Taking a picture of the moon? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

01/15/2006 11:40:20 PM · #1

Are these good for an A510 powershot? They are scaled down alot to save space and bandwith.

If you look at these and look at my camera settings, can they be better?

Message edited by author 2006-01-15 23:42:00.

gurlwithapen

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/15/2006 11:57:15 PM · #2

the second one is amazing (blue cast)
very eerie!

Panasonic DMW-LTZ10 1.5x Teleconverter

01/16/2006 03:39:06 AM · #3

Man slow exposures are so awsome, the colors of everything just dont seem real. It looks like a painting with some one on an LSD trip or somthing. As i look at the pictures all i can say is WOW! its so pretty. I feel like im up to no good shooting at night though.

crayon

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH1

01/16/2006 03:46:54 AM · #4

what sort of setting on camera is best
for taking photo of the moon? Thanks

KiwiShotz

Panasonic DMC-FZ20

01/16/2006 03:54:54 AM · #5

Originally posted by crayon:

what sort of setting on camera is best
for taking photo of the moon? Thanks

I was at a seminar where a guy was talking about shooting eclipses and he got into some of the settings for moon shots for us to try.

Next night I shot this, the results astounded me

Lens: 650mm
f8.0, ISO200, 1/80

If you read some of the stats I have with that image, you'll see how small it was as a percentage of the sensor yet look at the detail that i was able to hold. It scored lousy, but one of my most satisfying captures.

The moon has MUCH more light than you think possible.
The longer your lens, the less time you have for exposure as the stars move surprisingly quickly. There's a whole lot of other stuff I can't remember, I'm sure Google has the answers :)

Brett

Message edited by author 2006-01-16 03:55:54.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/16/2006 04:00:11 AM · #6

Well my camera is just stock and i searched google for "settings for pictures of the moon" and i read a site that said to use F2.8, 100 iso and he said 2-3 minute shutter speed. My camera didnt go that high so i just put it on the max. I think i tried 50 ISO and 100 and it seems 50 was better for mine.

Message edited by author 2006-01-16 14:09:19.

David.C

01/16/2006 04:21:18 AM · #7

The camera settings depend on the light, of course. If you are wanting to photograph the details of the moon, just remember that even though you are in near darkness the moon is in full 'high-noon on a clear summer day' sunlight. The exposure settings must be for quite a bit of light. But if you are wanting to photograph something lit by moonlight the settings will be for much less light and likely a long shutter speed.

Since we're posting moon shots, here's mine. (keep in mind it was taken with my old Olympus, which is roughly equivalent to the A510)

Here is an older thread on "Photographing the moon", for your reading pleasure.

David

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/16/2006 04:28:03 AM · #8

Message edited by author 2006-01-16 04:31:42.

Skyarcher

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/16/2006 05:01:05 AM · #9

Here are a few of my astro shots... I'll have to get new shots of the moon , with my new telescope and mount. Settings, etc. are listed under each photo.

Some very nice images y'all have showing here. :)

Beyond Gallery - by Skyarcher

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/16/2006 05:20:47 AM · #10

1/250 sec
f/7.1
ISO 100

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/16/2006 07:49:13 AM · #11

Originally posted by BowerR64:

.. he said 2-3 minute shitter speed.

That's pretty quick for THAT, but pretty slow for a SHUTTER speed.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/16/2006 07:53:48 AM · #12

If you want detail on the moon, you need tremendous focal length (looooooong lens or a telescope) and short exposures (the moon is BRIGHT). If you want erie skyscapes and weird lighting on landscapes, shoot wide and longer, as you have done.

FWIW, here is my moon gallery of close up shots and my favorite landscape:

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/16/2006 07:55:05 AM · #13

Basic rule for moon shots - in a full moon - is f/11 at the inverse of the ISO. In other words, at ISO 100, use 1/100 sec shutter speed at f/11.

You'll swear it's too dark, but trust me it works. You will NEVER accomplish a sharp picture of the moon at anything like a 2 minute exposure. The moon is moving - a LOT - and it shows on even a 10 or 15 second exposure. As well, it overexposes quickly because it is actually a DAYLIGHT shot. It's a slight modification of the f/16 rule because there is some light falloff due to the distance from earth to moon, but not much. (Normal sunlight exposure f/16 at 1/ISO).

Those with P&S cams that won't go to f/11 should correct the rule by however many stops it takes to get to your camera range.

As well, don't even think about taking moon shots handheld, even though the shutter speed becomes manageable. It's amazing how little motion it takes from your hands - even your HEARTBEAT - to make the moon jiggle.

Those with IS might have a little better chance.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/16/2006 07:56:30 AM · #14

Originally posted by BowerR64:

Well my camera is just stock and i searched google for "settings for pictures of the moon" and i read a site that said to use F2.8, 100 iso and he said 2-3 minute shitter speed. My camera didnt go that high so i just put it on the max. I think i tried 50 ISO and 100 and it seems 50 was better for mine.

OK, I'll take it you really meant shutter, but anyway I would have to say that wherever you read the 2-3 minute thing must have been off. The moon will migrate a considerable distance in that time rendering any results blurred to some extent. Not to mention that at f/2.8 and anything close to the speed you mentioned the moon should be blowed out completely.

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/16/2006 07:58:24 AM · #15

Originally posted by strangeghost:

Just to explain to the OP in case they don't see your shot notes... This is actually a combination of two exposures, right? One to get the moon exposure correct and the other for the landscape, then you PSed them together. NOTHING wrong with that, just wouldn't want someone to get the impression that this shot is possible with a single exposure. :) GREAT SHOT, by the way.

rami

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/16/2006 08:00:33 AM · #16

that brings up a slightly different question.. for sun shots...
i'm under the sense to point the hell away from it or else it might damage the camera sensor... is that pure paranoia ?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/16/2006 08:03:20 AM · #17

Originally posted by rami:

that brings up a slightly different question.. for sun shots...
i'm under the sense to point the hell away from it or else it might damage the camera sensor... is that pure paranoia ?

I'd be more worried about the damage to the shutter - or your eyes. I'm pretty sure they sell filters for sun shots.

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

01/16/2006 08:07:43 AM · #18

Originally posted by rami:

that brings up a slightly different question.. for sun shots...
i'm under the sense to point the hell away from it or else it might damage the camera sensor... is that pure paranoia ?

Shots of the sun or shots where the sue is in frame and part of the composition?

The latter is fine, you won't damage your camera or eye using short exposures. The former should only be attempted by people who know exactly what they're doing and who have proper equipment for doing it. Shooting the sun without proper filtration can be dangerous and damaging to your eyes.

Using a telescope and Thousand Oaks solar filter:

Message edited by author 2006-01-16 08:09:05.

01/16/2006 02:20:38 PM · #19

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by BowerR64:
Well my camera is just stock and i searched google for "settings for pictures of the moon" and i read a site that said to use F2.8, 100 iso and he said 2-3 minute shitter speed. My camera didnt go that high so i just put it on the max. I think i tried 50 ISO and 100 and it seems 50 was better for mine.

OK, I'll take it you really meant shutter, but anyway I would have to say that wherever you read the 2-3 minute thing must have been off. The moon will migrate a considerable distance in that time rendering any results blurred to some extent. Not to mention that at f/2.8 and anything close to the speed you mentioned the moon should be blowed out completely.

Maybe im reading it wrong? he said somthing about stacking images or somthing. I searched google and just kinda skimmed threw to get to the F settings and ISO and stuff. here is the link settings

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/16/2006 03:08:47 PM · #20

Originally posted by BowerR64:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by BowerR64:
Well my camera is just stock and i searched google for "settings for pictures of the moon" and i read a site that said to use F2.8, 100 iso and he said 2-3 minute shitter speed. My camera didnt go that high so i just put it on the max. I think i tried 50 ISO and 100 and it seems 50 was better for mine.

OK, I'll take it you really meant shutter, but anyway I would have to say that wherever you read the 2-3 minute thing must have been off. The moon will migrate a considerable distance in that time rendering any results blurred to some extent. Not to mention that at f/2.8 and anything close to the speed you mentioned the moon should be blowed out completely.

Maybe im reading it wrong? he said somthing about stacking images or somthing. I searched google and just kinda skimmed threw to get to the F settings and ISO and stuff. here is the link settings

The article stated he was using 1/125 sec @ F4 with the film speed at iso 100 for shots of the moon which I would say is still a few stops too slow. The 2-3 minute thing was for star photography.

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

01/16/2006 03:33:57 PM · #21

Originally posted by nards656:

Just saw this note. Yes, the moon rising over the Madison skyline shot that I posted is a composite of two exposures, a very short one to capture the moon (<1 second) and a longer one to capture details of the city skyline (~6-8 seconds if memory serves). As you point out, and the whole emphasis of this thread, moon shots must be quick because the moon is so bright (and moving, as you point out correctly).

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

01/16/2006 05:28:56 PM · #22

You can get somewhere even with a single exposure, but you have to shoot during a day. I took this one on friday, actually I saw this photo, stopped my car, drove back ~100m, parked, stepped out in the middle of the road with 70-200, handheld, and took this one. Only adjusted curves, no other work done on it (it was originally lighter as it was still daytime)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/17/2006 05:31:03 PM · #23

The picture of the moon and light pole makes me think of that ET movie.

phone hoooome

tjmueller

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/21/2006 11:59:59 AM · #24

Having a littel fun with photoshop. Climbed on roof and placed plastic owl on roof. shoot owlwith moon - did not work. shoot moon seperate and put together in photoshop as envisiond. Hey we are here to have fun