# Moon taken in broad daylight... yesterday....



## cgipson1 (Jan 3, 2012)




----------



## LightSpeed (Jan 3, 2012)

Nice.
Next on the list............Teleconverter.
I WILL have the equipment to at least keep up with Gipson.
I may not EVER surpass him..........but I AM going to try to keep up.


----------



## xyphoto (Jan 3, 2012)

Simply amazing. What kind of flash did you use? Just kidding...


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 3, 2012)

One eye is closed........


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 3, 2012)

Ok.. you got to tell me more about this.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 3, 2012)

I think part of the fun of catching a daylight moon shot is to have it look as if it were taken during the daylight.

*Clicky*


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 4, 2012)

kundalini said:


> I think part of the fun of catching a daylight moon shot is to have it look as if it were taken during the daylight.
> 
> *Clicky*



I have several different exposures.. it just that with a blue sky, the moon is obviously overexposed...






Or even more over exposed....


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 4, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Ok.. you got to tell me more about this.



Just a moon shot.. with the (200x1.5)x2 setup!


----------



## EIngerson (Jan 4, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Ok.. you got to tell me more about this.
> ...



Sooo Wrong.   Exif?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 4, 2012)

EIngerson said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...



sure.. no problem!  Uncompressed.. Exif intact!  

In case you are wondering... I have a DX body.. so 200mm x 1.5 for the DX view correction.. plus the 2X for the teleconverter....  I am calculating it around 600mm actual....


----------



## unpopular (Jan 4, 2012)

I liked the one with the sky more, you've got good detail. Perhaps a small radius highpass filter plus a bit of contrast would help sharpen it up a bit and bring out the surface texture?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 4, 2012)

maybe.. these are actually 2 and 3 frame HDR... with sharpening in Photomatix 4.. I am almost afraid to do much more.... got some weird artifacting on the two blue sky shots...


----------



## unpopular (Jan 4, 2012)

I don't know much about photomatix, but a small amount of HP on your low rez jpeg didn't hurt, mask out any artifacts against the blue sky and you should be fine. Just keep the radius low, just enough to bring out the surface texture, place on overlay or soft light mode and decrease opacity.

Also try adjusting contrast by using channel mixer on luminance-mode. I got some pretty detailed results if it weren't for JPEG artifacts.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 4, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I don't know much about photomatix, but a small amount of HP on your low rez jpeg didn't hurt, mask out any artifacts against the blue sky and you should be fine.
> 
> Also try adjusting contrast by using channel mixer on luminance-mode. I got some pretty detailed results if it weren't for JPEG artifacts.



Post it. bro! You obviously know photoshop a lot better than I do!


----------



## unpopular (Jan 4, 2012)

I can't get the edits to show up in a JPEG due to compression. Perhaps you're having the same problem?


----------



## Ballistics (Jan 4, 2012)

EIngerson said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...



Care to enlighten us?


----------



## enzodm (Jan 4, 2012)

If someone wants to go this way by spending a little bit less (  ), this is done with an old 400/6.3 lens (plus 2x teleconverter, but is not mandatory). These lenses (and also some 500/8) can be found for some dollar, and are sharp in the center, so good for the moon (brands: Spiratone, Hanimex, Soligor, Danubia... any, they are always the same). When they have a T2 mount, they can be even adapted to Nikon. Other brands are less problematic. Manual focus, but for the moon is not a problem.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 4, 2012)

enzodm said:


> If someone wants to go this way by spending a little bit less (  ), this is done with an old 400/6.3 lens (plus 2x teleconverter, but is not mandatory). These lenses (and also some 500/8) can be found for some dollar, and are sharp in the center, so good for the moon (brands: Spiratone, Hanimex, Soligor, Danubia... any, they are always the same). When they have a T2 mount, they can be even adapted to Nikon. Other brands are less problematic. Manual focus, but for the moon is not a problem.
> 
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/enzodm/6231046664/



Good call! I didn't buy my 70-200 and TCE to shoot the moon with... but it is fun. Also makes a decent wildlife setup .... not as sharp as a 400 prime, but very versatile.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 4, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



I guess maybe he thought I had manipulated the images in some way....


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 4, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I can't get the edits to show up in a JPEG due to compression. Perhaps you're having the same problem?


 if you want to play with the original.. let me know, I will make it available. Not that big of a deal, though. These were just for fun...goofing around. I can't remember seeing any moon shots that were HDR processed.. thought I would give it a try to see what it looked like.


----------



## EIngerson (Jan 4, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > EIngerson said:
> ...



Oh sorry for the confusion, I wasn't trying to dig on you. Great shot. I thought you were being secretive with your answer. I don't speak Nikon. 

Sorry if it came across wrong cgipson.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 4, 2012)

EIngerson said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Hey.. no problem at all, man! Just didn't want any confusion!


----------

