Moon Shot...Fluke??

GraphyFotoz

Every once in awhile my OS does some strange ----!
This time rather than P'in me off it actually did something neat but odd! :dunno

*** Need some instruction on doing Moon shots ***
Usually I get nothing but a bright circle. :scratch

No idea on how to lock up my shutter on my 20D

Check this strange but neat photo!

kisi

hi, you usually don't need to lock up the shutter to photograph the moon; you're ending up with a white circle because your exposure time is too long. check out shay's moon shot calculator that i found on another thread.
that pic is a pretty funky result! no idea what happened there but cool looking

Richard

Cool, though probably not what you intended. Since there is no motion blur, it must be a reflection. Were you shooting with a filter? It might also be lens flare, though this is the first time I have seen detail in flare. Of course, usually flare comes from the sun or a bright light in a night shot, but in those cases the background isn't completely black. Interesting .

Cheers,

D.Rodgers

Did you shhot thru a window?

SloYerRoll

It's Aliens.. RUNN!!!!!

Little T

Wacky... did you shoot this the other night during the lunar eclipse?

ziggy53

It is an internal reflection. Notice how bleached the moon itself is? You are maybe 3 stops overexposed for the moon. If you take a "normal" exposure of the moon, that reflection would be 3 stops dimmer, or almost non-existent.

I do something similar to test internal reflections on new lenses. I overexpose a street light at night, which gives me a feel for how spectral highlights might influence a shot.

... or it's a UFO! (Like SYR said.)

kdog

Graphy, like the man says, you blew the heck out of that moon. I have a very simple and bullet-proof technique for getting the moon exposed properly with the 20D every time.

Set the camera to partial metering. That's where the metering display shows the little empty circle like an O. Put the center focus point directly on the moon and press the shutter half-way to lock in focus and exposure. Continue pressing the shutter the rest of the way to get your shot. That's it!

The crucial point is using partial metering placed directly over the moon, so you're actually exposing for the moon, and not the black sky (sounds obvious when you think about it.) You may find that this technique still produces slightly hot shots, so you may want to use a bit of negative EC, like -1/2 stop or so. Oh yeah, and shooting RAW is a good idea too so that you can tweak the exposure a bit if you need to.

henchcliffe

This thread was helpful to me in several ways, including getting a proper exposure when shooting the moon.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=30235

pathfinder

Thanks Henchcliffe - I resemble that remark!!:D:D

pathfinder

ziggy53 wrote:

It is an internal reflection. Notice how bleached the moon itself is? You are maybe 3 stops overexposed for the moon. If you take a "normal" exposure of the moon, that reflection would be 3 stops dimmer, or almost non-existent.

I do something similar to test internal reflections on new lenses. I overexpose a street light at night, which gives me a feel for how spectral highlights might influence a shot.

... or it's a UFO! (Like SYR said.)

It is a reflection!

GraphyFotoz

WOW thanx Guys dunno if I've ever got so many responses in such a short time!

Yes I did have a Hoya Pro1 Digital UV on.
Also I tried various shots over and under compensating the light.

Kdog I'll try that looks a good experiment for me.
If it don't work I have 2-3 others to try from this post.

kdog

GraphyFotoz wrote:

Yes I did have a Hoya Pro1 Digital UV on.

Lose the filter!!!! They are death to moon shots! :grim

Richard

kdog wrote:

Lose the filter!!!! They are death to moon shots! :grim

Yep...they almost always create problems on outdoors night shots.

evoryware

I used to get shots like that with my filter on. A long time ago I took night pics of a bridge and had an upside down reflection of the bridge in the water when I got home. I thought I was going to have to send the lens back to Canon but the next time I pulled out the lens and studied it, the filter was the obvious answer.

Andy

:s85