# Full Moon, Textured!



## DGMPhotography (Mar 27, 2013)

Hey guys, just thought I'd post my results of some photographing of the  moon lately! I took your advice and increased my shutter speed. Believe  it or not, I actually had to go up to 1/4000 of a second.... which I  thought would be stupidly fast for a night shot, but it worked and I  finally got that texture I've been looking for! 




It looks pretty good if you don't view full-view, otherwise, I had to do a ton of cropping to get this, but now I know how so if/when I get a longer zoom lens I can definitely do some cool stuff! 

So what do you think?


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 27, 2013)

It's not "textured" it's out of focus. 

Use a tripod.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 28, 2013)

I did use a tripod. And it was at 1/4000 of a second which wouldn't require a tripod anyway. It looks out of focus because this is probably a 1000th the size of the image.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 28, 2013)

Well maybe not a 1000th, but this is the original image.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Mar 28, 2013)

Why were you shooting at 1/4000? And, what lens were you using? I generally shoot at f/11 1/250 ISO 400 and get reasonably sharp, clear shots. With the exception of the daytime shot, I always use a tripod and remote release. Lens creep is often the biggest problem but at 1/250th it's rarely an issue. Some of the less sharply focused ones were shot with my old Tamron 70-300 POS some with my Nikkor 55-300, substantially better and if it wasn't colder than a brass monkey's private parts, I would have given it a go last night with the 70-200 2.8.

  Moon & Venus  
hand held at 1/1000 f/13


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 28, 2013)

ceeboy14 said:


> Why were you shooting at 1/4000? And, what lens were you using?




Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D5100
Lens: 18.0-55.0 mm f/3.5-5.6
Image Date: 2013-03-26
Focal Length: 55mm (35mm equivalent: 82mm)
Aperture: f/5.6
Exposure Time: 0.0003 s (1/4000)
ISO equiv: 800
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Software: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.2 (Macintosh)


Unless you're shooting with a pencil-eraser-sized sensor, 55mm is way to short a focal length to be shooting the moon with and expect any detail.  With info like this, I see no reason to use ISO 800 and 1/4000.   ISO 100 and 1/500 would have been my choice.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 28, 2013)

He was thinking nighttime -> high ISO, and then wound up with this ridiculous shutter speed.

The moon is lit by the sun, it's in daylight. Daylight exposure rules apply. 1/ISO at f/16 or a bit more exposure, is what you're looking for.

And yeah, you need a longer lens to shoot the moon.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 28, 2013)

Looking at this post, I'm feeling like this   and a bit like this     and maybe this too, but in the end I'm just going to do this  :taped sh:  and suggest this :cheers:.

That is all.  Carry on.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Mar 28, 2013)

Ooooh, whips...won't be long before Mishele gets in on this one. It's just information. The question may have seemed like more an admonishment than a query but he did ask the question: 

"It looks pretty good if you don't view full-view, otherwise, I had to do a ton of cropping to get this, but now I know how so if/when I get a longer zoom lens I can definitely do some cool stuff! 

So what do you think?"

So, I told him as did the rest of us. No biggie. Where's the brew and who's paying?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 28, 2013)

ceeboy14 said:


> Ooooh, whips...won't be long before Mishele gets in on this one. It's just information. The question may have seemed like more an admonishment than a query but he did ask the question:
> 
> "It looks pretty good if you don't view full-view, otherwise, I had to do a ton of cropping to get this, but now I know how so if/when I get a longer zoom lens I can definitely do some cool stuff!
> 
> ...



Look at the original, uncropped image.  C'mon.  It looks like a speck of dirt on the lens, not like the moon.  Having to crop to that extent to get even close to seeing any kind of detail and then proclaiming that you've got an image with "texture" when none exists, to me at least, screams WTF?  I'm really not an overly critical person.  But c'mon...

I've said too much already.  I'm shutting up now.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 28, 2013)

All he means by "texture" is that it's not blown out pure white, and he's happy that he's figured out how to expose for the moon.

Good for him! I am happy for him.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 28, 2013)

I have a similar shot of Jupiter:



This was shot with a substantially longer lens, but I was pleased to get what I got.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 28, 2013)

Well I don't have a longer lens, so I had to make do. When I say "texture," I mean that the moon is not just a white bright ball, but actually the moon. However, you are totally right about the ISO. I don't know why I kept it so high. I guess I instinctively kept it high because it was night. I will see if I can try again tonight with lower ISO and shutter speed. Thanks!


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 28, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Well I don't have a longer lens, so I had to make do. When I say "texture," I mean that the moon is not just a white bright ball, but actually the moon. However, you are totally right about the ISO. I don't know why I kept it so high. I guess I instinctively kept it high because it was night. I will see if I can try again tonight with lower ISO and shutter speed. Thanks!



Throw your camera on your tripod, shoot at a low ISO (100) and a shutter speed of around 1/200, f/11.  Adjust as necessary.

I have photographed the moon at 200mm (300mm equivalent on my DX body) and I get very little detail of craters.  Shooting at 55mm is just way too short of a focal length to get any kind of detail.  But good luck with that.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Mar 28, 2013)

Why would you ever need to shoot the moon at f/11 or f/16? There is certainly no DoF requirements. Just shoot at the sweet spot or more open.

On a side note, the best way to get texture (details) of moon shot is to NOT shoot it while full. A day or two on either side of full will render a much nicer shot with more details.


----------



## LouR (Mar 28, 2013)

If you have any friends with a Nikon and a larger lens, beg to borrow it for a night.  even with the perfect settings you aren't going to get much.  This was shot with a Minolta 75-300mm (eq. 105-450mm) I have better photos, but only this one is on my site right now:


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 28, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Well I don't have a longer lens, so I had to make do.



Working with what you have does not mean trying to force your equipment to do something it simply cannot do. 

If you dont have a lens that can get tight enough on the moon then shoot a scenery that includes the moon.  If you are really intent on shooting close up on the moon then rent a lens.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 28, 2013)

And if I don't have money, but still really want to shoot the moon? I assume you'll say something like, "sounds like photography isn't for you." However, I enjoy it nevertheless, and don't suppose I'll post any more moon shots until I have a better lens.


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 28, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> And if I don't have money, but still really want to shoot the moon? I assume you'll say something like, "sounds like photography isn't for you." However, I enjoy it nevertheless, and don't suppose I'll post any more moon shots until I have a better lens.




Did you not read my post.  You can shoot the moon, but you may need to include it in a bigger scene. And renting lenses is CHEEP


----------



## amolitor (Mar 28, 2013)

You could try stacking images. The astro guys do this to build up detail. Superresolution seems to be the keyword.

I don't think it works with a DSLR that has an anti-aliasing filter, though. I don't see how the math works out. It's possible that the AA filter in the DSLR is inefficient enough to make some SR techniques work anyways, but you'd probably need an enormous number of images.


----------



## cynicaster (Mar 28, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> However, you are totally right about the ISO. I don't know why I kept it so high. I guess I instinctively kept it high because it was night.



Consider this a great learning experience, then.  

Be wary of the "cook book" approach to photography, where you say "if condition A is true then activate setting B on the camera, regardless of all else".  In this case you said "it is dark out, therefore high ISO", and I think we all agree that is the wrong answer here.

Think of it this way.  Depending on the situation, there are very legitimate creative and technical reasons for selecting all manner of apertures and shutter speeds, but there is never any good reason to place the ISO higher than it needs to be in order to make your desired aperture and shutter speed possible.  I think you realize that 1/4000 is a very fast shutter for this situation, so the better approach would have been to push the ISO down to its minimum, and trim back on all that unneeded speed in the shutter to pick up the slack.    

In case anybody wants to be a contrarian and say "there are no universal rules, shut up!" then I'd say if you're hell-bent on having fugly digital noise in your photo you can always add it in photoshop with a few clicks of the mouse.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Mar 28, 2013)

I should have said the same thing as per the sweet spot. Every lens has one and on the Tamron, crappy a lens as it is, that was 11. On the 55-300 it was about 9 or 10.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Mar 28, 2013)

I shot a lot of full moon shots before I had the longer lens.


----------



## LouR (Mar 28, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> And if I don't have money, but still really want to shoot the moon? I assume you'll say something like, "sounds like photography isn't for you." However, I enjoy it nevertheless, and don't suppose I'll post any more moon shots until I have a better lens.



There is no reason why you can't get creative with what you have.  Have you considered putting the camera on a tripod outside and taking a shot about every 20 minutes for a composite? Or, as mentioned, including it in a scenic, either a landscape or cityscape?  I have some great shots of the full moon over the Manhattan skyline.  I even have one of the Statue of Liberty "greeting" the rising moon.  It's not what you have, it's how you use it. Oh, and shoot RAW if you haven't done so.  It will retain much more data, unlike a WYSIWYG Jpg.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 28, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Did you not read my post.  You can shoot the moon, but you may need to include it in a bigger scene. And renting lenses is CHEEP



And you did read mine. I mean shooting the moon - just the moon in a close up image like this. Thanks though, I understand what you mean. I shall perhaps look into lens rentals...


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 28, 2013)

* didn't. Anyway, thanks to the other commenters as well! All great ideas. I will have to look into that composite idea too!


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 28, 2013)

http://photos.sjrdesign.net/documents/photoguide_moon.pdf

Sunny 16 isn't the best way to go.


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 28, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > Did you not read my post.  You can shoot the moon, but you may need to include it in a bigger scene. And renting lenses is CHEEP
> ...



Well lets read that post



DGMPhotography said:


> And if I don't have money, but still really want to shoot the moon? I assume you'll say something like, "sounds like photography isn't for you." However, I enjoy it nevertheless, and don't suppose I'll post any more moon shots until I have a better lens.



Nowhere in your post did you say I want to shoot close up moon shots, you just say shoot the moon.  Anytime your photo includes the moon you are shooting the moon evan if you are including sneery in the image also.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 28, 2013)

Meh, potato potato.


----------



## KmH (Mar 28, 2013)

Don't use f/16, if possible. You don't want any focus softness caused by diffraction.

The Moon is 300,000 km away and DoF will be infinite even using a wide aperture. 
A major issue relative to focus sharpness when shooting the Moon (or stars) is shooting through a 50 km thickness of moving atmosphere - If you shoot when the Moon is straight up.
If the Moon is closer to the horizon you're shooting through even more moving atmosphere. Shooting the Moon near the horizon the atmosphere you're shooting through is about 3 times thicker.

A big reason major astronomical observatories are put on mountain tops is to get the telescopes above as much of the constantly atmosphere as possible.
They carefully test so they select mountain tops that are below portions of the atmosphere that are more stable than usual.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 28, 2013)

not a terribly great moon shot, but everyone's got one. even if they have to dig it out from waaaay back. 

View attachment 40311

shot with this. 300mm f4.  don't remember the settings. 
View attachment 40310


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 28, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> not a terribly great moon shot, but everyone's got one. even if they have to dig it out from waaaay back.
> 
> 
> 
> shot with this. don't remember the settings.



Settings....

[PhotoME]
PhotoME version: 0.79R17 (Build 856)

[Overview]
URL: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/.../40311d1346553723-full-moon-textured-moon.jpg
File type: JPEG
File size: 126.5 KB
Creation date: 9/1/2012 22:05
Last modification: 3/28/2013 12:56
Make: NIKON CORPORATION (Nikon | Home)
Camera: NIKON D90
Software: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1 (Windows)
Dimension: 1699 x 1699 px (2.9 MP)
Focal length: 300 mm (equiv. 450 mm)
Aperture: F4
Exposure time: 1/800"
ISO speed rating: 200/24°
Program: Aperture priority
Metering Mode: Spot
White Balance: Manual
Flash: Flash did not fire


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > not a terribly great moon shot, but everyone's got one. even if they have to dig it out from waaaay back.
> ...



well, there you have it. for anyone interested.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 28, 2013)

That program is magic.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 28, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Should have used flash!  lol!


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



yea, some OCF for catchlights in the craters.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 28, 2013)

I think moon shots are boring, but you gotta do it and I've made my fair share of them.  I also think that less-than-full shots are more interesting than full moon shots, day or night.  And now you know that a different approach is needed if 55mm is your longest focal length.

My attempts are with a 300mm f/4 and likely a 1.7TC.  I don't remember the settings, but Charlie can probably find them.   













..


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 28, 2013)

Not too shabby! And yeah, I feel like it's a photographer right of passage, but I also enjoy it


----------



## Benco (Mar 28, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> not a terribly great moon shot, but everyone's got one. *even if they have to dig it out from waaaay back.*




Aye, only last year but that's pre DSLR for me. 






That monster zoom on my old HS10 was good for something.


----------



## LouR (Mar 28, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > not a terribly great moon shot, but everyone's got one. even if they have to dig it out from waaaay back.
> ...


 
That's just creepy....


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 28, 2013)

LouR said:


> .........That's just creepy....



Since when is EXIF data 'creepy'?

PS, here's my moon shot:


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 28, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Meh, potato potato.



That particular idiom doesn't work so well when you're on a text based Internet forum.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 28, 2013)

Hahaha I know, that's why I love it!


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 28, 2013)

LouR said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Really? My omniscience bothers you? Sorry about that....  lol!


----------



## SCraig (Mar 28, 2013)

Yeah, everyone has one or two.






1/250 @ f/5, ISO 800, approximately 1950mm (Celestron 1300 reflector with a 2x Barlow T-mount)


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 28, 2013)

ya think?


----------



## MSnowy (Mar 28, 2013)

Hey here's my best moon shot I got the "Man in the Moon"


----------



## ceeboy14 (Mar 28, 2013)

Waning Moon shot tonight at 11:20 CST, southern part of the US. F:/10 1/160th, ISO 100 Nikon D7000, 70-200 2.8 with 1.7 teleconverter @300mm.

   Close Up


----------



## Ashtun (Mar 29, 2013)

These photos look a lot like mine, it's like we are all shooting the same moon.. weird


----------



## Benco (Mar 29, 2013)

Ashtun said:


> These photos look a lot like mine, it's like we are all shooting the same moon.. weird



I reckon my moonshot is the only one that's like yours Ashtun, everyone elses is upside down. :cheers:


----------



## Buckster (Mar 29, 2013)




----------



## ceeboy14 (Mar 29, 2013)

Ashtun said:


> These photos look a lot like mine, it's like we are all shooting the same moon.. weird



It is indeed strange because I happen to own this one and now am wondering why you are trespassing on my part of space. This is not good as I see there are many such trespasses in your area. The nerve of you guys down there, the absolute stunning nerve! You shall be hearing from my Barrister shortly.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 31, 2013)

Hey all!!

Took me a little while, but I got a hold of my friends 300mm and took this photo! What do you think?



Thanks!


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 31, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Hey all!!
> 
> Took me a little while, but I got a hold of my friends 300mm and took this photo! What do you think?
> 
> ...



It's out of focus.


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

yup


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 31, 2013)

To put this into perspective, let's do a bit of maths.

The moon is, on average, 31.7 _arcminutes_ in diameter.  That's about 1/2 of a degree, and there's 180 degrees from one horizon to the opposite one.

A 300mm lens, even on a crop sensor DSLR, has a field of view of 5°.  That's 10 times the angular diameter of the moon.  So the moon will only be 1/10th the size of the sensor.  Shooting full frame just compounds this problem by the crop factor of the camera system.


Or, to put it another way, take a quarter.  Anyone want to guess how far that quarter needs to be from your eye to match the 31.7 arcminutes the moon is?


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 31, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Hey all!!
> 
> Took me a little while, but I got a hold of my friends 300mm and took this photo! What do you think?
> 
> ...



Cool.. that shot I posted above.. is at 300mm also! With a big crop!


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 1, 2013)

Yeah... I was wondering how you got it to look so good with such a major crop. Cause I cropped this and it just looked bad  I guess if I was out of focus that would be why. I took a lot, and this was the most in focus I could get.


----------



## Benco (Apr 1, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Yeah... I was wondering how you got it to look so good with such a major crop. Cause I cropped this and it just looked bad  I guess if I was out of focus that would be why. I took a lot, and this was the most in focus I could get.



Try it on manual focus, set to infinity.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 1, 2013)

Benco said:


> Try it on manual focus, set to infinity.



That's what I did actually :/


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 1, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Yeah... I was wondering how you got it to look so good with such a major crop. Cause I cropped this and it just looked bad  I guess if I was out of focus that would be why. I took a lot, and this was the most in focus I could get.



GOOD tripod, wireless remote or self timer, SPOT focus, SPOT meter, F8, ISO 100, Aperture priority so meter picks the shutter speed. Put SPOT on moon.. shoot! It also helps to be at 5000 + feet.. with a clear night, no pollution, and minimal light in the area from city lights..


----------



## binga63 (Apr 1, 2013)

here is my take on it... manual focus 70-200 on d800e no post processing 
full crop



The joy of owning an 800e by Binga63, on Flickr

cropped




The joy of owning an 800e by Binga63, on Flickr


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 1, 2013)

Oh wow! That's awesome! Guess my focus really is off


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 1, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Oh wow! That's awesome! Guess my focus really is off



You saw my instructions? If you do that... you should get some good shots. With your lens, you might even want to go F11 for a little more sharpness....


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 1, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Oh wow! That's awesome! Guess my focus really is off
> ...



Yeah I was doing some reading today saying that around F/11 is the best quality that a lot of cameras can get to. I will definitely try again sometime with your advice.


----------



## texkam (Apr 1, 2013)

I think it's amazing this shot generated 65 posts.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 1, 2013)

Funny enough, just about every post I've made has made it as "hot." Maybe this is a sign I will be a great photographer one day!


----------



## binga63 (Apr 1, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Oh wow! That's awesome! Guess my focus really is off


i think so... oh and hand held


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 2, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Yeah I was doing some reading today saying that around *F/11 is the best quality that a lot of cameras can get to*.




Uhhhhhh, what?


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 2, 2013)

I guess I finally get to moon some people!


----------



## texkam (Apr 2, 2013)

> Funny enough, just about every post I've made has made it as "hot." Maybe this is a sign I will be a great photographer one day!


...or an internet meme.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 2, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Funny enough, just about every post I've made has made it as "hot." Maybe this is a sign I will be a great photographer one day!



Unfortunately for you, it will have absolutely zero bearing on your success as a photographer. But you can still try.


----------



## binga63 (Apr 2, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Funny enough, just about every post I've made has made it as "hot." Maybe this is a sign I will be a great photographer one day!



there is a subtle difference between criticism and compliments
check your posts....
then judge whether your photography was liked or the people here tried to set you on the right path.....


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 2, 2013)

I know, I was making a funny  but I think I'm improving so it's what I hope for! You're right about handheld, I forgot that's one of the reasons it was bad. My friend told ne if shutter speed is lower than the focal length there will be blur. Unfortunately, we didn't have a tripod at the time.


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 2, 2013)

The pic I posted as an example was handheld. Depending on the phase of the moon, a tripod isn't always required.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 2, 2013)

Oh, okay. Yeah and I followed that rule anyway by turning up my ISO. I just need to reshoot (with and without tripod) to find out what really works.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 2, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> The pic I posted as an example was handheld. Depending on the phase of the moon, a tripod isn't always required.



Why should the phase of the moon make a difference?  The amount of light reflected by the surface is always the same.


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 2, 2013)

480sparky said:


> TATTRAT said:
> 
> 
> > The pic I posted as an example was handheld. Depending on the phase of the moon, a tripod isn't always required.
> ...







> There are several things that cause moonlight brightness to vary. The most obvious is the moon's phase. The brightness of moonlight varies by approximately a factor of 10 between quarter phase and full moon, based on a diffuse reflection and the geometry of the positions of the earth, sun and moon alone.




http://home.earthlink.net/~kitathome/LunarLight/moonlight_gallery/technique/moonbright.htm


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 2, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > TATTRAT said:
> ...



Still, the exposure will be the same.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 2, 2013)

I think the exposure will in fact not be the same. The moon is not a flat disk.


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 2, 2013)

see above. I was trying to find the article I read a while back when I was having a time trying to get what I wanted out of a new moon.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 2, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The moon is not a flat disk.



Says you.


----------



## Benco (Apr 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I think the exposure will in fact not be the same. The moon is not a flat disk.



Pish! next thing you'll be telling us it's not made of cheese.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

Benco said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > I think the exposure will in fact not be the same. The moon is not a flat disk.
> ...



Oh, it's made out of cheese alright. It just happens to be an enormous cheese shaped phallus, pointing directly at the earth, which is why it LOOKS round.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I think the exposure will in fact not be the same. The moon is not a flat disk.



I KNOW it's not a flat disk. But the _sunlight reflecting off of it_ is always the same.

If you stand perpendicular to a sunlit wall, you will have a certain EV, no?  Does walking sideways and photographing the wall at an angle change the exposure of the wall?


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

480sparky said:


> If you stand perpendicular to a sunlit wall, you will have a certain EV, no?  Does walking sideways and photographing the wall at an angle change the exposure of the wall?



Interestingly, that depends quite a lot on the surface of the wall. To take an extreme case, a mirrored wall will act quite different from a textured and painted one.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

Anyways, read paragraph 5 of

Albedo: How Bright is the Moon?

which should be pretty clear.

The moon actually IS surprisingly evenly bright, if you google up "non Lambertian reflectance moon" you'll find some stuff. Rough surfaces, in short, tend to do sparky's wall thing -- doesn't matter what angle you're at, they're pretty much the same brightness.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > If you stand perpendicular to a sunlit wall, you will have a certain EV, no?  Does walking sideways and photographing the wall at an angle change the exposure of the wall?
> ...



The albedo of the moon is pretty consistent.  The surface of the moon does not reflect half the light at quarter moon than it does at a full moon. See #4 here.  Yes, there is a _slight_ increase in EV at full moon, due to the reflective property of the dust on the surface, as evidenced by this image:






but for the most part, it's pretty steady.




(And yes, NASA images are public domain)


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

You mean this paragraph?



> But the moon has a very rough topography. Especially near and along the day/night line (known as the terminator), the lunar landscape appears riddled with innumerable shadows cast by mountains, boulders and even tiny grains of lunar dust.  Also, the moon's face is splotched with dark regions.  *The end result is that at first quarter, the moon appears only one eleventh as bright as when it's full.*



Discussions of this tend to be a mess, because people tend to be very unclear about whether they're talking about "ok, less total visible surface lit up" brightness or "each unit area of the lit up surface is less bright" brightness (albedo).


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> You mean this paragraph?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Key word: Appears.

Yes, there is less _total_ light coming from a quarter moon when compared to a full moon, but the surface of the moon that is lit by sunlight is still under the same lighting conditions.

Another similar experiment:  Place an item on a black cloth with a black background.  Determine the proper exposure for the item.  Now, cover half the item with a black cloth.  Does the EV change for the uncovered portion? Answer: No.

Or:  Place a speedlight on a stand and aim it at the subject.  Stand next to the speedlight and set the camera for a proper exposure of the subject. Does your exposure for the side of the subject facing the speedlight vary simply because you walk to a point that's 90° to the line between the speedlight and subject?


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

I think we're about to descend into a meta-discussion of what one means by a "correct" exposure for the moon. I think we've tossed enough links and information around to help out anyone who wants the help, and we can perhaps move on now.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 3, 2013)

Amen


----------

