# Moon



## Toni Marie (Jun 16, 2008)

Here are just a few moon pictures. I think they look kind of cool.


1)









2)







3)


----------



## Dan_The_Moose (Jun 16, 2008)

very nice, how did you take these?


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 16, 2008)

I'm going to take a chance and guess she used a camera. 

Hehe, but all seriousness aside the moon is actually kinda difficult. Those turned out pretty good. I think the moon makes a good lens test subject. I guess your lens is fairly HQ. 

Nice work.


----------



## Toni Marie (Jun 16, 2008)

You know I can't even remember its been so long ago I think I took these back in feb. I do know that I used my 70-300mm lens. I'll have to look up all the settings. Thanks I'm glad that you liked them.


----------



## Toni Marie (Jun 16, 2008)

Here are the settings. I guess I took the pictures way back in Oct 07




Camera Model Name
Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi
Shooting Date/Time
10/25/2007 18:42:05
Tv(Shutter Speed)
1/400Sec.
Av(Aperture Value)
F5.6
Metering Modes
-
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
400
Lens
-
Focal Length
300.0 mm
Image size
1400 x 933


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 16, 2008)

Hey Toni, 

Can I edit one of your images?  I want to show how much detail of the moon's surface can be revealed from shots like this.  It'd be fine if the answer is no too tho.

Thanks.


----------



## Toni Marie (Jun 16, 2008)

sure go for it.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 16, 2008)

EDIT: Decided to add the before shot too. 
Kewl!  Thanks!



BEFORE:




AFTER:


This is your #2 shot from above. I just ran a script I made for planets and moons I shoot occasionally. 
Basically just many iterations of median blur, blending, sharpening, and adjusting the mid-point of the 
luminance range (brightness, etc.). By hand isn't hard either. 

Thanks again for allowing me the privilege!​

*EDIT: 
*BTW, I didn't edit anything else so it can be used as a layer over your original #2 to bring this effect in and out.


----------



## Toni Marie (Jun 16, 2008)

Hey thanks it looks awsome.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 16, 2008)

Toni Marie said:


> Hey thanks it looks awsome.



No prob-a-lemo!


----------



## astrostu (Jun 16, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> AFTER:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Toni Marie said:


> Hey thanks it looks awsome.



Sorry, gotta disagree on this.  I think your processing brought out a lot of noise rather than features.  While I agree that some simple Levels/Curves and maybe a _tiny bit_ of sharpening would help the original image (like the ejecta blanket around Copernicus), a lot of what you brought out is granular noise.


----------



## jvgig (Jun 16, 2008)

I do agree that the script did cause a lot of noise, but if we forget that is *the *moon, and think of it as *a* moon, it looks much better.  I like that you can see many more formations after the script, but since it is an object which we can see so clearly by stepping out the door, I think the noise hurts it a little more than any other planetary object.


----------



## switchback (Jun 17, 2008)

The script may have brought some noise, but look at the detail that it unveiled, it's amazing!


----------



## astrostu (Jun 17, 2008)

switchback said:


> The script may have brought some noise, but look at the detail that it unveiled, it's amazing!



Yes, it brought out some detail, but some fairly simple Levels/Curves adjustment can do that.  My point is that if you go too far - and I really don't mean to pick on bifurcator in this at all - a fair amount of that "detail" is really just noise.  Yes, he brought out some of the rays around Copernicus and Tycho.  BUT, a lot of the other "detail" is noise, and a fair amount of color noise.  Trust me.

Also, and this is more a personal thing, I think it has way too much contrast in the "After" version.  I prefer comparatively subtle contrast in moon photos.  The moon does _not_ look like that to the eye, and yet your eye can still see details.

Again, this is not directed at Bifurcator at all.  It is simply a general comment - and caution - to people who photograph the moon.  It is very tempting to do a lot of sharpening and a lot of contrast adjustments.  But that should really be avoided, in my opinion.


----------



## Toni Marie (Jun 17, 2008)

Do ya'll like the original shots that I did.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 17, 2008)

I do!  I'm just an astronomy freak is all.

People talking about noise in the processed one: Almost none of that is noise even though it looks a bit the same. Get a 1000mm telescope with a 5x to 9x eyepiece and look at the moon and you'll see what I mean. There just aren't enough pixels in the image to resolve the actual features and thus it looks like noise.   Remember, she shot it at 400 with an XTi so what VERY little noise was present from the original (and there was almost none) was removed in the 1st pass. The moon is far to bright for the human eye to resolve even the detail displayed here. But not too bright for Toni's camera and lens!


----------



## tedE (Jun 17, 2008)

maybe i'm messed up but i really enjoy the look of the first one.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 17, 2008)

Why would that be messed up?  Me too yo! 

I hope no one thinks I was trying to suggest one over the other... as a "correction" or something. It's not. I just wanted to show what unseen aspects are available in a good shot of the moon thru a good lens.


----------



## Toni Marie (Jun 17, 2008)

Wow I didn't think I would get people to even leave comments on this post.
I really like what Bifurcator did with my picture.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 17, 2008)

Bifurcator wags his tail...

Thanks. :coffee:


----------



## sunlioness (Jun 17, 2008)

astrostu said:


> The moon does _not_ look like that to the eye, and yet your eye can still see details.



I agree that the moon doesn't look like that to the eye and that's why I like Bifurcator's version! Cause the eye cannot see these details. And don't get me wrong Toni, I love your shot but Bif's version is a rare one. 

/peace y' all


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 17, 2008)

Toni Marie said:


> Do ya'll like the original shots that I did.



I do.  You said it was 1400x933.  Is that post crop, or what the original size was?  I would suggest shooting at the maximum size your camera allows and cropping it down later to get the moon as big as possible.  But if that is what you already did, never mind.

Good stuff.  You can get more detail (like the "after" photo) if you decrease the exposure even more.  I know the first time I shot the moon (lol) at 1/250 I thought it was going to be horribly underexposed, but I was wrong.  Its worth a couple of shots, if you ever want to go for something different.  Another thing is shooting at non full stages.  The side lighting of a 3/4 or half moon gives some great definition.

I feel it necessary to tell you my ideas aren't any criticism towards your shots, I just wanted to maybe give you some ideas for any time you're ever bored or whatever.  What you have now is really good!


----------



## Toni Marie (Jun 17, 2008)

Hey thanks for the great ideas I'll have to try them sometime soon. 1400x933 is the post crop not the original size. We shoot at the maximum size the camera allows although we don't shot in raw.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 18, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> Good stuff. You can get more detail (like the "after" photo) if you decrease the exposure even more. I know the first time I shot the moon (lol) at 1/250 I thought it was going to be horribly underexposed, but I was wrong. Its worth a couple of shots, if you ever want to go for something different. Another thing is shooting at non full stages. The side lighting of a 3/4 or half moon gives some great definition.


Oh, do please post your moon shot.  We all love to see them.  You can see my latest moon shot is *here*.  I am curious to see how your 1/250 shot compares to a 300mm at 1/400 and a 510mm at 1/250.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 20, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Oh, do please post your moon shot.  We all love to see them.  You can see my latest moon shot is *here*.  I am curious to see how your 1/250 shot compares to a 300mm at 1/400 and a 510mm at 1/250.



This is actually 1/160.  But it is a bit bright for my liking.  Nonetheless many of my older pictures are no longer with me, as my hard drive crashed and all I could salvage was what was on my gf's computer.







Keep in mind I am not saying my shots are better (as a matter of fact, they're probably not).  All I put in my prior post were suggestions and ideas to keep shooting the moon fun.

BTW, I don't know what to do about the red halo, or the, is it aliasing(?), around the moon.  Every shot I take of the moon turns out like this.


----------



## Toni Marie (Jun 21, 2008)

WOW!!!  Awsome shot great job.


----------



## Miaow (Jun 23, 2008)

Nice shots Toni Marie  I played around and took a few shots of the moon when I first got the canon - I keep meaning to do more


----------



## mmcduffie1 (Jul 8, 2008)

nice shot and nice processing. my moon shots always come out over exposed but then i haven't shot the moon since i actually took the time to learn how to shoot a little. one day i'll be able to shoot like you all do.    (when I grow up - been trying to do that for 35 years ... no luck)


----------



## salleh (Jul 8, 2008)

I also did take a pic of the moon using my prosumer. It came out cool but then the further I zoom the lower the megapixels tend to degrade. so in the end...pixelated! argh.

Anyways...i love the moon shot you did. plus the rest of you guys too.


----------



## Toni Marie (Jul 8, 2008)

Thanks!!!


----------

