 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2004photography of a brillant moon
Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture preferred, whatever. Regards from Pensacola I too have similar problems. I'd love to get a good full moon rise over the Atlantic Ocean (NJ) but I'm just not there yet. Dave | Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising | moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck | either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture | preferred, whatever. | Regards from Pensacola It can be done... this isn't perfect, I HAVE seen better but I am fairly pleased with it, it's a decent Image I think...oh and this was taken in north-west New Jersey, no ocean view available here. http://photo.mike721.com/gallery/moon/moon8785?full=1 Digital rebel, with Canon 100-400 L lens @ 400, plus a Canon 1.4X teleconverter. The lens has IS ( stabilization) but on the tripod I turn it off so it wasn't a factor. Focus was manual, using the 'whole lot of squinting' method :-) Exposure time: (1/200) Aperture: f/8.0 ISO equiv.: 200 I have the 'hacked' firmware installed in my Rebelwhich lets me use Mirror lock up, I think I was using 10 seconds..this seems to be VERY important since it allows the vibrations to settle down. Google 'wasia' and 'digital rebel hacked firmware' and you should find it..or else check it out here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canondigicamhacking/ Have fun!  SignatureMikey S. http://www.mike721.com >I too have similar problems. I'd love to get a good full moon rise over >the Atlantic Ocean [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > | preferred, whatever. > | Regards from Pensacola Mike: That is a great shot ! It puts my Quantarray 75~300mm to shame. However, I don't have trouble taking shots of a full moon or a partial moon. It is a moon rise that I am having trouble with when the moon is low on the horizon and the colour is reddish-orange. Dave | It can be done... this isn't perfect, I HAVE seen better but I am fairly | pleased with it, it's a decent Image I think...oh and this was taken in [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] | > | preferred, whatever. | > | Regards from Pensacola Ahh, OK, I don't think I ever tried that..I'll have to see if I can give it a shot when conditions are right, that's something I always wanted to try too. My guess would be that getting it perfect it might require 2 different exposures, one long one for the landscape and one short one for the moon and then some Photoshop work to put them together,( probably with the moon bigger than it actually appears to make it look more realistic as our eyes/brain see it) but I guess there is only one way to find out. SignatureMikey S. http://www.mike721.com > Mike: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > | > | Have fun! Tom, I don't have your type of camera, but I did manage to take a fairly good shot of the moon with my Minolta RD-175 digital and a 400mm lens. I used a variety of shutter speeds and let the camera set the aperture, and found one result that was quite decent (I think at 1/400th). I'm pretty sure I used the camera's spot-metering function, to make sure that the camera was reading the brightness of the moon itself. With a lens of less magnification, the shutter speed might not be quite as fast. But I think the spot metering is the key -- does the Rebel have this? If I find the picture I will post it. But it appears to have vanished. Hmm... did I take a photo of something the moon-beings didn't want me to see? HD >Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising >moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck >either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture >preferred, whatever. >Regards from Pensacola >Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising >moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck >either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture >preferred, whatever. >Regards from Pensacola If it is the moon, and not the landscape WITH the moon, then set manual focus to infinity and the aperture to f/16 with the shutter speed as the reciprocal of the ISO, or an EV equivilent of that combination. Hunt >If it is the moon, and not the landscape WITH the moon, then set manual focus >to infinity and the aperture to f/16 with the shutter speed as the reciprocal >of the ISO, or an EV equivilent of that combination. Sunny f16 will result in under-exposed images, wasting dynamic range. f10 or even 8 works good for Canon DSLRs. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>If it is the moon, and not the landscape WITH the moon, then set manual focus >>to infinity and the aperture to f/16 with the shutter speed as the reciprocal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >f10 or even 8 works good for Canon DSLRs. I'm talking about a moon in a high, clear sky. Nearer the horizon or in a compromising atmosphere, it will take much more exposure. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>> If it is the moon, and not the landscape WITH the moon, then set >>> manual focus to infinity and the aperture to f/16 with the shutter [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Nearer the horizon or in a compromising atmosphere, it will take much > more exposure. Moonrise over Ripley, California (Believe It Or Don't) http://www.fototime.com/FBCC40983D6D0F6/orig.jpg ISO 50 F 3.6 1/125 All camera-chosen (Point and Shoot) except Spot-meter f/l ~ 111mm equiv Exposure Bias -0.30 Through the window of a 70MPH bus Image untouched other than reduce to size and Save For Web at PhotoShop 30 quality Just to give an example of the other end of the moonshot spectrum, so to speak. SignatureFrank ess >Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising >moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck >either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture >preferred, whatever. We need details of what you have tried (including what lens you are using, and details about your tripod) and what the results were. "Not having any luck" doesn't help us figure out where you are going wrong. Are you metering on the moon, or on the general landscape? You say "rising moon", is this before sunset, during twilight, or in the full dark? Are your resulting photos blury, or are they sharp but not correctly exposed? Do you have motion blur from the moon moving while the picture is being exposed (when using a really long exposure)? Do you have motion blur from your tripod not being steady? (Maybe you need a remote shutter release, or cover the lens with dark paper, release the shutter, remove the paper and count out your exposure, cover the lens, THEN close the shutter.) Are you using a lens that has image stabilization? Etc. jc I'm using a Quantaray Titan II tripod on a grass surface so the feet will have stability. I set the camera on ten second delay for the exposure so I'm not touching either camera or tripod at time of exposure. I always thought fotos of the moon should be at f11 no matter what ISO dialed in and the brains of the camera would figure out the exposure time. I've tried to get both moon in the sky and moon with some background to give a perspective. It was the harvest moon last month and it was beautiful, orange and huge, as it moved up from the horizon. I have a lake at my property line and I was facing east across the water as the moon came up. I was able to get images with the moon both in the sky and reflected on the water but it just looks like a round smiley face....no definition as the moon. I tried with autofocus on, off, manual, various ISOs, etc. I tried with the Canon 18-55mm lens and also the 75-300mm lens. The moon was overexposed in almost all of the images. I've read about the problems digital cameras have with night imagery. I feel that I could have thrown my old Canon A-1 on the tripod and gotten good pictures but I've been resisting using film. I want to be able to use this camera to it's fullest. As far as downloading software into the camera....that's a quantum leap and sound scary at this point in time. I appreciate all of the answers. I've copied some into Word Documents to use as reference points. I'm glad my ISP told me to look at new newsgroups this week. That's how I found this group. Regards again from storm ravaged Pensacola, Tom P.S. I got some excellent fotos of one of the collection points where the city and county trucks have been bringing trees and branches to be mulched. In an average year this area puts about 300 thousand cubic yards of environmental waste into a landfill. Since Hurricane Ivan they have hauled away about 4 million cubic yards of stuff. They tried burning it in pits and decided to mulch it. Imagine piles of mulch about 60 feet high covering your hometown football stadium. That doesn't even include the industrial waste (siding, houses, lumber, shingles, carpets, sheetrock, washers, dryers, dishwashers, freezers, refrigerators, etc.......all sorts of stuff ruined by salt water invasion). >>Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising >>moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > jc > Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising > moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck > either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture > preferred, whatever. > Regards from Pensacola "Lunar 'leven / Sunny sixteen" are the applicable guidelines. Don't use the meter, it's pointing at black space (will overexpose) or the moon (will underexpose). In manual mode. Set the ISO to 100. Set the shutter speed equal to the ISO (as close as possible) so 1/90, 1/100 or 1/125 as your camera permits. Set the aperture to f/11 (this is the lunar 'leven part). Focus carefully (your lens at the far stop might be out of focus, not at infinity) Shoot. 1) When the moon is low, lunear 'leven. When the moon is high: sunny sixteen (f/16). 2) Reciprocity: f/16 might not be the sharpest part of the lens, so try f/11 but at twice the shutter speed (1/200 .. 1/250 instead of 1/100 .. 1/125) for "sunny sixteen". Why "sunny 16"? 'cause the moon is in the sunlight... so expose as you would somebody in open sunlight ... 1/ISO, f/16 (or applicable reciprocals). Hope that helps. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. Thank you very much. I will probably frame your post and stick it to my camera bag with some duct tape!! Off topic: Do you know what they call duct tape here in the south? Chrome. Anyhow, thanks again, Tom >> Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising >> moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Cheers, > Alan > Thank you very much. I will probably frame your post and stick it to my > camera bag with some duct tape!! > > Off topic: Do you know what they call duct tape here in the south? > Chrome. 200mph tape... ;-) SignatureRob > Thank you very much. I will probably frame your post and stick it to my > camera bag with some duct tape!! The "sunny sixteen" rule is a common nugget going back for many decades. From there, via reciprocity you can confidently use a range of aperture/speed settings in "sunny" photos. Lunar 'leven is just a variation on the theme. I'm just saying the above as it is one of the things you don't need to tape to your bag ... after you do it successfully, it will stick in your head. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > Thank you very much. I will probably frame your post and stick it to my > camera bag with some duct tape!! Something you _should_ print out and keep in your bag is the following: http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm and in particular: http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#Light%20Intensity%20Chart and http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#EXPOSURE%20FACTOR%20RELATIONSHIP%20CHART%20B ... esp at EV's of about 1 or less, this guide will help you get difficult low light shots when your meter is not sensitive enough. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >1) When the moon is low, lunear 'leven. When the moon is high: sunny sixteen >(f/16). It would be a good idea to check exposure after this; I bet most of the right side of the histogram will be empty. If you're shooting RAW, on a Canon DSLR, you can go to f8 without blowing out the highlights, on high moon, in a clear sky Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>1) When the moon is low, lunear 'leven. When the moon is high: sunny sixteen >>(f/16). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you're shooting RAW, on a Canon DSLR, you can go to f8 without > blowing out the highlights, on high moon, in a clear sky Got a link (example)? RAW would tend to record the low end, not give the highlights any additional room. And if what you say is so, then as discussed in the past there would seem to be a discrepency in ISO 100 (or any ISO) for film and ISO 100 for digital. Here's one of Bret's shots: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/36790522 and as you can see from the EXIF it is shot at 1/3 stop under "lunar 'leven". IAC the OP was looking for a starting point and was, from all evidence, simply way out of the ball park. Lunar 'leven/Sun16 will get him going. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >>>1) When the moon is low, lunear 'leven. When the moon is high: sunny sixteen >>>(f/16). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Got a link (example)? RAW would tend to record the low end, not give the >highlights any additional room. No. The 20D has 1 to 2 stops more headroom in the RAW data than what gets clipped at 255 by default. >And if what you say is so, then as discussed in >the past there would seem to be a discrepency in ISO 100 (or any ISO) for film >and ISO 100 for digital. No doubt. Any shot I take with either the 10D or 20D with "sunny f/16" rules or my Sekonic meter are dark, compared to what the camera exposes at automatically. >Here's one of Bret's shots: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/36790522 and as you >can see from the EXIF it is shot at 1/3 stop under "lunar 'leven". We don't know what he did to levels. That is sometimes actually _as_ significant, or even moreso, than compensation at the time of exposure. >IAC the OP was looking for a starting point and was, from all evidence, simply >way out of the ball park. Lunar 'leven/Sun16 will get him going. And I'm saying to experiment, to see how high you can expose it without clipping. People are often happy that they get a usable picture, but they may get a better one if they use the full dynamic range of the system. If you are taking JPEG pictures on a Canon DSLR, and getting pictures that come only as close as a full stop from clipping, then you are throwing away 2 bit of bit depth, and getting only 1/4 the signal-to-noise you could be, if you shot RAW and just short of clipping. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Got a link (example)? RAW would tend to record the low end, not give the >>highlights any additional room. > > No. The 20D has 1 to 2 stops more headroom in the RAW data than what > gets clipped at 255 by default. References then? >>Here's one of Bret's shots: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/36790522 and as you >>can see from the EXIF it is shot at 1/3 stop under "lunar 'leven". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And I'm saying to experiment, to see how high you can expose it without That's what "starting point" means. > clipping. People are often happy that they get a usable picture, but > they may get a better one if they use the full dynamic range of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > signal-to-noise you could be, if you shot RAW and just short of > clipping. Again, I'd like to see references for this or a full set of example shots with EXIF. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >>>Got a link (example)? RAW would tend to record the low end, not give the >>>highlights any additional room. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >References then? I have tools to look directly at the RAW data myself, and compare to the JPEG. I don't need any references. This information *isn't* out there. The only people who know this stuff are the people at Canon, and the people who have reverse-engineered the data themselves. >>>Here's one of Bret's shots: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/36790522 and as you >>>can see from the EXIF it is shot at 1/3 stop under "lunar 'leven". >> We don't know what he did to levels. That is sometimes actually _as_ >> significant, or even moreso, than compensation at the time of exposure. >>>IAC the OP was looking for a starting point and was, from all evidence, simply >>>way out of the ball park. Lunar 'leven/Sun16 will get him going. >> And I'm saying to experiment, to see how high you can expose it without >That's what "starting point" means. Not exactly. If someone gets a useable image, they may stop there, and never get the better image. People have to be reminded that this is not film, and the higher you expose, the higher the quality of the data. >> clipping. People are often happy that they get a usable picture, but >> they may get a better one if they use the full dynamic range of the >> system. >> If you are taking JPEG pictures on a Canon DSLR, and getting pictures >> that come only as close as a full stop from clipping, then you are >> throwing away 2 bit of bit depth, and getting only 1/4 the >> signal-to-noise you could be, if you shot RAW and just short of >> clipping. >Again, I'd like to see references for this or a full set of example shots with EXIF. Here's one from the 10D: http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/32751804 Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/32751804 Good test. Thanks. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > Here's one from the 10D: > > http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/32751804 Not sure I undestand it, after all. Please see annotated: The "whites" on the RAW version are not white. See: http://www.aliasimages.com/images/32751804.plus3stops.jpg Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >> Here's one from the 10D: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >See: http://www.aliasimages.com/images/32751804.plus3stops.jpg At the time I did that image, I was only interested in showing the discrimination between levels, not the absolute levels. An adjustment in "Levels" would make the light grey white. The problem is with the RAW converters. They tend to have only one control, which adjusts exposure *and* puts a shoulder curve on the conversion. They really should be done separately, IMO. You should be able to place your midtones where you want, and *then* adjust a shoulder curve to squeeze the extra highlights in if you want them. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>Here's one from the 10D: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > able to place your midtones where you want, and *then* adjust a shoulder > curve to squeeze the extra highlights in if you want them. Did you try this at less levels of "over" exposure as well? I would guess that at some point a more optimal spread might occur coinciding with a close to optimal shoulder. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >Did you try this at less levels of "over" exposure as well? I would guess that >at some point a more optimal spread might occur coinciding with a close to >optimal shoulder. Oh, yes, the more you push it, the weirder it gets. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Did you try this at less levels of "over" exposure as well? I would guess that >>at some point a more optimal spread might occur coinciding with a close to >>optimal shoulder. > > Oh, yes, the more you push it, the weirder it gets. I meant, since you over exp'd this by 3, did you try over exp at 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 stops? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >>>Did you try this at less levels of "over" exposure as well? I would guess that >>>at some point a more optimal spread might occur coinciding with a close to >>>optimal shoulder. >> Oh, yes, the more you push it, the weirder it gets. >I meant, since you over exp'd this by 3, did you try over exp at 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 >stops? Maybe if I had written "pull" instead of push, I would have been clearer. The more you over-expose, the more non-linear the interpretation by the converter. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< I am missing the complete thread on this but referencing the subject i shoot brilliant moon shots at ISO 100, 1/250 at f8 or f11 DJ >>>Got a link (example)? RAW would tend to record the low end, not give the >>>highlights any additional room. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >References then? JPS is correct about this. I have literally hundreds of 10D photos where I've taken advantage of the extra headroom in RAW mode to extend the dynamic range for very contrasty shots. The same photos have terribly blown out highlights in the JPEG previews, but the highlight detail comes up perfectly when processed in RAW mode. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- Tom, I just took some pretty good moonrise photos last week. I don't have a Digital Rebel, but I did use an Olympus E-1 Digital SLR on a tripod. I played around with the settings in manual mode, and the best exposures that I got was with these settings: Manual Focus Exposure Time: 1/125 sec F-Stop: 11.0 ISO: 400 Focal Length: 200 mm (I was using a 50-200mm zoom lens) What I do is set the camera to manual mode, then I play with the exposure time & aperature until I start getting good results. I use the camerals LCD screen to display the image, and keep fiddling with the exposure time & f-stop until I can see details on the face of the moon. The great thing about digital photography is that you can always delete the ones that you don't like while they are still in the camera. Randy L. > Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising > moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck > either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture > preferred, whatever. > Regards from Pensacola > Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising > moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck > either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture > preferred, whatever. > Regards from Pensacola When it comes down to it, the moon is just another sunlit object: for a bright, full- or nearly-full moon, try the ol' Sunny-16 rule as a starting point: shutter = 1/ISO, aperture f/16. So at 100 ISO, you'd use 1/100 shutter, f/16 or 1/200 @ f/11 of 1/400 @ f/8 or 1/50 @ f/22 ...and so on. Bracket from there. >> Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or >> rising moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having >> any luck either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, >> apperture preferred, whatever. > When it comes down to it, the moon is just another sunlit object: > for a bright, full- or nearly-full moon, try the ol' Sunny-16 rule > as a starting point: shutter = 1/ISO, aperture f/16. Actually, with the the moon, the rule of thumb is Lunar 'leven (ISO 100, 1/100 shutter, f/11). Bracket from there. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ======================================================================== When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to? >>When it comes down to it, the moon is just another sunlit object: >>for a bright, full- or nearly-full moon, try the ol' Sunny-16 rule >>as a starting point: shutter = 1/ISO, aperture f/16. > > Actually, with the the moon, the rule of thumb is Lunar 'leven > (ISO 100, 1/100 shutter, f/11). Bracket from there. I don't agree. When the moon is high, it is very sunny-16. When below about 30 - 45 deg, it is Lunar-11 or dimmer. The above, for slide film, works fine. JPS indicates that his results for the Canon 20D point towards the Canon being either less sensitive or having higher dynamic headroom and hence a lunar-11 or more open setting for the moon even when high. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >>>When it comes down to it, the moon is just another sunlit object: >>>for a bright, full- or nearly-full moon, try the ol' Sunny-16 rule >>>as a starting point: shutter = 1/ISO, aperture f/16. >> Actually, with the the moon, the rule of thumb is Lunar 'leven >> (ISO 100, 1/100 shutter, f/11). Bracket from there. >I don't agree. When the moon is high, it is very sunny-16. >When below about 30 - 45 deg, it is Lunar-11 or dimmer. >The above, for slide film, works fine. >JPS indicates that his results for the Canon 20D point towards the Canon being >either less sensitive or having higher dynamic headroom and hence a lunar-11 or >more open setting for the moon even when high. Not exactly. The "11" has nothing to do with the moon. I said the 10D was a "sunny f10/11" camera for bright, sunlit scenes under clear skies, due to ISO differences. The moon is a bit darker, because it is losing light by diffusion to the surrounding dark night sky, and getting none in return. I use lunar 7.1 or even 6.3, I think, for RAW files, with their extra headroom. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > The moon is a bit darker, because it is losing > light by diffusion to the surrounding dark night sky, and getting none > in return. It is also a bit darker beacuse it is made out of darker matter. (NOTE - not "dark matter" :) The moon reflects approx 9%. A Kodak gray card reflects 18%, i.e. one stop more. /Roland >Actually, with the the moon, the rule of thumb is Lunar 'leven >(ISO 100, 1/100 shutter, f/11). Bracket from there. Yep; and that's if the ISO sensitivity is similar to film. I've found that Canon 10D and 20D are almost a stop over-stated in their ISO sensitivity. I find myself shooting full moons high in the sky with these cameras a stop or two (for RAW mode) more exposed than that. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising > moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck > either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture > preferred, whatever. > Regards from Pensacola remember that the lighting is full sunlight for a bright clear moon. >remember that the lighting >is full sunlight for a bright clear moon. Remember that anything on the ground that is close has light coming both directy from the sun, and through diffusion, but also loses some through diffusion. The moon in the night sky loses light to diffusion, and gains none back. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or > rising moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having > any luck either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, > apperture preferred, whatever. > Regards from Pensacola If you don't use manual exposure (and check the histogram), try: - fixed infinity focus - spot metering - meter on the moon - optional, -1 stop or even -2 stops exposure compensation Cheers, David >>Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or >>rising moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > - meter on the moon > - optional, -1 stop or even -2 stops exposure compensation If you spot meter the moon, it will drive to an underexposure, so the comp should be +ve, not negative. Easier to manually expose using sunny-16/lunar-11 and perhaps another stop open. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. [] > If you spot meter the moon, it will drive to an underexposure, so the > comp should be +ve, not negative. Not on my camera - spot meter means meter the chosen spot for 18% grey level, which with a typical moon seems to give about the right results allowing the brighter parts of the image to stand out crisply. Other cameras may differ, or different phases of the moon of course. > Easier to manually expose using sunny-16/lunar-11 and perhaps another > stop open. A good starting point. Of course, you would likely want to experiment to see what exposure gave the best results. Perhaps using automatic exposure bracketing might make things easier. Cheers, David > [] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > allowing the brighter parts of the image to stand out crisply. Other > cameras may differ, or different phases of the moon of course. The moon is not 18% grey. It is not quite white either. Offhand I'd place it as straddling zones VI to VII (when well above the horizon). That's 1.5 stops from 18% grey. Just about all cameras meter for 18% grey so pointing the spot at a white object will drive an underexposure of about 2 stops unless corrected (all those grey looking ski photos, for example.) >>Easier to manually expose using sunny-16/lunar-11 and perhaps another >>stop open. > > A good starting point. Of course, you would likely want to experiment to > see what exposure gave the best results. Perhaps using automatic exposure > bracketing might make things easier. I'm so tired of people saying "bracket". I s'pose it is a cheap solution for digital cameras, but it is just as easy to understand and learn the meter well, as well as the response of the CCD/CMOS sensor. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >> [] >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > white object will drive an underexposure of about 2 stops unless > corrected (all those grey looking ski photos, for example.) But the moon is not a pure white object either, as seen by my spot meter! As I indicated, on my camera using the "spot" meter produces good results. The "spot" meter covers both the black and white parts of the moon - so perhaps it covers more area than on your camera. Obviously, as with any unusual subject you may need to epxeriment to see what works best with the equipment you have to hand. >>> Easier to manually expose using sunny-16/lunar-11 and perhaps >>> another stop open. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and learn the meter well, as well as the response of the CCD/CMOS > sensor. I would agree with you. I tend to use full manual aperture and shutter for such circumstances, but not all the time. Start off with auto-spot just to get one shot "in the bag". I've never used the automatic bracketing myself, but I can see that it might help here. Cheers, David >>>[] >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > But the moon is not a pure white object either, That's what I say above. You suggested -ve compensation. However the moon is definitely brighter than zone V. It is not quite as bright as zone VII. For a spot meter, this would always require opening up. It beleived the light is brighter than it actually is and sets a lower exposure... becasue it assumes that 'bright' light is coming off of an 18% grey reflector... so it chokes it down. > as seen by my spot meter! Your spot meter does not know the difference between white, grey or black. It assumes that everything is 18% grey. Which is why using it on a white object requires opening up two stops (slide film) and on textured black requires closing two stops... to correct for the meter's assumption. The moon is not white, so 1.5 stops is enough. On negative film, opening 3 even 4 stops will work fine. Digital 2 stops, even 3 in RAW mode (as recently discussed in this thread). > As I indicated, on my camera using the "spot" meter produces good results. > The "spot" meter covers both the black and white parts of the moon - so > perhaps it covers more area than on your camera. Obviously, as with any If it covers 'both' parts of the moon, then it is no longer a spot reading. Just a happy go lucky mix of the white and the dark area that ends up close to 18%. > unusual subject you may need to epxeriment to see what works best with the > equipment you have to hand. Been there/Done that ... long ago. I suggest you experiment with a grey card and a white card under the same light. The grey card reading will be correct and the white card will read about 2 stops under the grey card. Expose the white card at its spot meter reading and it will turn out grey. 18% grey. Open up two stops (+2 EV comp) and it will yiled the correct white (slide/digital). This holds for all cameras that have correctly calibrated meters. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > > as seen by my spot meter! > >Your spot meter does not know the difference between white, grey or black. It >assumes that everything is 18% grey. His spot meter may include some of the sky surrounding the moon in the area sampled, and thus the average reading works perfectly to place the moon itself in zone VII. jc >>>as seen by my spot meter! >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > area sampled, and thus the average reading works perfectly to place > the moon itself in zone VII. And maybe it doesn't. It's very difficult to guess at how the weighting of parts of a scene will affect the meter. (And, yeah I take guesses at it too when forced). Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >>>>as seen by my spot meter! >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >parts of a scene will affect the meter. (And, yeah I take guesses at it too >when forced). It's difficult to guess, but it's not difficult to know. If he spot meters on a full moon, shoots with that exposure (no compensation), and the moon comes out properly exposed, then we would *know* that his spot meter includes exactly the right amount of bright moon and dark sky to produce a properly exposed full moon. jc [] >> As I indicated, on my camera using the "spot" meter produces good >> results. The "spot" meter covers both the black and white parts of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ends up > close to 18%. Yes, that's why I said you may need to experiment if, like mine, your "spot" meter covers more than just the illuminated area. It may also be one of those times when shooting RAW rather JPEG is worthwhile, at least until you get the exposure down to a fine art! Cheers, David SNIP > The moon is not 18% grey. It is not quite white either. Offhand > I'd place it as straddling zones VI to VII (when well above the > horizon). That's 1.5 stops from 18% grey. AFAIK the moon's average albedo is estimated to be roughly 0.12 (varies with area and solar angle to the normal) which means about 12% of incident sunlight is reflected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon). That is a tiny bit more than half stop darker than 18% reflection. Visual brightness overestimation is common because of all the surrounding dark. > Just about all cameras meter for 18% grey so pointing the spot at > a white object will drive an underexposure of about 2 stops unless > corrected (all those grey looking ski photos, for example.) I believe the ISO specifies 12.5% as average scene reflectance for calibrating exposure meters. My Seconic is calibrated for 12.5%, and gives almost identical readings to my camera meter. Bart > SNIP > > The moon is not 18% grey. It is not quite white either. Offhand [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (varies with area and solar angle to the normal) which means about 12% > of incident sunlight is reflected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon). P.S. Some other sources quote an albedo of 0.07 or 7% reflectance, which is approx. 4/3rd of a stop darker than 18%, or 1 stop darker than 12.5%. Bart > SNIP > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Visual brightness overestimation is common because of all the > surrounding dark. Next clear night, I'll go test this with the 300+2x TC. >>Just about all cameras meter for 18% grey so pointing the spot at >>a white object will drive an underexposure of about 2 stops unless [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > calibrating exposure meters. My Seconic is calibrated for 12.5%, and > gives almost identical readings to my camera meter. The old Sekonic v. 18% argument. My Minolta VF meter agrees with my Maxxum 9 meter to within 1/3 of a stop (spot on grey v. incident in same light). Of course they're fromt he same company, so goes to follow... Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. SNIP > Next clear night, I'll go test this with the 300+2x TC. Just to make sure, if the phase of the moon is not full moon, then the mountain shadows on the lit surface will result in much lower average reflection for metering. Lunar/11 without metering works fine for me. Bart |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.