# Frustrating moon shots!



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 1, 2010)

Ok, ive taken several different shots on different settings.
Watched Youtube tutorials ( most of them make it look way to complicating )
Asked on another "moon"related thread here and got shot down for being a noob.

When i take pics of the moon...i get white blurry blobs.. or extremely distant shots...nothing up close and detailed like i want. I have seen this done with less than what i have for gear...and its frustrating! lol

Can ANYONE whos taken moon shots help me out? Tips, tricks, settings advice etc? 

I'd be using my 55-200mm most likely ( unless the 18-55mm would be better).. and no Tripod. ( dont have one YET)

ANY help would be greatly appreciated... 






Example.


----------



## Natural_Disaster (Mar 1, 2010)

I seem to remember someone else posting a pretty good detailed moon shot and listed they used the 55-200 lens on their Nikon D5000...well i have the same thing and my pics turn out about like yours..actually worse...Ill see if i can find one to post here real fast....


----------



## JeffieLove (Mar 1, 2010)

I think (and keep in mind, I'm still a noob) not having the tripod is really going to make it difficult... Unless you have something to stabilize your camera on, then you are going to get some amount of motion blur :/ 

Best I can do for ya  Sorry!


----------



## Natural_Disaster (Mar 1, 2010)




----------



## thebeatles (Mar 1, 2010)

I haven't really taken moon shots before but I am pretty sure you need to use a fast shutter speed.  That may be why it looks like a blurry blob, because the moon is extremely overexposed/blown out due to too slow a shutter speed and just looks like a glowing orb.  If you shot at 200mm and made sure your shutter speed was pretty fast it may work out better.  Obviously you will need to adjust your ISO and aperture to match your shutter speed accordingly to achieve the "right" exposure.  Sorry I'm not giving you any specific numbers,  I am just not that experienced with moon shot specifics.  I suppose you can think of it this way;  The light we see illuminating the moon is that of the sun and to properly see those details, craters, shadows, etc., you will need to adjust your setting as though you were shooting something illuminated by sunlight.


----------



## Natural_Disaster (Mar 1, 2010)

Should we at least be able to get a little detail when we focus in though?


----------



## thebeatles (Mar 1, 2010)

Natural_Disaster said:


> Should we at least be able to get a little detail when we focus in though?



Not unless the photo is correctly exposed.  You can't get detail when anything is super blown out/overexposed, whether the subject is a moon or anything else.

His shot settings were:
ISO 800
Shutter speed 1/3rd sec.
Aperture f/5.6

Imagine what a picture would look like if you used those settings on a sunny day.  I know it's hard to think of it that way since you are shooting at nighttime, but the light on the surface of the moon is much, much brighter than the light we see illuminating things on earth.


----------



## Natural_Disaster (Mar 1, 2010)

That does make sense....Wish it wasn't getting ready to snow..Id go out and play some more lol.


----------



## thebeatles (Mar 1, 2010)

Natural_Disaster said:


> That does make sense....Wish it wasn't getting ready to snow..Id go out and play some more lol.



Yeah, I hear you!  Post some photos when you try this out. :thumbup:  I would try moon shots but 85mm is just not enough.


----------



## mrmacedonian (Mar 1, 2010)

I would say the tripod is the essential piece you're missing. I've only tried to take shots of the moon once after reading a thread on here and the result I got is below. That's cropped otherwise unedited. I'm pretty sure its the tripod that will make or break your shot when it comes to shutter speeds that slow. Also put your camera on a short timer if you don't have a trigger release. I don't have one yet and I just put it on a 3s countdown timer when I'm worried about vibration from pressing the shutter.


----------



## JeffieLove (Mar 1, 2010)

thebeatles said:


> Natural_Disaster said:
> 
> 
> > That does make sense....Wish it wasn't getting ready to snow..Id go out and play some more lol.
> ...



same here, except all I have is 55 :/ lol... 

I haven't been able to get a 55-200 yet... It's coming... I'm not sure what my next purchase will be... new lens or better tripod .... Hmmm.. decisions decisions...


----------



## thebeatles (Mar 1, 2010)

JeffieLove said:


> thebeatles said:
> 
> 
> > Natural_Disaster said:
> ...



Get the tripod!


----------



## mrmacedonian (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm unsure why some photos are getting uploaded to Flickr without EXIF data, in any case here it is:

Camera: Canon 50D
Exposure: .008s (1/125)
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 270mm
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire

Try resting it on top of a car with like a bean bag with those settings and see if you can get results you like more. Remember the timer on the shutter.


----------



## JeffieLove (Mar 1, 2010)

mrmacedonian said:


> I'm unsure why some photos are getting uploaded to Flickr without EXIF data, in any case here it is:
> 
> *Camera:* *Canon EOS 50D* *Exposure:* *0.008 sec (1/125)* *Aperture:* *f/8.0* *Focal Length:* *270 mm* *ISO Speed:* 						100 					 					 						*Exposure Bias:* 						0 EV 					 					 						*Flash:* 						Off, Did not fire
> That's off the photo's flickr page so I'm not quite sure maybe its just my Firefox AddOn that's not getting them for me.



nope... mine says, "No Exif"... and I use chrome and (finally) found a good viewer... If you asked me what it is... I have no idea :/ I just googled it and downloaded one lol


----------



## keith foster (Mar 1, 2010)

This is as good as I have been able to get with my 55-250 and a tripod.  It was -8 that night and I didn't stay around for many more attempts.

I got this one this weekend.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4053/4395210453_0ea2043f7d_b.jpg

I like the trees in it so that it has a perspective and the color variations.
Not works of art but good enough for outhouse art for sure. lol


----------



## mrmacedonian (Mar 1, 2010)

Yeah I'm pretty sure that Flickr strips the .jpeg of the EXIF data when it re-sizes them for the different default sizes, and that's what I'm linking to so it results in no EXIF data :-\

In the past I've rarely tried the EXIF viewer on my own photos just assumed that data was there. I suppose I'll post it from now on just to be safe.

Any way, hope those settings get some better results for you Perfectly


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 1, 2010)

JeffieLove said:


> I think (and keep in mind, I'm still a noob) not having the tripod is really going to make it difficult... Unless you have something to stabilize your camera on, then you are going to get some amount of motion blur :/
> 
> Best I can do for ya  Sorry!



I was attempting the shot of my patio.. resting my camera down on the ledge--cradled. was pretty stable.

I just got done taking numerous different shots through P, and M mode... and adjusting all the settings.... wow.yeah that didnt work out to well.lol


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 1, 2010)

thebeatles said:


> I haven't really taken moon shots before but I am pretty sure you need to use a fast shutter speed.  That may be why it looks like a blurry blob, because the moon is extremely overexposed/blown out due to too slow a shutter speed and just looks like a glowing orb.  If you shot at 200mm and made sure your shutter speed was pretty fast it may work out better.  Obviously you will need to adjust your ISO and aperture to match your shutter speed accordingly to achieve the "right" exposure.  Sorry I'm not giving you any specific numbers,  I am just not that experienced with moon shot specifics.  I suppose you can think of it this way;  The light we see illuminating the moon is that of the sun and to properly see those details, craters, shadows, etc., you will need to adjust your setting as though you were shooting something illuminated by sunlight.



well that helps a LITTLE, lol but i still have no idea what settings does what when i adjust it... and what needs to match what..
I am reading a couple of books at the time on photography, and still havnt gotten to anything that really explains it... so far most of what ive read online about, aperture, ISO,exposure..etc sounds so complicated.


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 2, 2010)

mrmacedonian said:


> Yeah I'm pretty sure that Flickr strips the .jpeg of the EXIF data when it re-sizes them for the different default sizes, and that's what I'm linking to so it results in no EXIF data :-\
> 
> In the past I've rarely tried the EXIF viewer on my own photos just assumed that data was there. I suppose I'll post it from now on just to be safe.
> 
> Any way, hope those settings get some better results for you Perfectly



Thanks, Mac. Lol I hope so too..
:lmao: I know ive got ALOT to learn,but how hard can a MOON shot be! lol


----------



## MayWood (Mar 2, 2010)

i took some a 1/125 in Manuel mode and it turned out pretty good.tri pod is going to help huge tho at 200mm


----------



## chammer (Mar 2, 2010)

mrmacedonian said:


> Yeah I'm pretty sure that Flickr strips the .jpeg of the EXIF data when it re-sizes them for the different default sizes, and that's what I'm linking to so it results in no EXIF data :-\



yea, they do. it, however, remains in tact for the 'original image' which is uploaded. i usually just size mine to either 533px or 800px on the longest edge depending on the type of picture before uploading to flickr. this retains the exif, and provides a forum safe size.


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 2, 2010)

thebeatles said:


> Natural_Disaster said:
> 
> 
> > Should we at least be able to get a little detail when we focus in though?
> ...



Ok.. so in Manual mode.. Im assuming?... I know how to change ISO to 800, and the aperture to f/5.6 ( think thats fully zoomed out)
but shutter speed?????? lol.... tellin ya' Im a SERIOUS noob here.. Dont hurt meh :O :meh:


----------



## MayWood (Mar 2, 2010)

PerfectlyFlawed said:


> thebeatles said:
> 
> 
> > Natural_Disaster said:
> ...



in Manuel mode push info . the number to the left of the f is the shutter speed.rotate the dial to adjust the shutter speed.


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 2, 2010)

Pictures Removed.


----------



## MayWood (Mar 2, 2010)

your going to want a tri pod for sure.and use the timer to take the pic


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 2, 2010)

MayWood said:


> PerfectlyFlawed said:
> 
> 
> > thebeatles said:
> ...


oh .. haha.. so the 1/??? <- Is the shutter speed? And i want that smaller or larger--to have quicker shutter speed?


----------



## mrmacedonian (Mar 2, 2010)

PerfectlyFlawed said:


> Ok.. so in Manual mode.. Im assuming?... I know how to change ISO to 800, and the aperture to f/5.6 ( think thats fully zoomed out) but shutter speed?????? lol.... tellin ya' Im a SERIOUS noob here.. Dont hurt meh :O :meh:



Yup, in Manual. I would put the ISO to 100 (see my example above). The aperture is being adjusted for you while you zoom only because your lens has a varying maximum aperture. If you had it wide open at the shorted focal length and then zoomed in it automatically changed the aperture, it's different than just zooming or just changing the aperture. I suggest once you're fully extended to 200mm or 300mm whatever you're trying, then change the aperture to f/8, again like in my example above. There should all be somewhere on the back of the body look for their abbreviations then use whatever dial you have to increase/reduce them. At this point I'd suggest reading your body's manual and going through the motions of affecting each of these settings. These types of things you should have a grasp on before going any further.

The settings I used are above and were suggested to me in two different threads I referred to when I decided to try this. They're a great starting point and produced a decent results. Experimentation is necessary from there.


----------



## mrmacedonian (Mar 2, 2010)

PerfectlyFlawed said:


> oh .. haha.. so the 1/??? <- Is the shutter speed? And i want that smaller or larger--to have quicker shutter speed?



Increasing the denominator means the overall number becomes smaller. 

From the look of the last few question posts you should just read the manual a few times instead of asking each step of the way. Seeking out answers yourself from books and other resources is much more productive and satisfying than asking each step of the way.


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 2, 2010)

Shooting the moon with no Tripod ?


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 2, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Shooting the moon with no Tripod ?



:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:  Yeah hilarious huh.

Its called... Broke, laid off, and more important things to buy than a tripod at the time.


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 2, 2010)

mrmacedonian said:


> PerfectlyFlawed said:
> 
> 
> > oh .. haha.. so the 1/??? <- Is the shutter speed? And i want that smaller or larger--to have quicker shutter speed?
> ...



I am reading.. apparently haven't read enough. Thought i could get some quick advice related to my problem.  Guess not... back to the books.


----------



## MayWood (Mar 2, 2010)

your gonna want a fast shutter for the moon tho.its bright and if you use a slower shutter it will be blown out


----------



## pbelarge (Mar 2, 2010)

Perfectly flawed
I was in a similar situation. Taking shots of the moon with horrible results. The best I could do was orbs.
I purchased a tripod, after much research. I wanted the tripod for other than the moon as well.
It is night and day and so much easier with a tripod. I shot it in manual and played until I was happy with the results.
The shutter speed will be too slow to hold the camera long enough without resulting in a blurred object instead of the moon.

I understand you cannot afford a tripod yet. My advice is to get creative. Get some material, maybe from a local big box store and build yourself a platform. Maybe it will work.
Goodluck


----------



## mrmacedonian (Mar 2, 2010)

PerfectlyFlawed said:


> I am reading.. apparently haven't read enough. Thought i could get some quick advice related to my problem.  Guess not... back to the books.



I didn't mean to imply you aren't trying, I'm sorry. I just meant while your goal here was very specific, getting a good shot of the moon, overall you didn't have the tools needed. I don't mean physical, such as the tripod (which is almost essential in this endeavor), but rather the grasp of the components of exposure and camera operation. I apologize if I came across as judgmental I just meant you will get much better results when you have a firm grasp of exposure and the ability to operate your camera entirely. Then you will be able to understand _why_ we are all suggesting these numbers/settings and how they work together to achieve a final product you will be happy and proud of.


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 2, 2010)

Shutter speed I understand...tripod I understand. that's my next step. I'll improvise until then....if I can just get the actual settings adjusted correctly...I can make do I'm sure.


----------



## lvcrtrs (Mar 2, 2010)

5.6
1/1250
ISO 3200
300mm VR cropped
Handheld


----------



## pbelarge (Mar 2, 2010)

You see, the moon is much closer to the earth in Pennsylvania, hence a hand held shot like yours is not as difficult as in other parts of the world...



Nice handheld shot, I am impressed. Since I stopped drinking, my hands are not as steady.


Of course, I was only kidding about the distance of the moon 


I am curious, pointing up how did you support the camera in your hands keeping it so steady?


----------



## fokker (Mar 2, 2010)

You don't NEED a tripod at all to take moon shots. I think the main problem the OP is having is metering, try using spot metering with the moon in the centre of the frame. 1/3 of a second is WAY to slow shutter speed, tripod or no - thats why the moon shoot in the first post is a white blob with no detail. I took some moon shots the other night for the first time which turned out quite well (can't upload them now from work), they were at 1/125s shutter speed at f/8 and ISO100. I did use a tripod to help with manual focusing via live view, but with IS/VR there is no reason why you can't handhold at that shutter speed, or simply crank the ISO or go for a bigger aperture.


----------



## ej. (Mar 2, 2010)

I shot mine hand-held, and played with a few attempts before I got what I wanted.  I played with Curves to enhance contrast a little, but I have EXIF data so you can see what I did.





# Aperture: f/11.0 
# Focal Length: 500 mm 
# ISO Speed: 200 
# Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)


----------



## Dao (Mar 2, 2010)

According to Wikipedia (link)

When the moon is up high in the sky ( altitude > 40° )

EV (Exposure Value) is 15.  What that means is if you set your exposure setting based of EV15, you should have a correctly exposed moon.

Here are the combination for EV15 (w/ ISO100)
F/2.8, 1/4000
F/4.0, 1/2000
F/5.6, 1/1000
F/8, 1/500
F/11, 1/250
F/16, 1/125


I usually use F/8 or F/11 since my lens max aperture at 300mm is F/5.6, and usually lens perform better when stop down 1 or 2.

As you can see, if I use F/8, I can use shutter speed of 1/500.  So it is possible to take a shot of the moon hand held. (My lens also has IS as well). 

Since you have a D5000, you can also bump the ISO a little bit so that you can increase the shutter speed.

i.e.  ISO200, F/8, 1/1000 or ISO200, F/11, 1/500



Of course, if you have a tripod, it is going to be easier since you do not need to worry about bumping the ISO.




Edit: Add a moon photo.
This one seems a little over sharpen. but ...  here you go.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Mar 2, 2010)

Tripod? I just point my camera at the moon and set it around f/11 or so and around 1/500th shutter speed with the lowest native ISO, in my case that is ISO 200.

I say 'around' because it varies by the conditions.

Handheld with the D300s and 70-200 f/2.8


----------



## Natural_Disaster (Mar 2, 2010)

Looks like a huge difference between the settings being posted....
Ill have to wait a while to try my shots again, as it is snowing and not suppose to stop until tomorrow or Thursday.....(sighs)..
But once i get the chance, ill post up my results...


----------



## JimmyO (Mar 2, 2010)

Moons, for dummies:

Put it on a tripod, put in p mode, point at moon, mess with the EV until it looks right.


----------



## Olympus E300 (Mar 2, 2010)

This gentleman (HikinMike) has done this before. I suggest checking out his work. He's superb! Perhaps he can chime in here a little bit.



He offered his link in this thread : http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...m-photo-gallery/188477-blue-moon-tonight.html

His link : Moon And Clouds - Atwater CA


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 2, 2010)

keith foster said:


> This is as good as I have been able to get with my 55-250 and a tripod.  It was -8 that night and I didn't stay around for many more attempts.
> 
> I got this one this weekend.
> 
> ...



Did you have it all the way up at 250mm?


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 2, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> You see, the moon is much closer to the earth in Pennsylvania, hence a hand held shot like yours is not as difficult as in other parts of the world...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Love The moon shot!!!:thumbup:

I find that i have very steady hands..and usually taking handheld shots doesnt effect it ( to where i notice anyway ) I still think im going to get a tripod when i can.


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 2, 2010)

fokker said:


> they were at 1/125s shutter speed at f/8 and ISO100. .



F/8?
What lens were you using?.... I think mine goes to f/5.6 But im going to give your settings a try as well.. maybe ill have some luck.


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 2, 2010)

ej. said:


> I shot mine hand-held, and played with a few attempts before I got what I wanted.  I played with Curves to enhance contrast a little, but I have EXIF data so you can see what I did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Kinda wish i had a 500mm right now! haha.. NICE shot!:thumbup:


----------



## HikinMike (Mar 2, 2010)

Olympus E300 said:


> This gentleman (HikinMike) has done this before. I suggest checking out his work. He's superb! Perhaps he can chime in here a little bit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just happened to see this thread. Thanks! :blushing:

Like I said in the other thread, this is what I use as a ball park while shooting the moon:

Full Moon - f/11@ 1/ISO So, if you use ISO 100, then f/11, 1/100, ISO 100
 Half Moon -f/8 @ 1/ISO
Quarter Moon - f/5.6 @ 1/ISO

Now I blended two exposures to capture both the moon, in detail and the clouds....






The Lunar Eclipse from 2007


----------



## FORCFED (Mar 2, 2010)

Wow that last pic is amazing!


----------



## kundalini (Mar 2, 2010)

*PerfectlyFlawed* ..... with regard to your post #24............
From the Forum Rules and Regulations


> * You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated.


If you do not have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder, then you are to provide a link.

Of course, it would have been nice to have been asked.  :meh:


----------



## mrmacedonian (Mar 2, 2010)

HikinMike said:


> The Lunar Eclipse from 2007



Incredible!


----------



## pbelarge (Mar 2, 2010)

From HikinMike


Ahh, to have an idea. Taking composition, technical aspect, time and creativity - and come up with this shot is spectacular. Not just in the shot, but the process.

Thanks Mike for the photo and teaching creativity as well.
Now lets see how we can get the technical part as well:thumbup:


----------



## HikinMike (Mar 2, 2010)

This is from my website gallery about that Lunar Eclipse shot:

_"So I don't have a life and a stay up late every night, soooo I decided to take a 'few' photos...115 photos to be exact. I started about 2:45 AM (PST) and went to bed at 5:30 AM._"

BTW, that was using my old Canon 300D...the original Digital Rebel.


----------



## SNAPaPHOTO (Mar 2, 2010)

If you dont have a tripod set up some sort of box or table for the camera to aim towards the sky. Use your timer and let go. You will get the shot you are trying. Here is the one I did tonight for you.
Even if you do get a tripod you will want to use a shutter release cable or the timer still or blur will occur.


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 3, 2010)

kundalini said:


> *PerfectlyFlawed* ..... with regard to your post #24............
> From the Forum Rules and Regulations
> 
> 
> ...



Very sorry about that kundalini, I'll remove them. Yes, next time I will ask.


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 3, 2010)

kundalini said:


> *PerfectlyFlawed* ..... with regard to your post #24............
> From the Forum Rules and Regulations
> 
> 
> ...



I attempted to remove the pictures.(I'm on TpF on a cell phone at the moment---so hopefully my edit went through.)

Again, my appology.


----------



## Nataha (Mar 3, 2010)

Wow! Best!


----------



## lvcrtrs (Mar 3, 2010)

HikinMike said:


> Olympus E300 said:
> 
> 
> > This gentleman (HikinMike) has done this before. I suggest checking out his work. He's superb! Perhaps he can chime in here a little bit.
> ...


 
DUDE, that is amazing looking :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## lvcrtrs (Mar 3, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> You see, the moon is much closer to the earth in Pennsylvania, hence a hand held shot like yours is not as difficult as in other parts of the world...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well, practice and telling myself to calm down. Seems like I'm always a bit stressed when I'm trying to be so still. When I first got this camera I had to put away the long lens and learn again how to be still while holding and pressing the button without moving the camera. Let's not forget the VR, it makes many things handheld possible that I don't believe would be otherwise.


----------



## pbelarge (Mar 3, 2010)

lvcrtrs said:


> pbelarge said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious, pointing up how did you support the camera in your hands keeping it so steady?
> ...


 

When I am hand holding and trying to be real still, I set the 2sec timer and press the shutter button. Then hold on for 2 secs for the shutter release. This seems to  help me. 

Maybe I should stop using a hammer to press the shutter button. :mrgreen:


----------



## Dao (Mar 3, 2010)

If you have a fast enough shutter speed, it should be fine for hand held.

As I mentioned earlier, full shot can be taken with 
F/8 1/500 ISO100, or sometimes F/8 1/1000 ISO200 and that should be fast enough

Of course, you can even try it with 1 stop faster by open up the aperture to F/5.6


----------



## astrostu (Mar 4, 2010)

Have you bothered to use the Search feature on this site?  Lunar (Moon) Photography Guide, by Astrostu


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 4, 2010)

astrostu said:


> Have you bothered to use the Search feature on this site?  Lunar (Moon) Photography Guide, by Astrostu



Yes, I typed in moon, and moon shots under search. And I only found the 1 result...maybe I didn't search correctly? Lol I'm still getting a hang of this forum stuff. 

There has been a lot of very helpfull advice in reply to this ( I appriciate it! ) I'm gonna work on some shots this weekend--and post them up.


----------



## dtzitko (Mar 4, 2010)

Hope this helps.

I took this last night. Handheld. Here's the EXIF
Exposure:	0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture:	f/5.6
Focal Length:	300 mm
ISO Speed:	1600
Also, I used spot metering on it.


----------



## astrostu (Mar 4, 2010)

Okay, I've been away on a trip and I'm still at this conference, but now that I'm here I can pay a bit more attention to this thread.

(1) DO NOT USE A HIGH ISO.  This is completely unnecessary for normal moon photography and it will add significant noise to your images.

(2) Use an aperture close to f/8, perhaps slightly lower.

(3) Start with a shutter speed around 1/250 sec for the full moon, closer to 1/125 sec for a half moon.  Based on the histogram, which you want to peak in the middle, adjust your shutter speed from there.  There is absolutely no reason not to use the LOWEST ISO that your camera allows.


----------



## PerfectlyFlawed (Mar 29, 2010)

Ok so for those of you who have helped me in this thread.. and contributed to it... thank you, i finally got a better result  im still working on it though.

Heres my recent result ( before i was just getting white blobs.)


----------



## HikinMike (Mar 29, 2010)

PerfectlyFlawed said:


> Ok so for those of you who have helped me in this thread.. and contributed to it... thank you, i finally got a better result  im still working on it though.
> 
> Heres my recent result ( before i was just getting white blobs.)



Much better! :thumbup:


----------



## Dao (Mar 29, 2010)

:thumbup:


----------



## reznap (Mar 31, 2010)

You did awesome I think.  It inspired me to try myself.  Just bumped up the contrast in PP.






Amazing how it looks identical in Ohio as it does in Arizona, I understand why I just think it's neat.


----------



## Dao (Mar 31, 2010)

reznap said:


> You did awesome I think.  It inspired me to try myself.  Just bumped up the contrast in PP.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how it looks identical in Ohio as it does in Arizona, I understand why I just think it's neat.




I think you can lower your ISO to 100 instead of 400 by changing the aperture from F/13 to F/6.3 to obtain the same exposure.


----------



## er111a (Mar 31, 2010)

pretty cool I did a moon shot way back in dec. its pretty nice  I like moon shots there pretty cool and that last 2 posted are very nice


----------



## Yownhouse (Mar 31, 2010)

It seems like the only major difference between the original post and the others that turned out is the ISO setting (noticeably). I know when I first got my camera I tried the exact same thing and people would never give you a simple answer how to do it on some videos and other forums. I honestly want to say that you need to set your ISO to about 100 and mess with some shutter speeds/aperture to get a nice detailed shot. Let us know how it works! 

I will save this thread under favorites and if the moon wants to peek out of some clouds tonight I'll go give it a whirl again and post my results. Good luck!


----------



## Yownhouse (Mar 31, 2010)

By the way, our next full moon isn't until April 28th according to my calendar


----------



## iskoos (Mar 31, 2010)

Weird!.. Nobody mentioned about focusing. You may need to manually focus on the moon. AF may not give the best result all the time...

And +1 for what astrostu said. Why the heck you need to use high ISO if this can be done with the lowest possible ISO on your camera.
In my photography, bumping up the ISO would always be the last resort...


----------



## nikoliB (Mar 31, 2010)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/www.flickr.com/photos/48942125@N08/4478616261/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48942125@N08/4478616261/in/photostream/

happy to see this thread 

this is one of my 1st try on the moon. it is cropped of-course


----------



## Romphotog (Mar 31, 2010)

well, perhaps you should provide a link to moon shots you want yours to resemble.  What you have is indeed a white blob.  But what specifically were you shooting for?  Highly detailed shots like in planetariums taken with 500m telescopes or by The Hubble?

The Moon acts like a mirror.  Any 5th grader knows that.  Thus, you are simply taking shots of a bright object.  You need to use f/6.3 ISO100 1/320 maybe even 1/500.  
I got a tripod for $10 from B&H BTW.


----------



## Romphotog (Mar 31, 2010)

reznap said:


> Amazing how it looks identical in Ohio as it does in Arizona, I understand why I just think it's neat.


 
Really!?  
How about we compare moon shots taken on east coast(NYC, Philly, Boston) to those taken on west coast(LA, Seattle, etc.)

Wouldnt west coasters see the backside of the Moon, while east coasters will see the front(smily face)?  Ifcourse, there is no such thing as front and back or up or down of any planet.  But we always do think of Britain as on top of the map and Australia below.


----------



## Romphotog (Apr 5, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> well, perhaps you should provide a link to moon shots you want yours to resemble.


 
ok, I guess not.


----------



## reznap (Apr 5, 2010)

Romphotog said:


> reznap said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing how it looks identical in Ohio as it does in Arizona, I understand why I just think it's neat.
> ...



No, from what I can remember, our moon rotates but always has the same surface facing the earth.  I don't know exactly why but it's pretty cool.


----------



## DerekSalem (Apr 5, 2010)

These are my 2 latest


----------



## Dominantly (Apr 5, 2010)

I got this one of an Eclipse with my point and shoot.














Didn't own (or plan on owning) a DSLR at the time.


----------



## fokker (Apr 5, 2010)

I'll play too:


----------



## Dominantly (Apr 5, 2010)

Nice shots! Crazy detail


----------



## HikinMike (Apr 5, 2010)

Went out to photograph sunset and it didn't pan out. I started packing up and turned around to see the moon being partly obscured by clouds and fog....


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Apr 6, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Shooting the moon with no Tripod ?



It can be done. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



I think this was my old olympus C2100 point and shoot.

I've done a few with my D5000 but don't seem to have them on line anywhere.


----------



## DerekSalem (Apr 6, 2010)

fokker said:


> I'll play too:



Unbelievable detail...what lens and settings were you using?


----------



## DerekSalem (Apr 6, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Shooting the moon with no Tripod ?



It's really not necessary to use a tripod when shooting the moon. It can help, but it's honestly not necessary at all.

If you're using f/11 and ISO100 (which most people use) you'll usually need 1/40 or 1/60 shutter speed (@200mm). With an IS lens those shots are easily done with handholding. Heck, enlarge the aperture a bit and you can shoot at 1/200 or faster.


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Apr 6, 2010)

Some cropped pics from my D5000 focus is a bit soft on both of these. 





Camera:  	Nikon D5000
Exposure: 	0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture: 	f/5.6
Focal Length: 	200 mm
ISO Speed: 	200
Exposure Bias: 	+2 EV





Exposure:  	0.002 sec (1/640)
Aperture: 	f/5.6
Focal Length: 	200 mm
ISO Speed: 	200
Exposure Bias: 	-2 EV


----------



## myfotoguy (Apr 6, 2010)

PerfectlyFlawed- Your shot did show improvement. Did you get the 70-300 back yet (in another thread you said you loaned it out). I'm looking forward to seeing your results with that lens.


One of mine. I'm anxious to get a shot before or after full moon when there is more detail (craters) and such.

1/640 @ f/5.6, ISO 200, 280mm (using 70-200 w/1.4TC ), Spot Meter -1.33EV, Cropped to somewhere around 1/3 or 1/2 of original photo size.


----------



## Don Kondra (Apr 7, 2010)

I don't understand what the whole "hand held" shoot the moon is all about ?

Why would you not take advantage of a tripod, anti shock, live view focusing and/or remote triggering ?

Sigma 50-500mm, 1/125, f8, iso 100, all of the above except live view focusing..







Cheers, Don


----------



## Alan92RTTT (Apr 7, 2010)

Of course a tripod is better. its just not impossible to do it without one. 

I really need a lens longer then 200mm.


----------



## fokker (Apr 7, 2010)

Alan92RTTT said:


> Of course a tripod is better. its just not impossible to do it without one.




This

Mine that I posted were taken handheld and are better than the last lot I took with a tripod. IS helps a lot, but at shutter speeds up around 1/500 it doesn't really matter.


----------



## thelaw (Dec 21, 2010)

I just wanted to say thank you for all the useful tips on shooting the moon here. I did a crash course before the lunar eclipse by reading this thread. In some cases I couldn't use all the advice but using the Av mode was by far the most helpful tip I received. Here are my results:

Here is my favorite, the others are here:

The Lunar Eclipse






This shot was taken with a Canon Rebel xSi using the stock kit lens, 55-250mm, Av mode, f/9, ISO 800, Exposure time 4 seconds, Focal Length 240mm. yes, I'm a total amateur but it was fun. You might like some of the others I posted too. Thanks a lot guys. Look forward to learning more here.


----------



## subscuck (Dec 21, 2010)

Nice shot. I wanted to couple my cam to my telescope to get some shots, but unfortunately that white crap that falls from the sky up north here prevented it.


----------



## thelaw (Dec 21, 2010)

subscuck said:


> Nice shot. I wanted to couple my cam to my telescope to get some shots, but unfortunately that white crap that falls from the sky up north here prevented it.



I thought we were done for in the Northeast US. The clouds came in and threatened to ruin it completely for at least 20 minutes. Not sure how much cloud cover caused blurriness but, for the most part, we were lucky to have some clarity early on and later in the evening. Better luck in four years... my sympathies.


----------



## Nikon_Dude (Dec 21, 2010)

Natural_Disaster said:


> I seem to remember someone else posting a pretty good detailed moon shot and listed they used the 55-200 lens on their Nikon D5000...well i have the same thing and my pics turn out about like yours..actually worse...Ill see if i can find one to post here real fast....



I don't know if you were referring to mine, but I got some like the ones in the first post, and it is simply overexposed. The shutter speed is too slow and the moon is getting blown out. Also get camera shake. 

This was taken at 1/60 sec. I believe. 






I deleted all the bad ones but they were just like the first post.


----------



## Aerin328 (Dec 21, 2010)

Keith, great moon shot. What were the settings for that shot? 

Flawed, your "blob moon" is definitely an exposure issue. Play w/ exposure triangle, and use a tripod, and you should get it. 

Also I vote tripod over new glass! Tripod opens up whole new world of shots.


----------



## DerekSalem (Dec 22, 2010)

Nikon_Dude said:


> Natural_Disaster said:
> 
> 
> > I seem to remember someone else posting a pretty good detailed moon shot and listed they used the 55-200 lens on their Nikon D5000...well i have the same thing and my pics turn out about like yours..actually worse...Ill see if i can find one to post here real fast....
> ...



Well it looks a lot better but that's *still* slightly overexposed. Try upping the shutter speed to 1/100 or even 1/200. The only way to get good detail on the moon is nailing the exposure.

As for the tripod debate...it's not necessary. Yes, it can be immensely helpful, especially if you're using a lens without IS/VR, but it's absolutely not necessary. Tripods can be helpful in a *VAST* array of situations, but much of the time a lens with good IS (or good hand-holding techniques) will bring you at least in the same realm as using a tripod...and you don't have to carry anything extra around with you. This shot was taken purely handheld (while at a football game, none the less):






As was this one:





And yes I know the second one is dark...but that's because it's the best way to show the details in the moon. Makes it look great as a wallpaper too.


----------



## Raven (Dec 22, 2010)

this thread would come in handy for when i get a dslr!

thanks folks


----------

