreso more recently than before, but that might just be because I am reading more macro threads. But yes more people are trying to push to f22 and beyond - the really sad part is that some appear not to even noticed the softness appearing in their work as a result.



It's been like this for the past year or so (part of the reason why I wrote the guide in the first place).  I think it's due to the changing demographics of pros to more amateurs who think they know what they're doing when they're really not taking everything into account ... but that's just my general sense and should only be taken as an anecdote.




Stosh said:


> Nice write-up astrostu.  Now when is your write-up for stacking coming out?  I believe I've just about mastered exposure.  Now I'd like to take the next step and learn how to use Registax.  I have it and all I can say is "Holy overwhelming Batman."  Know of any good tutorials written for hi res camera stacking techniques?



Thanks, Stosh.  Stacking photos for the moon is really not necessary, in my rarely humble opinion, but if you mean it for things like star trails as opposed to a single long exposure, or something like planets, then all I'll say is that I have been passively working on a guide but I have not finished it nor do I have an ETA.


----------



## Stosh (Oct 26, 2009)

astrostu said:


> in my rarely humble opinion


LOL
Actually, I was talking about moon shots.  Since perfecting planetary photography requires stacking, I guess I assumed lunar photography could benefit from the same thing.  I have enough resolution that atmospheric seeing is effecting my shots and I'm also oversampling assuming stacking would help there too.  I guess waiting for a perfect still night is one option, but that seems to be an extremely rare event here.

Can Registax even handle hi res files (21 MP from a 5d II)?  Maybe I can use it solely to pick the best shot?


----------



## Garbz (Oct 27, 2009)

Overread said:


> Yep I've seen it to - moreso more recently than before, but that might just be because I am reading more macro threads. But yes more people are trying to push to f22 and beyond - the really sad part is that some appear not to even noticed the softness appearing in their work as a result.



Well macro is a world of it's own. Half the time the camera reports an effective aperture that is different in diffraction characteristics to what the lens actually stops down to. For instance my Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 goes from f/4.5 to f/57 (yes that's right f/57) at 1:1. However at f/57 it is no less sharp than at f/22 at infinity focus. 

With macros there is a legit claim to setting apertures higher than f/22 on the camera. Softness appears to start at around f/32 at 1:1 on my lens, compared with around f/14 at infinity focus.


----------



## Overread (Oct 27, 2009)

ahh before we got confused I think this is a nikon/canon difference showing here as well Garbz. I seem to recall that nikon and canon cameras report the apertures differently, and that when working with macro lenses at their closest magnification this difference shows up.
Its a confusing point because canon macro lenses don't change aperture as they focus closer - the light entering is still the same as for the nikons and the effective aperture is smaller, but on teh camera it still reads as f2.8. I think for hte nikons you go down to something like f5.6 when wide open?
Its tricky for me to go any further in explaining as I really don't know enough about what is going on.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 28, 2009)

Yeah f/4.5 wide open. But this is a reporting thing only. The camera still determines the exposure based on the light entering, the aperture indication is only used for the smarts behind the metering system.

It's similar to teleconverters. Nikons will display the effective aperture, while the Kenko's leave it unchanged. The results look the same, just different data in the ExIF.

Just raised it as a note, that some macro users may quite legitimately be talking about using f/22 or higher.


----------



## astrostu (Apr 2, 2010)

Alrighty folks, a new version is posted.  Updates in this version (2.3) include minor grammatical changes, a new addition on focusing with Live View, two new sub-sections in the Things to Avoid, and an updated Histogram image of what your moon shot "should" look like.


----------



## Auriflanos (Apr 15, 2011)

astrostu said:


> Alrighty folks, a new version is posted.  Updates in this version (2.3) include minor grammatical changes, a new addition on focusing with Live View, two new sub-sections in the Things to Avoid, and an updated Histogram image of what your moon shot "should" look like.


 
I am new and I will try your manual! Thank you! 

Have you tried about star picturing? I mean, by modifying come lenas to take stars picturing with telescope or whatever?


----------



## davesnothere11 (Feb 7, 2012)

Thanks for this thread and guide!


----------



## KmH (Feb 7, 2012)

Ooohhh!

Did someone actually use the forum search feature?


----------



## davesnothere11 (Feb 7, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> Ooohhh!
> 
> Did someone actually use the forum search feature?



Sadly no.
It got referenced in another thread. This is excellent information though.


----------



## KmH (Apr 16, 2013)

Up for 2013.


----------



## bc_steve (Apr 16, 2013)

nice tutorial.  I have a question about one paragraph though:



> Earth's atmosphere is turbulent.  It moves around, and it moves in different directions at different
> elevations  within  the  atmosphere.    This  is  what makes  stars  "twinkle."    The  ability  to  resolve -see fine details -objects through Earth's atmosphere is defined by the term "seeing."




if it's because of the atmosphere, how come the stars twinkle but the planets do not?


----------



## TCampbell (Apr 16, 2013)

bc_steve said:


> nice tutorial.  I have a question about one paragraph though:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Planets are larger.  You can actually see planets as a "disk" through a telescope.  If you point a telescope at a star you still only see a single point.

BTW, planets also suffer from "seeing" problems... they become distorted.  To "image" a planet usually requires a video camera (it can be done with a still camera), you take hundreds of frames, through 80% of them away and then "stack" the best ones.

Put a penny in the bottom of a swimming pool and look at it when the water in the pool is completely still... you can clearly see the penny... if you magnified it, you could read the date on the penny.  NOW... have someone go make a bunch of waves while you try to look at the penny.  You'll be able to see that it's there... but you wont see it "clearly" and certainly wouldn't be able to read the date.  That's what we mean when we talk about "seeing" conditions.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 16, 2013)

TCampbell said:


> Planets are *angularly* larger.........



FIFY.


----------

