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.
Was using 20D which doesn't really have a spot (or does it?) I thought compared to the 1Dmkii, it was like getting a 1.3 TC for free.
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
Yes, but you can do that easily in post in this case. As long as you get a nice sharp moon all in the shot, you're in business. I just cropped mine almost to the max in order to emphasize their inferiority compared to yours.
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?
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.
I used low ISO, but still got grain. Not sure what the issue. Cleaned all the lenses today. Mostly, I was just pointing out that this is a very different kind of image that the ones we usually work on.
That dark and lite sharpening trick with halo blending might work here. haven't ever tried it. See my previous answer.
Try this trick! Professional prepress people almost always use it. It gives you an important extra degree of control with no real loss.
Better to do this in RAW than in jpgs, but yes if jpgs are what you are using.
I shot raw, converted to 16bit, then played with LAB curves. As long as all the detail is there, this should be absolutely no worse than doing it during raw conversion. There is no magic. Jim, just keep saying to yourself, there is no magic. Well, anyway this should be uncontroversial where digital cameras are concerned.
John, please consider this post plastered with smileies as it is posted very much with tongue in cheek
I don't use smilies myself, but the careful reader can discern my intent without them. I've always thought that anyone who actually needed them wouldn't get the point anyway, but experience is starting to make me think otherwise (Ginger and Jim, you two never seem to have trouble with my shades of meaning, so don't take offense.)
The first was as shot because I could not see how to pull any more detail from it...
I think the dent at 10 o'clock is the shaddow of the not full moon.
Thank you both
You are in england, and I am on the southeast coast of the usa. it is interesting to me how our different moons have a somewhat different orientation.
There is a place on the moon towards the bottom, bottom rt on mine, just bottom, to bottom left on yours, where if it were a watermelon, the stem would have gone.
I did mine about 1 AM EST here, I wonder if that makes a difference. Interesting.
ginger (Still a full cloud cover here) I forget to use the smiles most of the time. Then when I am on AOL, I miss having them. Downloaded a smilie place and something bad happened to it. I figured AOL zapped it. Smile
rutt, ginger, pathfinder: this has become a very interesting thread! great images and i've learned quite a bit from rutt and pathfinders "tutorials".
That info re the sliders in RAW, I would have paid a bunch to get that (yesterday I would have paid, today I know). It has really been bothering me. I didn't know if I "had" to make the histogram go from one side to the other, or just do it as I wanted to. By "had to", I mean what was going to work better in the long run.
So, I would kind of toss a coin......never remembered to ask anyone, and don't know how I would have phrased the question anyway. I do have the book on RAW, but I have way too many books to read, and who knows where the gems are that I need.
Pathfinder is great at picking that stuff up, IMO. (Not that I wanted to hear that my moon still sucked, and in honor of Rutt (John) I will not put a smilie there.
Smile.
I really, really needed that RAW info, wonder what else I really need. So many questions. And now we have a thread for it. That is fantastic. And Landscapes has moved away from wildlife which is also fantastic.
ginger (The reason the question came up and became an issue was because of the egrets. It always comes back to the egrets!)
That info re the sliders in RAW, I would have paid a bunch to get that (yesterday I would have paid, today I know). It has really been bothering me. I didn't know if I "had" to make the histogram go from one side to the other, or just do it as I wanted to. By "had to", I mean what was going to work better in the long run.
So, I would kind of toss a coin......never remembered to ask anyone, and don't know how I would have phrased the question anyway. I do have the book on RAW, but I have way too many books to read, and who knows where the gems are that I need.
Pathfinder is great at picking that stuff up, IMO. (Not that I wanted to hear that my moon still sucked, and in honor of Rutt (John) I will not put a smilie there.
Smile.
I really, really needed that RAW info, wonder what else I really need. So many questions. And now we have a thread for it. That is fantastic. And Landscapes has moved away from wildlife which is also fantastic.
ginger (The reason the question came up and became an issue was because of the egrets. It always comes back to the egrets!)
Ginger, I NEVER said your moon sucked. I would never say that! I said it could be improved upon by you, and I was confident that you would like to display your image of the moon to its very best advantage also. Otherwise you would not have added the lovely frame and script titling. What font is that your used for your titling anyway. I reallly like it!
And yes, I thought a little tip about RAW conversion might be helpful to many other readers of this thread. It was kind of an Aha moment when I first saw that tip. Use it in good health on all your shots:):
The first was as shot because I could not see how to pull any more detail from it...
I think the dent at 10 o'clock is the shaddow of the not full moon.
Thank you both
Stan, I like this image much better. I think this is much better use of the available levels of grey. Your brightest spots nw clock about 235, 240, 225 range. Much closer to white than your previous image and it seems sharp to my eye.
It looks like a watermelon, that is what it looks like!
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.
Thanks. Was using 20D which doesn't really have a spot (or does it?) I thought compared to the 1Dmkii, it was like getting a 1.3 TC for free. Yes, but you can do that easily in post in this case. As long as you get a nice sharp moon all in the shot, you're in business. I just cropped mine almost to the max in order to emphasize their inferiority compared to yours. No AF with 20D+100-400+TC. It's in the manual. 1Series will, but only center focus. Or the TCs screw it up? I used low ISO, but still got grain. Not sure what the issue. Cleaned all the lenses today. Mostly, I was just pointing out that this is a very different kind of image that the ones we usually work on. Try this trick! Professional prepress people almost always use it. It gives you an important extra degree of control with no real loss. I shot raw, converted to 16bit, then played with LAB curves. As long as all the detail is there, this should be absolutely no worse than doing it during raw conversion. There is no magic. Jim, just keep saying to yourself, there is no magic. Well, anyway this should be uncontroversial where digital cameras are concerned. I don't use smilies myself, but the careful reader can discern my intent without them. I've always thought that anyone who actually needed them wouldn't get the point anyway, but experience is starting to make me think otherwise (Ginger and Jim, you two never seem to have trouble with my shades of meaning, so don't take offense.)
John, I think the 20D does have a spot meter, but I can't find my manual to verify it. Isn't the meter icon on the top LCD in the spot mode when the icon is empty> That is my recollection, but I could be wrong about that.
You are right that the 20D won't AF with the 100-400 zoom + 1.4 Tx - The effective aperature drops to f8, and AF falls out of the ability of the 20D. Another reason to prefer fast primes. The 2x Tx + 300 f2.8 becomes f5.6 600mm, but still will AF with the center AF point on the 20D. I used that combo for numerous BIF shots in N Mexico.
I am not sure that making adjustments in LAB is as safe to the data of the image as the RAW converter is, because the data prior to RAW conversion is in a linear array, while after RAW conversion to a color space in Photoshop
the data is in a gamma corrected array which means that it is no longer linear - that is why adjustments prior to RAW cause so much less data loss. There is an article in the current issue of Photoshop User about just this topic. Good article too. So maybe.... there is some magic. The article said that Photoshop then just becomes a plug in for the RAW converter and that is just about my view too.
And I have left all smilies out of this discourse out of respect for your opinion about them....... NOT!!!
I am not sure that making adjustments in LAB is as safe to the data of the image as the RAW converter is, because the data prior to RAW conversion is in a linear array, while after RAW conversion to a color space in Photoshop
the data is in a gamma corrected array which means that it is no longer linear - that is why adjustments prior to RAW cause so much less data loss. There is an article in the current issue of Photoshop User about just this topic. Good article too. So maybe.... there is some magic. The article said that Photoshop then just becomes a plug in for the RAW converter and that is just about my view too.
Post this to Dan Margulis' color theory discussion group and see what happens. Want me to? Is the article online somewhere? If not can I buy the periodical somewhere. Give me the reference.
We don't have to have this conversation here. Nobody will be interested. But I'd like to get to the bottom of it. Give me the info and I will.
Thomas, you did get more contrast this time. And I got a weather report. Our skys are covered up with clouds. If your weather comes in this direction, I might feel like going out again..........not for the moon.
I wonder on the moon, if there shouldn't be some areas that are not grey around on the bottom rt side, or somewhere on the rt side. I mean they maybe should be lighter. I was forcing mine into grey last night, I am thinking it might have been a mistake. They wouldn't need to be blown, they could just shine.....
as in moonshine.......or is that something different. I am not sure how dark I like the dark parts, but if I were to work on mine from last night, it would be to not force the grey on the right side, but let the moon shine. (not at 255, not blown, just not greyish)
Thomas, you did get more contrast this time. And I got a weather report. Our skys are covered up with clouds. If your weather comes in this direction, I might feel like going out again..........not for the moon.
I wonder on the moon, if there shouldn't be some areas that are not grey around on the bottom rt side, or somewhere on the rt side. I mean they maybe should be lighter. I was forcing mine into grey last night, I am thinking it might have been a mistake. They wouldn't need to be blown, they could just shine.....
as in moonshine.......or is that something different. I am not sure how dark I like the dark parts, but if I were to work on mine from last night, it would be to not force the grey on the right side, but let the moon shine. (not at 255, not blown, just not greyish)
g
I'm not sure what my favorite moon look is. There are quite a bit of ways you could go with the post processing. I like to add some constrast, but I'm not sure if I like the whites white hot. The full moon shots don't really let you see the craters, ie flat light is flat light. I think the more side lit view are probably more dramatic. HOpe your weather clears up.
This Camera Raw by Bruce Fraser has a wealth of info, but if I were to study it intensively, I might not see anyone here for a month. It mentions linear, it mentions stuff that used to be done in LAB that is done so much better in RAW.
It is only about 200 pages, but it does have the info. It is a bit technical for me, as in I have to interpret sentences or words before I can go to the next one.
It does make a good point, though, if we are not going to make good use of all this stuff RAW can do for us, why use RAW.
It says 34.99, but by now it is probably cheaper used at Amazon or avail at overstock.
Just thought I would tell you all. I have heard it said somewhere that I did not need this book, etc. Other people might not need this book, there is a lot in here I did not know, as I do not know anything about RAW.
What makes it difficult for me is the interaction of the controls, or that seems to be one thing.
I'm not sure what my favorite moon look is. There are quite a bit of ways you could go with the post processing. I like to add some constrast, but I'm not sure if I like the whites white hot. The full moon shots don't really let you see the craters, ie flat light is flat light. I think the more side lit view are probably more dramatic. HOpe your weather clears up.
Thomas, I like your response. It sounds like an artist's response. There is not one way to do the moon.......... I like that. It is your interpretation of the moon for you. This digital stuff is so technical, I think we sometimes lose sight of the artistic side where artists interpret the final results with varying truths among artists.
Comments
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Shay
The first was as shot because I could not see how to pull any more detail from it...
I think the dent at 10 o'clock is the shaddow of the not full moon.
Thank you both
There is a place on the moon towards the bottom, bottom rt on mine, just bottom, to bottom left on yours, where if it were a watermelon, the stem would have gone.
I did mine about 1 AM EST here, I wonder if that makes a difference. Interesting.
ginger (Still a full cloud cover here) I forget to use the smiles most of the time. Then when I am on AOL, I miss having them. Downloaded a smilie place and something bad happened to it. I figured AOL zapped it. Smile
So, I would kind of toss a coin......never remembered to ask anyone, and don't know how I would have phrased the question anyway. I do have the book on RAW, but I have way too many books to read, and who knows where the gems are that I need.
Pathfinder is great at picking that stuff up, IMO. (Not that I wanted to hear that my moon still sucked, and in honor of Rutt (John) I will not put a smilie there.
Smile.
I really, really needed that RAW info, wonder what else I really need. So many questions. And now we have a thread for it. That is fantastic. And Landscapes has moved away from wildlife which is also fantastic.
ginger (The reason the question came up and became an issue was because of the egrets. It always comes back to the egrets!)
And yes, I thought a little tip about RAW conversion might be helpful to many other readers of this thread. It was kind of an Aha moment when I first saw that tip. Use it in good health on all your shots:):
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Thanks for the hints folks,
Shay.
100-400 1.4TC 1/200 f/8 ISO 100
"Blue Moon"
TML Photography
tmlphoto.com
Stan, I like this image much better. I think this is much better use of the available levels of grey. Your brightest spots nw clock about 235, 240, 225 range. Much closer to white than your previous image and it seems sharp to my eye.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Your words were more visual than any image could portray.
Kirwin
John, I think the 20D does have a spot meter, but I can't find my manual to verify it. Isn't the meter icon on the top LCD in the spot mode when the icon is empty> That is my recollection, but I could be wrong about that.
You are right that the 20D won't AF with the 100-400 zoom + 1.4 Tx - The effective aperature drops to f8, and AF falls out of the ability of the 20D. Another reason to prefer fast primes. The 2x Tx + 300 f2.8 becomes f5.6 600mm, but still will AF with the center AF point on the 20D. I used that combo for numerous BIF shots in N Mexico.
I am not sure that making adjustments in LAB is as safe to the data of the image as the RAW converter is, because the data prior to RAW conversion is in a linear array, while after RAW conversion to a color space in Photoshop
the data is in a gamma corrected array which means that it is no longer linear - that is why adjustments prior to RAW cause so much less data loss. There is an article in the current issue of Photoshop User about just this topic. Good article too. So maybe.... there is some magic. The article said that Photoshop then just becomes a plug in for the RAW converter and that is just about my view too.
And I have left all smilies out of this discourse out of respect for your opinion about them....... NOT!!!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
We don't have to have this conversation here. Nobody will be interested. But I'd like to get to the bottom of it. Give me the info and I will.
I wonder on the moon, if there shouldn't be some areas that are not grey around on the bottom rt side, or somewhere on the rt side. I mean they maybe should be lighter. I was forcing mine into grey last night, I am thinking it might have been a mistake. They wouldn't need to be blown, they could just shine.....
as in moonshine.......or is that something different. I am not sure how dark I like the dark parts, but if I were to work on mine from last night, it would be to not force the grey on the right side, but let the moon shine. (not at 255, not blown, just not greyish)
g
TML Photography
tmlphoto.com
It is only about 200 pages, but it does have the info. It is a bit technical for me, as in I have to interpret sentences or words before I can go to the next one.
It does make a good point, though, if we are not going to make good use of all this stuff RAW can do for us, why use RAW.
It says 34.99, but by now it is probably cheaper used at Amazon or avail at overstock.
Just thought I would tell you all. I have heard it said somewhere that I did not need this book, etc. Other people might not need this book, there is a lot in here I did not know, as I do not know anything about RAW.
What makes it difficult for me is the interaction of the controls, or that seems to be one thing.
g
ginger