Carolina Moon
ginger_55
Registered Users Posts: 8,416 Major grins
lens 300L with 1.4 extender on it
manual settings, manual focus
shutter speed 250, aperture f 16 (I think)
I learned back in the seventies that the moon was as in daylight.
That has not seemed to change and makes the settings easier.
ISO 100
This is the full frame practically as it came from RAW
After all is said and done, it is the sweet tea.
0
Comments
Ginger I think this is a little under exposed - the moon seems grey rather than white on my screen. When I clock the pixels they read about 180, 150, 140 or so in the brightest areas. This is barely a warm grey, not white.
Sunny f16 would suggest an exposure of 1/100th at f16 at ISO 100, but you shot at 1/250th. Frequently I find that I need to shoot at 1/100 at f11 at ISO 100 to capture the moon brightly. Give it a try with a little more exposure and I think you'll like the results.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
But my suggestion is a literary one. I like "Carolina Moon" a lot. But I don't love "Two days before the full moon". Why not:
I am having a lot of trouble finding good use for that wonderful of lenses, the 70-200. I just don't seem to need it for anything. I either want to be long, or very not.
Thanks for the guidelines on the moon will do them tomorrow night.
I agree, Rutt.
ginger
I am waiting for Canon to come together with me and come out with a like 28-135 that is an L lens. And affordable, a laugh there. I can really tell the difference between an L lens and one that is not. I think, though, that I am suffering withdrawal from the 28-135 that I sold to buy the 70-200L. My best shots have been with my long 300 and my short 17-40, the 17-40 was the most comfortable to learn, the 300 was a shocker. As heavy as Andy predicted, etc., but I loved the photos I got with it, so I carry it everywhere (that is a backbreaker, but I am rewarded). I was thinking after I shot that moon photo last night that I was no longer aware of that 300 with the extender being too long, too heavy, or too awkward, it just is as it is. I even put it in my bag yesterday.
But we will be coming up on events.............oh, dog, someone who I gave my card to, she called and wants to buy photos I took, and I can't hear her, don't want to hear her, etc. That is why I don't make any money. I have to do something about that. The reason I thought about that is that is a good lens if one wanted to sell photos, don't you think. They want recognizable photos of themselves at a place, recognizable.
I could go to the dog agility show coming up, I think. You don't have to read all this, I am without a car, just rambling.
g
Just hanging around little leage games last spring I got these:
Try taking it to a tennis match.
TML Photography
tmlphoto.com
I have been given different settings to use tonight.
What I think is really strange is that it is the same moon. If everyone in dgrin took a photo of the moon in the sky tonight, we would all be connected by all of us taking a photo of the same object.
ginger (Thanks for the idea and for coming to see mine, smile.)
I believe that the full moon is tomorrow. I'll shoot it if the weather is good.
TML Photography
tmlphoto.com
Yesterday I was in my front yard. I would still like to get it on a clear night rising out of the ocean. In the east that is how things happen.
g
I wish I could stay up late enough to shoot the moon.:cry
Go for Ginger.Ill see it in your images
Cincinnati Smug Leader
100-400 1.4 tx @560 iso 100, f/11 1/100 sec hand held more fun than the eclipse I made such a mess of
Stan - your image is sharp, but lacks contrast, like Ginger's image. You must be shooting the same moon!
When I clock your lightest pixels they are barely lighter than middle grey RGB values of 160, 155, 152 or therabouts. Your highlights on the moon should be near white 245,247, 250 or thereabouts. And then it would look like this
If you shoot RAW this can be easily corrected in RAW conversion. Otherwise you will need to adjust in Levels or Curves. Use the white eyedropper in Levels on the whitest areas in your image and it will do the rest.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I shot in RAW, I always shoot in RAW. I am getting scared to tell people that, though, as then they think I can do something I have no idea how to do.
How do I fix it in RAW? I noticed the same thing, went out and reshot it a bit lighter. I just didn't mention that last night. And when the lens talk was going on today, I was wondering if that was why my moon wasn't crisp. I also tried curves. And, even funnier, I used the eye dropper. Things just kept getting worse. So I shot one and left it alone, I can't remember doing anything, perhaps USM.
Did any of the rest of you reach a stage where you knew things, and the more you knew the more you were afraid to do because you might mess up. If you sharpen and someone says it looks oversharpened, you can't say you didn't. But I did everything you mentioned there and didn't know how to fix it.
So once again: how would I have fixed it in RAW? How did yours come out so crisp?
ginger
Here are two different takes:
Jim, what lens(es) do you use to get those great shots?
I focused manually handholding. I came in and got the monopod and used it with the ball head, so it was supported. I was kind of shakey though, so I changed from a manual focus, which I had redone a bunch of times, I changed to autofocus, on the tripod, using the one dot to focus, so it was not matrix. I took a series of those.
I would go out right now and try bracketing a bit lighter, but I am shaking, I have to hydrate and relax. So I will upload this. I There were three different people's moons on that thread before yours came on. Why is yours so crisp?
What did you do with it?
ginger (This is nervous shaking, not that I can't hold a monopod, but it was the first time.......I don't like to screw up.):uhoh
I want to know how he did that. There was a way. I don't think it was high pass, though I did not try it last night, I tried it today sometime.
g
I will put something up as soon as I get it, about 15 minutes.
Ginger, I think there are two different issues that you are addressing. Sharpness is a function of the optical quality of the lens, and the stability of the camera lens system, and the correct focus.
My image was shot from a stationary tripod with a 300mm lens + a 2x telextender ( if my memory serves -- smugmug says 600 and I don't own a 600 so....) Did you shoot from a tripod? Did you stop down at least 2 stops from the maximum to ensure the optical quality with your extender? Did you use a cable release or self timer release? Mirror L/U? I used the self timer for release and a firm fixed tripod.
OK - that should get you the sharpness that you want. You cannot shoot the moon with the camera on Av, Tv, P or whatever. Put the camera on MANUAL - so you can control the aperature and the shutter speed and the focus. The moon is not going to run away. Start with the sunny F16 you talked about the other night. You were right. The moon IS a sun lit object - just like noon daytime. F16 1/ISO for sunny objects is the sunny f16 rule.
Focus carefully and do a series of exposures 1/100 f16 ISO 100 --- 1/100 f11 ISO 100 --- 1/100 f22 ISO100---- and maybe for grins 1/50 f16 ISO100. Now you should have a series of exposures from 1 stop less to 2 stops more light than the sunny f16 rule suggests.
Start opening the files into your RAW converter and look at the histogram. Is it to the right or the left. In your image I bet it was to the left. You are looking for a shot that has a nice histogram to the right, but not all the way to the right so that the highlight remain and aren't blown out. Since the moon will be small relative to the larger black area you will have a large part of the curve to the left too - that's ok, everything around the moon will go to black anyway. What you need are the details in the lighter part of the moon, so pay attention to the right side of the histogram.
Now, slide the exposure slider to the right or left, WHILE YOU HOLD DOWN THE Alt KEY. The RAW converter screen will turn all black and as you slide the slider to the right you will begin to see white spots appear - these are the highlights that will be pushed to total white so back off just a little.
Now, slide the Shadows slider while holding down the Alt key and the screen turns all white and will turn black as you slide the Shadows slider to the left. Adjust to taste, and the finally the brightness slider. You can use the eyedropper tool to read the values of the various pixels displayed in the RAW converter screen to see if you are getting the whites you desire.
Now when you finally click ok to bring the image into Photoshop, not much remains to be done. Maybe just a little nudge in curves and some cropping and a little USM, and Voila!! Your image should look like the one I posted above
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Ginger, Rutt - see above
As I said, I think my image was shot with a Canon 300mm prime + a Canon 2x extender on a tripod with sefltimer release.. The camera was a 10D I am sure. Processed in PS, and sharpened a little. I have no idea what the numbers I used for sharpening - little enough that I did not see halos while sharpening in RGB. I know that sharpening the Lightness channel in LAB is better, but for an image I am going to post on the WEB, it probably doesn't make that great a difference. And I'm sure that I was not sharpening in LAB when this was posted last spring.
Of course, some afficianodos will take several images and stack them to average out the digital noise, but moon shots are short enough that there really isn't that much noise to worry about at ISO 100. Now if the exposure was 2 minutes, stacking would make a lot more sense.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Jim, I was really hoping that you'd say you used one of those fancy teles that I just can't quite talk myself into.
If I hadn't been tired and shakey I would have bracketed some, but I was bracketing other things.
I used the monopod. There was haze. Now am I going to get pictures like yours with haze? I mean cloudy haze. This is from the RAW, only the color was changed by auto, the histo and all is still to the left.
Can you see that haze/cloud cover. I used the 300L lens with the 1.4 extender. The histogram is to the left. Thanks for the info on how far to bring it over to the right. That has confused me as there is to be no white in an egret, none.
It was on manual. Last night you gave me the figures of 100 ISO, shutter speed 100, at f11. That is what I used. You gave me a lecture and gave me those figures. Now there is a whole new component that I had no idea about. Are you sure I want whites, in general, unless we are talking sheets as a poor example, I am not sure I want white. As I said there is no white in an egret. If there is any white in a bird, the whole bird is blown, so how do you know when you want white?
Do you see that ring of cloud around the moon, I didn't put it there, it is there in the sky. What should I expect?
I am going to check out your thing about holding the alt key in RAW, then I am going to go read.
ginger (thanks for the info and help)
I am sure I could have made the grey as black as Pathfinder's, but every time I got close I thought it was wrong. It is 1:39 by the computer clock. I am going to bed.
That is a good technique, holding the alternate key to know just how far to go, especially on the highlights, the shadows, as I said I could have made mine darker. But the whole technique is valuable enough to have gone through this. Thanks, Pathfinder. I will use it with my birds.:D
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Thank you Pathfinder and Rutt for the lesson
I see the haze and that is part of the image. My moon was shot on a cold dry evening when the sky was crystal clear and the light pollution is not as severe here as it would be in Boston or other large municipalities.
Whether you want your moon to be white or not is of course your choice. But a mid grey moon in a black sky just doesn't seem ideal. You have 0-255 levels of grey in each of the three color spaces RGB - and when none of them exceed 150, you are not making use of the image levels available. Certainly in a high key image, or a low key image, you will not see a complete range of contrast, but what makes the moon a hard thing to shoot is the extreme contrast range which should usually be visible in the final print eg: good black to white range. But if it is really hazy, then that is what your image will look like
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I wonder if it could be a sin, particularly without the full range of darks and lights or whatever.
God must have had a plan when he lit the moon, I am sure I violated it somehow.
I saw the moon before I went to bed at around 2 AM. I was taking the dogs out for their nightly "run" in the backyard. I never knew if they fulfilled the purpose of the run as I was mesmorized by the sight of the beautiful moon that appeared to be moving in a cloudy and clear sky. I thought of getting my tripod, but I was just too tired, so I watched it and enjoyed.
It went thru clear areas of the sky, or what appeared to be clear areas, undoubtedly there was moisture up there, it is a bright cloudy right now.
While in the clear areas it appeared to me to be very bright, much brighter than most of us are making it. The parts we think of as black were in my eyes grey. The lighter parts were almost shining they were so "white" appearing. The lighter parts encompassed far more of the moon than I would have wanted to show, though I would have liked to play with it.
Then the moon would dip beneath a "clear cloud", never disappearing, but changing the looks of the moon. It became duller, as a dime, but with a bright rim around the edge, in a photograph it would be quite fake looking, I would think. The whole experience was beautiful, truly breath taking. I wish I had not been so tired, but it was happening rapidly as the clouds raced across the sky, it would have been quite difficult to show in one photo. I am not good enough yet to do the multiples that would have done it some kind of justice. Even then, I think it was better as a memory and might be spoiled by laboring over a less than perfect image.
I did give the dogs their treats on the assumption they may have done their part, I read my book and went to sleep.
I just wanted to tell you about the moon I observed.
ginger
Actually, a good spot meter should work if you think of the moon like snow, may be, and just meter off the moon. But the large area of black around the moon gives camera’s averaging meters fits. Stick with sunny f16 for the moon - unless its really hidden in the clouds like Ginger describes - then you may need to try spot metering with exposure compensation like when shooting snow. I put my moon off center for that reason. I knew you’d mention it. I don't prefer the moon dead center either. YMMV
I used AF with just the center point on the moon I believe. Using all 9 AF points probably won’t work that well. Putting the camera on infinity may work, but will be challenging in the dark without a split image rangefinder. Modern DSLRs are very poor choices for manual focusing with their stock viewing screens. Darn it. You can get separate viewing screens for the 1 Series Canons, but give up Evaluative metering to do so.
Not sure but maybe the focal point for infinity is a function of the temperature of the glass and the air within the lens, and it may be cooler outdoors at night?
Because the vast bulk of the histogram is way to the left representing the black sky, but there is a spike to the right the represents that highlights from the moon? Otherwise as per usual I think.
I haven’t tried noise reduction software for the moon – I don’t usually use noise reduction software for sunlit shots, do you? Lower the ISO to 100, then, the moon is not moving that fast.
See my previous answer above
As I said I don’t remember the values I used, but they should not be that different, nor needed that much – the image is sunlit and stationary – it should be sharp optically, not in post so to speak
That dark and lite sharpening trick with halo blending might work here – haven’t ever tried it. See my previous answer. Yup!!
Better to do this in RAW than in jpgs, but yes if jpgs are what you are using.
I live in the suburbs of a city of 100,000 mortal souls – not in the Alto Plano of Chile’. Just takes a cool dry night with a dark sky. But maybe not possible within 50 miles of Boston or other metropolitan areas. Kenton Oklahoma would work – not another light within 60 miles. But my image was shot in my backyard in Indiana and we have had electric lights in Indiana for over 100 years.
John, please consider this post plastered with smilies as it is posted very much with tongue in cheek:D:):
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
ginger
I agree re Rutt's post! That was a warm fuzzy intellectual post to wake up to.
Thanks.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]