Experimenting with night shooting

[ntmeangreen2003]

I was outside tonight wanting to take some pics of the full moon, but no matter what I tried, I could not get a crisp clear shot of the moon. I tried adjusting all the settings manually, even let the camera do it, but nothing seemed to work. I have a Sony A200 with an 18-70 and an 70-300. I do realize that the quality is likely do to my inexperience and so any tips, advice, or links to an article or something would be greatly appreciated.

[Fireball]

Ha! I was out trying to do the same thing! It's beautiful, isn't it?

I do know that the longer the lens, the better will be the "largeness" of the moon with more detail of the craters. So the 300 mm would be the best which means a tripod, of course.
I've found that using a small aperature (f13 or higher) doesn't let in as much light so it's not blown out and looking like some kind of ball of white.

I'm sure others could give you even better advice, but this works for me quite well.

[ntmeangreen2003]

It was so beautiful, especially since my apartment patio faces the exact perfect way this time of year to setup my tripod and shoot some pics. I did use the 300 lens and tried a small aperature but it seemed to not let in enough. There were some very thin clouds blowing right in front of the moon, like a scene out of a horror movies opening scenes, I just couldn't capture it. Thank you for your advice, I do appreciate it and hope you got some good shots, what a sight it was.

[Fireball]

Did you dial down your shutter speed then? I had mine set on manual mode, f/13, shutter speed 100, ISO 400. I got some pretty clear shots but didn't have my longest lens with me so they weren't the "wow" factor I was looking for. I'll see if I can find an article to help you. Be right back!

[ntmeangreen2003]

I did dial down the shutter speed, adjusted the ISO, etc. I also just went back through and reviewed the photos on my computer, some turned out actually pretty cool, just no clear shots of the moon.

[Fireball]

Okay, here's a really good article. Hope it helps!
http://stopshootingauto.com/2007/12/...e-of-the-moon/

[ntmeangreen2003]

I read through the article and can't wait to try it out tomorrow. Thank you very much. I owe you one.

[Fireball]

No problem. Just let me know how it works and be sure and show us your shots!

[iCe]

I hate to be one of those "do a search" wankers but there's been a bunch of moon shot discussions about how to get the Just right moon shot. Try searching the Wildlife forum. I put mine there most of the time. Personally, when I use my 600mm lens, I have a rough idea where I want to start. One thing that will get you every time is the relative brightness of the moon. The camera will always always always blow the moon out (over expose). So, with the 600, IF I bother to even check in Auto mode (don't do that much. Maybe if it's cloudy) I'll drop 2 - 2 and a half stops from what the camera thinks. For that matter, even in M, I'll center the needle and then drop 2 to 2 and a half stops from there. But that's with a 600mm lens so the subject is larger.

[venchka]

or...........

Bracket. Bracket. And then bracket some more. It's digital. Exposures are free. Drop the ISO to nothing (small number), stop down 1-2 stops below maximum on your lens (f-8 is a good place on almost every lens ever made), manual focus on Infinity, set your camera to auto-bracket, use the self-timer to fire the shutter, let the shutter run as long as it takes.

Piece of cake.

[Terry C]

Originally Posted by venchka

or...........

Bracket. Bracket. And then bracket some more. It's digital. Exposures are free. Drop the ISO to nothing (small number), stop down 1-2 stops below maximum on your lens (f-8 is a good place on almost every lens ever made), manual focus on Infinity, set your camera to auto-bracket, use the self-timer to fire the shutter, let the shutter run as long as it takes.

Piece of cake.

That "let the shutter run as long as it takes" doesn't necessarily work with the moon. With a longer lens the motion of the moon relative to the earth is much more obvious than with the naked eye. A long exposure will result in image blur.

[venchka]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...I didn't mean an hour or two. I meant let the camera decide the shutter speed. If the shutter speed gets out of your comfort zone, increase the ISO a stop and/or open the lens a stop. Plus or minus. YMMV.

Early last evening the moon was low and there were high thin clouds scudding across the full moon. A longish exposure, say 5-10 seconds, could have emphasized the cloud movement in a most appealing way. Not unlike a rather famous photograph of a full moon over a cemetary in New Mexico taken in the 40s.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by ntmeangreen2003

I was outside tonight wanting to take some pics of the full moon, but no matter what I tried, I could not get a crisp clear shot of the moon. I tried adjusting all the settings manually, even let the camera do it, but nothing seemed to work. I have a Sony A200 with an 18-70 and an 70-300. I do realize that the quality is likely do to my inexperience and so any tips, advice, or links to an article or something would be greatly appreciated.

Do a manual exposure using the sunny 16 rule as the full moon's surface is just like another landscape at noon. You also need to mount on a good tripod.

And read this.

[Terry C]

Originally Posted by venchka

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...I didn't mean an hour or two. I meant let the camera decide the shutter speed. If the shutter speed gets out of your comfort zone, increase the ISO a stop and/or open the lens a stop. Plus or minus. YMMV.

Early last evening the moon was low and there were high thin clouds scudding across the full moon. A longish exposure, say 5-10 seconds, could have emphasized the cloud movement in a most appealing way. Not unlike a rather famous photograph of a full moon over a cemetary in New Mexico taken in the 40s.

My point is that the focal length of the lens used is the factor that most determines how long or short the exposure can be and still deliver a "sharp" image as the result. "Moonrise over Hernandez" was obviously not shot with a long telephoto. According to the technical records I've seen, the actual exposure for that photo was 1 sec @ f32 (ISO 64) and although I don't know the exact focal length of the lens used it appears to be a normal to slightly wide lens. Fortunately with advent of digital cameras, users can experiment with different shutter speeds, magnify the image on the LCD, and make whatever adjustments they deem appropriate.

[venchka]

Common sense prevails.

Regardless, I guess I expect folks to know more than they do. I still stand by "let the shutter run for as long as it takes." Common sense should indicate that the shortest shutter speed possible to get the shot is the goal. If it takes 1/125 to get the shot, Great. If it takes 30 seconds to get the shot, Wonderful. Will they be the same shot? Probably not.

I'm not a slave to focal length vs. shutter speed either. I know enough to keep the shutter speed short if I'm hand holding or the subject is moving. Beyond that, with a static subject and/or when the camera is on a tripod, shutter speed is the last thing I set. The majority of my shutters stop at 1/2 sec. or 1 second. That information is programed in my brain and I generally avoid having to get out the hour glass to time exposures. Unless the shot calls for a long exposure.