# Photographing the "Supermoon"?



## Lambo77 (Mar 10, 2011)

So all the talk on the internet is about the "supermoon" next week causing natural disasters. I'm putting that into the Y2K category, so my question is, because the moon will be so close, relatively speaking, will photographing it be easier? And be easier I mean, will it appear larger in the sky, or maybe sit low on the horizon. Like the picture in this article Extreme 'Supermoon' To Take Place Next Week - Space News - redOrbit

Should I be gearing up for some great moon shots, or am I SOL?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 10, 2011)

> "*It's nothing you could notice* unless you made really accurate measurements," he said. "It's a few thousand miles closer, but as far as the moon's orbit is considered, that's nothing."


 
:meh:


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 10, 2011)

The moon orbits the earth in an ellipse, going from 226425.7983 miles to 252730.9264 miles away.  This means it appears between 29.3&#8242; to 34.1&#8242;.  So at it's closest, it appears only 16% larger than at it's farthest point.


----------



## MissCream (Mar 10, 2011)

480sparky said:


> The moon orbits the earth in an ellipse, going from 226425.7983 miles to 252730.9264 miles away.  This means it appears between 29.3&#8242; to 34.1&#8242;.  So at it's closest, it appears only 16% larger than at it's farthest point.


 

Thank you captain obvious...


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 10, 2011)

MissCream said:


> Thank you captain obvious...



Let me put it in layman's terms.  Photograph a dime at 20'.  Now step 11.9 inches closer.  Same difference.


----------



## MissCream (Mar 10, 2011)

Gotcha.


----------



## Rekd (Mar 10, 2011)

MissCream said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > The moon orbits the earth in an ellipse, going from 226425.7983 miles to 252730.9264 miles away.  This means it appears between 29.3&#8242; to 34.1&#8242;.  So at it's closest, it appears only 16% larger than at it's farthest point.
> ...


 
LoL. Math is easy. I mean... adding, multiplying, dividing, all that happy crappy. Anyone can do it. 

It's knowing _what _to add, multiply or divide that's hard. :greenpbl:


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 10, 2011)

Rekd said:


> LoL. Math is easy. I mean... adding, multiplying, dividing, all that happy crappy. Anyone can do it.
> 
> It's knowing _what _to add, multiply or divide that's hard. :greenpbl:



Besides being an amateur photographer, I'm an amateur astronomer.


----------



## Rekd (Mar 10, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> > LoL. Math is easy. I mean... adding, multiplying, dividing, all that happy crappy. Anyone can do it.
> ...


 
LoL. That's like 97% math, 2% photography and 1% luck. I know people like you.  :lmao:


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 10, 2011)

Rekd said:


> LoL. That's like 97% math, 2% photography and 1% luck. I know people like you.  :lmao:



Careful, now.  I have low friends in high places.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And 4 out of 3 people have trouble with fractions.


----------



## MissCream (Mar 10, 2011)

Im actually not bad at math, I'm really bad with word problems. If it's in a sentence, I don't understand it.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 10, 2011)

I've been meaning to find an excuse to shoot the moon again, but near orbit or not the biggest factor in shooting the moon is cloud cover and getting far enough out of the city.

Thanks for the post.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 10, 2011)

Well before the OP started this thread, I was prepping my Celestron with my new D7000 to see what I could do shooting the moon.

I couldn't get the scope to align properly to track the moon, so I kinda had to shoot from the hip.  I really couldn't nail perfect focus due to air turbulence.  So I fired away and this is the result:








Nikon D7000, MC-DC2 remote release.  Celestron CPC-1100  (2000mm f-8) w/f-6.3 reducer/corrector.  

17 images, 1/100sec., each 4928 x 3264 pixels, stacked in RegiStax 5.1 saved as a  .tiff.  Edited slightly in GIMP (to rotate & center) and saved as  100% .jpeg.


----------



## RockstarPhotography (Mar 11, 2011)

light travels at 186,282.397 miles per second......don't know what that has to do with this, but I wanted to sound smart too.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 11, 2011)

RockstarPhotography said:


> light travels at 186,282.397 miles per second......don't know what that has to do with this, but I wanted to sound smart too.


 

Qualifier:  In a vacuum.


----------



## MissCream (Mar 11, 2011)

RockstarPhotography said:


> light travels at 186,282.397 miles per second......don't know what that has to do with this, but I wanted to sound smart too.


 
Models aren't supposed to be smart, just stand there and look pretty.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 11, 2011)

MissCream said:


> Models aren't supposed to be smart, just stand there and look pretty.



I guess I'll never be a model, then.  I can make a freight train take a dirt road.


----------



## AgentDrex (Mar 11, 2011)

If a deer farts in the woods and no one is around to hear it, do the trees still laugh?  Just wanted to troll this awesome thread!


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 11, 2011)

​


AgentDrex said:


> If a deer farts in the woods and no one is around to hear it, do the trees still laugh?  Just wanted to troll this awesome thread!


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Mar 11, 2011)

I accidentally posted a thread on this unaware one existed. 

Apparently, it just means that lights-off sex becomes a little less dark. So you might want to think twice before hitting on the homely chick during last call that night.


----------



## KmH (Mar 11, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> I accidentally posted a thread on this unaware one existed.
> 
> Apparently, it just means that lights-off sex becomes a little less dark.


Only if you wait until the Sun goes down to have sex.

The Moon is closer, farther, higher, lower, and it wobbles a little:

Inconstant Moon: The Moon at Perigee and Apogee


----------

