# Trying to photograph the moon.



## JerseyJules (Aug 22, 2012)

I dont know if this is the right forum, but Im looking for advice on how to photograph the moon at night. Im using a Nikon DSLR camera and a 55-300m lens. I can get good detail on the moon itself where you can actually see the craters, but the sky looks all pixleated and weird. What setting should I be using to get good results?


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 22, 2012)

Shoot in manual, using the Sunny 16 rule.  After all, it _is_ sunlit.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 22, 2012)

I usually start at 1/125 second @ f/8, ISO 200 and adjust from there as needed.


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 22, 2012)

Look how bad it came out..Ill try your setting, I think my ISO was too high as well as shutter speed.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 22, 2012)

You can't treat a moon shot as a night-time shot.  As 480Sparky stated you are effectively shooting daylight.  The moon is illuminated by the sun, just as we are here, and you're seeing the reflected light from the sun.  You can't use auto-metering, it won't meter properly.


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 22, 2012)

SCraig said:


> You can't treat a moon shot as a night-time shot.  As 480Sparky stated you are effectively shooting daylight.  The moon is illuminated by the sun, just as we are here, and you're seeing the reflected light from the sun.  You can't use auto-metering, it won't meter properly.



I had it in manual mode. ISO was too high I think..Had it set on HI. SS was too fast 1/800 and f5.6...Went out to shoot it over and the moon is now below the tree line..Ill try again another time.


----------



## KmH (Aug 22, 2012)

The Moon only reflects about 11% of the sunlight that hits it (albedo), but it's still pretty bright.

If you can get sufficient scale in the view finder for the metering sensor (more reach than 300 mm, and Spot metering) you can meter the Moon. The problem is the Moon's Mare are a lot darker than the Moon's newer craters and rays, like the crater Tycho.

Scott gave some good starting exposure triad values.

There are about a bazillion links online about photographing the moon - http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=photographing+the+moon


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 22, 2012)

The dusk shot came out ok.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 22, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> I had it in manual mode. ISO was too high I think..Had it set on HI. SS was too fast 1/800 and f5.6...Went out to shoot it over and the moon is now below the tree line..Ill try again another time.


A fast shutter speed is good, you'd be surprised how fast the moon actually moves, but not at the expense of that high ISO.  ISO - HI would be about ISO 12,800 on a D5100, and as good as the noise rejection is on that sensor it isn't that good!  To even come close to useful with that ISO you'd just about have to put it right on the edge of overexposed and then compensate in post processing or the noise would be overwhelming.



KmH said:


> ... If you can get sufficient scale in the view finder for the metering  sensor (more reach than 300 mm, and Spot metering) you can meter the  Moon. The problem is the Moon's Mare are a lot darker than the Moon's  newer craters and rays, like the crater Tycho....


I won't argue with him, since he's normally right, but I've never been able to meter the moon.  Even with a huge full moon and my 500mm lens (i.e. virtually full-frame moon) I still never got it to work well.  I normally just shoot manual, starting with whatever I used the last time that worked decently


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 22, 2012)

I tried a little processing, doe it look better?


----------



## SCraig (Aug 22, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> I tried a little processing, doe it look better?


Much!!


----------



## zombiemann (Aug 22, 2012)

Just for reference, I shot this pic at f11 1/125 ss and ISO 100.  It's a little darker than I would like but for a cheap lens I think it came out pretty good.


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 22, 2012)

zombiemann said:


> Just for reference, I shot this pic at f11 1/125 ss and ISO 100.  It's a little darker than I would like but for a cheap lens I think it came out pretty good.
> 
> View attachment 17998



How would you get it to expose brighter? Longer SS?


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 22, 2012)

The processed version is better than the original. Best advice I can give you is to take a look to the hundreds of post where this has been discussed. There are a few things to consider when photographing the moon, but once you understand the reason behind them, it's pretty easy. 

Some basic pointers:

- Set camera on tripod and use cable release or timer.
- Do not use shutterspeeds below 1/100th because even if you don't see it, it's constantly moving.
- Keep the ISO to the lowest possible.
- I normally use the aperture that gives better quality on the lens. Usually called the "sweet spot"... but others defend you can use wide apertures w/o worrying too much.
- Use LiveView and zoom all the way so you can focus manually.
- Try to avoid shooting fullmoons.
- Wait until the moon is really up in the sky, get out of the city if possible and pick nights when the sky is really really clear.
- Shoot RAW and work a little in postprocessing... this is pretty much about taste, but most of the times I have to add some contrast to make it look better.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 22, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> How would you get it to expose brighter? Longer SS?



Increase the exposure. You can  accomplish that by using a longer SS, a wider aperture or a higher ISO. Take a look at your settings and see where you still have room to play.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 23, 2012)

Specifically pick the two latter options. The longer your lens the worse a low shutter speed is for potential lens shake. If your lens gets long enough the mere act of opening the shutter can affect the sharpness of your pictures, though that isn't an issue with a normal lens. You want to aim to keep it high and instead bring your aperture down to f/8 or f/5.6 even.  There's also a lot of room to move on ISO in modern cameras, but don't take it too high or you get noise. 

The other thing is photos of the moon taken with a still camera (as opposed to a video camera) are highly dependant on "seeing" which is the astronomer's term for the atmospheric turbulence that affects the quality of your pictures. You may find keeping everything else identical you'll get better photos of the moon on certain days with certain temperature conditions, or simply a different location.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 23, 2012)

The atmosphere also plays a huge role in lunar imaging.  For sharpest results, it's best the moon be at it's highest point in the sky as it travels east to west.  Of course, half the time both the sun and moon are both above the horizon.  So unless you limit yourself to shots between first and last quarters, the sky will be blue.

And weather plays a factor as well.  Not just cloudy/clear skies, but turbulence in the air causes the image to 'boil', as well as particulate matter / water vapor being suspended between you and the moon.  Astronomers call this effect _seeing_.


----------



## zombiemann (Aug 23, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> How would you get it to expose brighter? Longer SS?



If I were to personally take that shot again and go for brighter I would either up the ISO to maybe 200 or 400, or set the Fstop faster, say f8 or f9.  I would NOT increase the shutter time for the exact reason Lizard mentioned... it's moving and I was zoomed in as close as I could get.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 23, 2012)

Using a tripod?


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 23, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> Using a tripod?



Yes, but not a remote.


----------



## zombiemann (Aug 23, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Using a tripod?
> ...



If you aren't using a remote, at least set a 2 second timer.  This gives the tripod time to stabilize any vibration you pressing the shutter might cause.  This is one of those things I learned not from photography but from astronomy.  The more zoomed in you are the more pronounced any vibration is.  When I really dial in my telescope someone walking past it is enough to make the view shaky.  Anything you can do to reduce vibration will lend itself to a crisper image.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 23, 2012)

zombiemann said:


> JerseyJules said:
> 
> 
> > jwbryson1 said:
> ...



Mirror-up as well......


----------



## zombiemann (Aug 23, 2012)

^ What he said, I knew I was forgetting something


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 24, 2012)

480sparky said:


> zombiemann said:
> 
> 
> > JerseyJules said:
> ...



What is mirror up??


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 24, 2012)

When you press the button to take the picture, before the shutter is opened (and closed) so the light can get to the sensor, the mirror that allows you to see through the viewfinder also has to get out of the way so the light gets to the sensor. The "Lock Mirror-Up" mode, separates this process in two steps: You press the button once to lift the mirror and leave it up, and then again to open/close the shutter to take the picture... It's basically another thing you can do if you want to have the minimum possible camera shake when taking the picture.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

Moon by The Photo Major, on Flickr

1/250
ISO 800
f/ 8.0
200mm

No remote, No mirror up, Tripod.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Aug 24, 2012)

Why would you use f/8 or f/9? It's not like you need DOF.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> Why would you use f/8 or f/9? It's not like you need DOF.



DOF has nothing to do with it at that distance. F/8 for that lens produced the least amount of distortion, and I wanted to maintain 1/250


----------



## HughGuessWho (Aug 24, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> HughGuessWho said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you use f/8 or f/9? It's not like you need DOF.
> ...



I understand DOF has nothing to do with it. That was my point. I would shoot at 5.6  so I could use a quicker shutter speed. Sorry, didnt notice the lens, but I wouls think 9 would be way too high on any lens.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 24, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > HughGuessWho said:
> ...



I was saying that there is more to aperture than just DOF. I find 1/250 to be a perfect SS for the moon, I've gotten shots slower, but @ f/8 I get the sharpest results.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Aug 24, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> HughGuessWho said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Got ya


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 24, 2012)

I tried it again last night, I used ISO 100 then 200, 1/125 then 1/250 f5-F11 and still got tons and tons of noise ( I guess that what it is called) in the black portion of the sky..


----------



## amolitor (Aug 24, 2012)

You do realize that the moon is tidally locked, so literally the only difference between any two moon photographs is the phase of the moon, right?

This is like shooting the Eiffel Tower in Paris, if there was literally only one place in the city where the tower was visible, and then only in the morning.

I mean, I've shoot the moon once or twice, but it makes me sad.


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 24, 2012)

amolitor said:


> You do realize that the moon is tidally locked, so literally the only difference between any two moon photographs is the phase of the moon, right?
> 
> This is like shooting the Eiffel Tower in Paris, if there was literally only one place in the city where the tower was visible, and then only in the morning.
> 
> I mean, I've shoot the moon once or twice, but it makes me sad.



Yeah I get all that..But I would still like to photograph the moon perfectly just to be able to say and know I did it..Get it?  So why am I getting it looking like this without editing it??


----------



## amolitor (Aug 24, 2012)

That's wildly overexposed, 2 or 3 stops at least. That's why you're getting all kinds of noise in the sky. Look, there's no detail at all in the part of the moon that's pointing at the sun, eh? You're getting a little detail down the sides, but not much.

Remember this thing is a brightly lit object. There's not even atmosphere slowing the sunlight down. It's like photographing a golf ball in the middle of a parking lot at noon on a cloudless day in the middle of summer.


----------



## zombiemann (Aug 24, 2012)

Shooting "from the hip" (aka no tripod) at 300mm ISO 320 F7.1 SS 1/400


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 24, 2012)

amolitor said:


> That's wildly overexposed, 2 or 3 stops at least. That's why you're getting all kinds of noise in the sky. Look, there's no detail at all in the part of the moon that's pointing at the sun, eh? You're getting a little detail down the sides, but not much.
> 
> Remember this thing is a brightly lit object. There's not even atmosphere slowing the sunlight down. It's like photographing a golf ball in the middle of a parking lot at noon on a cloudless day in the middle of summer.




So lower the F-stop next time? Thanks Ill give it a shot.


----------



## Flyhigh (Aug 24, 2012)

Here's my first crack at this-


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 24, 2012)

Of course, I added the "stars" in post... but this was shot at ISO 100, f/5.6 and 1/320 shutter speed... 55-200mm AF-S Nikkor glass.


----------



## Aloicious (Aug 25, 2012)

amolitor said:


> You do realize that the moon is tidally locked, so literally the only difference between any two moon photographs is the phase of the moon, right?
> 
> This is like shooting the Eiffel Tower in Paris, if there was literally only one place in the city where the tower was visible, and then only in the morning.
> 
> I mean, I've shoot the moon once or twice, but it makes me sad.



while you're correct, its not quite a fair comparison....for practically everyone, the moon is an exotic and beautiful place we'll never be able to actually visit or get any closer to than what we can get through a lens. if the same were true of the Eiffel tower in your scenario, then all the images from that one spot, and at one time of the day would still bring awe and wonderment to people...

not to mention, that shooting the moon gets much more interesting the more telephoto you can get...this is through a 1600mm f8 telescope


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 25, 2012)

amolitor said:


> You do realize that the moon is tidally locked, so literally the only difference between any two moon photographs is the phase of the moon, right?
> 
> This is like shooting the Eiffel Tower in Paris, if there was literally only one place in the city where the tower was visible, and then only in the morning.
> 
> I mean, I've shoot the moon once or twice, but it makes me sad.



What's your point?


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 25, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that the moon is tidally locked, so literally the only difference between any two moon photographs is the phase of the moon, right?
> ...




WOW!!! Just WOW!!! How do you shoot through telescope..


----------



## Aloicious (Aug 25, 2012)

there are several ways to shoot through a telescope, I prefer a method called 'prime focus' which basically means you're attaching the camera body to the telescope directly and using it as the lens with a little adapter....there are other ways to do it as well, but I like prime focus method....

this is one of my telescope setups (actually the same night/setup I took that moon image with)...you can see my D800 body mounted on the back of the main (largest) telescope:





in fact, I'm not working this sunday night, if it's clear and good seeing, if it's not reserved already I may go out to the observatory and try to shoot the moon through their 3500mm f15 refractor scope...should be able to see some good detail with that...


----------



## SCraig (Aug 25, 2012)

63% waxing gibbous moon through a Celestron SLT 1300 telescope using a 2x Barlow T-Adapter and a Nikon D-90.  Fixed aperture f/5.0, 1/250 second at ISO 800


----------



## amolitor (Aug 25, 2012)

Yes, smaller f numbers, faster shutter speed, or lower ISO number is what you're looking for.

My point with regard to the tidally locked thing is that there is literally no hope of "finding a new way" to photograph the thing, there is no remaining artistic expression to be found here. Even with stuff like the golden gate bridge and the eiffel tower you can have hope that maybe you're shooting it in a way that's new, or with surrounding context presented a litle differently, that you are somehow making a new and unique thing, however subtly. With the moon this is simply not the case.

If you enjoy the technical exercise, that's great! Go have fun, I fully endorse fun!


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 26, 2012)

Kind of creepy how I started this thread and a few days later Neil Armstrong passed away..R.I.P. Mr. Armstrong, a true Pioneer!


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 26, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> there are several ways to shoot through a telescope, I prefer a method called 'prime focus' which basically means you're attaching the camera body to the telescope directly and using it as the lens with a little adapter....there are other ways to do it as well, but I like prime focus method....
> 
> this is one of my telescope setups (actually the same night/setup I took that moon image with)...you can see my D800 body mounted on the back of the main (largest) telescope:
> 
> ...




I cant even begin toguess what a set up like that must cost..


----------



## Aloicious (Aug 26, 2012)

'eh, less than you'd think...its a decent setup for casual astronomy/astrophotography, but its not super high dollar or anything. astrophotography is easily one of the most expensive genres of photography...but telescopes themselves are fairly simple in construction, much simpler than a camera lens...in fact, I'm in the process of building a couple telescopes to use for various purposes in my spare time...

if you were interested in getting some kind of telescope setup, a decent usable one could range upward from a few hundred dollars or so...just depending on what your goals were with it.


----------



## Aloicious (Aug 26, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> Kind of creepy how I started this thread and a few days later Neil Armstrong passed away..R.I.P. Mr. Armstrong, a true Pioneer!



yeah, RIP Neil Armstrong, you inspired countless millions of people, myself included, and opened up a new door to discovery and exporation.


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 26, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> 'eh, less than you'd think...its a decent setup for casual astronomy/astrophotography, but its not super high dollar or anything. astrophotography is easily one of the most expensive genres of photography...but telescopes themselves are fairly simple in construction, much simpler than a camera lens...in fact, I'm in the process of building a couple telescopes to use for various purposes in my spare time...
> 
> if you were interested in getting some kind of telescope setup, a decent usable one could range upward from a few hundred dollars or so...just depending on what your goals were with it.




Just curious, besides the moon and your sexy neighbor lying by the pool, what else could you photograph with a telescope? i would imagine photographing stars would look like a ball of light..Can you see and photograph planets?


----------



## zombiemann (Aug 26, 2012)

Planets, deep space objects such as nebula, star clusters, other galaxies... The sky is the limit 

The rig in the picture is most likely capable of imaging the entire Messier catalog of deep space objects.


----------



## Aloicious (Aug 26, 2012)

zombiemann said:


> Planets, deep space objects such as nebula, star clusters, other galaxies... The sky is the limit
> 
> The rig in the picture is most likely capable of imaging the entire Messier catalog of deep space objects.



yup, galaxies, nebulae, clusters, planets, etc...really whatever you want...however the deeper into space you're shooting, its exponentially harder capture it can be....so what you need in regards to equipment, depends on what you are wanting to do with it...typically in astrophotography, you want to put your money into the mount because if you plan on doing most anything besides the moon, you will need a stable and precise mount to track in opposition to the earth's movement.


----------



## zombiemann (Aug 26, 2012)

One of these days I might shell out for an astrophoto rig.  I know in theory its possible to do with my 6" newtonian (currently living on a Dobsonian mount) but I've heard balancing out an equatorial with an OT that size can be a headache lol.  In the long run I'd be better off getting a good catadioptric like yours.  Is that an Astrophysics autoguider on top?


----------



## Ernicus (Aug 26, 2012)

Here's my first and only attempt thus far.  Used a 80-200 2.8

200mm  f/8  1/640s


----------



## Ernicus (Aug 26, 2012)

I'd love an astro rig, I'd never get any sleep.  lol


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 26, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> zombiemann said:
> 
> 
> > Planets, deep space objects such as nebula, star clusters, other galaxies... The sky is the limit
> ...



Do you have any examples of pictures you have taken? I would love to see what is possible. I find space very interesting.


----------



## rambler (Aug 26, 2012)

Save that moon.  You might want to include it in an un=interesting night sky of another image.


----------



## Aloicious (Aug 26, 2012)

zombiemann said:


> One of these days I might shell out for an astrophoto rig.  I know in theory its possible to do with my 6" newtonian (currently living on a Dobsonian mount) but I've heard balancing out an equatorial with an OT that size can be a headache lol.  In the long run I'd be better off getting a good catadioptric like yours.  Is that an Astrophysics autoguider on top?



newts actually are pretty good at imaging, I've got a old 8" newtonian on an EQ pier mount, but the setup is like 25 years old, so it's not very advanced, no guiding capabilities and only a RA motor that only has sidereal rate..so it's a good observational scope, but imaging is hard with it. with larger scopes like a newtonian, you just have to have an extra sturdy mount since they're usually larger and heavier... 

that setup in the image is an 8" Orion Ritchey-Chretien main scope with an orion ST80 refractor scope piggybacked on it with a starshoot autoguider, the mount is a Atlas EQ-G mount, and I made the battery pack to power the mount and laptop and everything from a large capacity Marine battery.



JerseyJules said:


> Do you have any examples of pictures you have taken? I would love to see what is possible. I find space very interesting.



not currently with that setup, I've been having some issues with the tracking on it, I need to get a small extension to allow my autoguider to focus correctly before I can try more deep space objects...

I belong to a local atronomy club and we have a observatory complex real close to my house that I go out to every once in a while. last time I was out there I got some images of saturn but not many of them turned out too well...but I'm also building a small webcam to do plantary imaging with (its actually best to photograph planets with a little webcam by taking video and stacking the best frames together)...this is probably the most 'okay' one I got that night...I know it doesn't look like much, but I was just kindof experimenting, I put my camera body on one of the observatory telescopes, but the weight of the camera body caused the scope to get imbalanced so I had to try and hold it all steady and get the pic, and the scope this was on is probably 15 feet long, with a focal length of ~3500mm, so it was pretty difficult, and planetary imaging itself is very hard to begin with. heh next time I'll have an adapter for my webcam and be able to get something much better images, maybe even capture a few moons of saturn or Jupiter or something...


----------



## Ernicus (Aug 26, 2012)

rambler said:


> Save that moon.  You might want to include it in an un=interesting night sky of another image.



thought echo'ed to me last week...lol.  I have it saved on my external for that very reason.  lol.


----------



## JerseyJules (Aug 28, 2012)

I think I got it pretty good.


----------



## Aloicious (Aug 28, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> I think I got it pretty good.
> View attachment 18571



that is a really good one you got some good surface details


----------



## amolitor (Aug 28, 2012)

Nicely done.


----------



## ceejtank (Aug 28, 2012)

Aloicious said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that the moon is tidally locked, so literally the only difference between any two moon photographs is the phase of the moon, right?
> ...




That shot's pretty awesome.. is it for sale?


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 28, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Shoot in manual, using the Sunny 16 rule.  After all, it _is_ sunlit.



Exactly!

I know too many people who approach shooting the moon as "night shooting". But what you're seeing is reflected sunlight, and it needs to be approached as such...


----------



## Aloicious (Aug 28, 2012)

ceejtank said:


> That shot's pretty awesome.. is it for sale?



everything is for sale, it just depends on the terms  ....let me send you a PM, we can discuss it there so we don't derail the thread too much.


----------



## Flyhigh (Aug 28, 2012)

Late afternoon moon. Needs better focus, but I was having a hard time with that. Need more practice.


----------



## ceejtank (Aug 28, 2012)

My Attempt.....

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/57479772@N05/7884748616/" title="Maine and Moon 084 8x12 edited by chrisfuchsjr, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8306/7884748616_ec161f12ab_c.jpg" width="800" height="534" alt="Maine and Moon 084 8x12 edited"></a>


----------



## zombiemann (Aug 28, 2012)

Been meaning to post this but I kept forgetting.  Better late than never.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 29, 2012)

Who left the Hasselblad on the moon's surface?


----------



## Aloicious (Aug 29, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Who left the Hasselblad on the moon's surface?



there's actually 12 hassy's on the moon. they were left during the Apollo missions. since weight is a huge issue, they took all the shots they needed/wanted, and only brought the film back, they left the bodies/lenses on the moon to compensate for the added weight of the moonrocks they were bringing back...they're Hasselblad EDC cameras with specialied 60mm lenses...

scroll down to the bottom of this link:
Space Cameras


----------

