Night Sky/Moon pictures - advice sought

[Graham.J]

I was playing about with some of my manual settings on my camera tonight as there were some clouds in front of the moon and I thought it'd look nice.

I'm pleased with how the pictures came out but I'd really like more detail in the moon rather than a bright white blob.

Is there any way to get round this?






Any feedback on the pictures would be good so I can improve.

Thanks

Graham

[te51cle]

There's a huge difference in the relative brighness of the moon and the clouds. The only solution I have found is to make two exposures, one for the clouds and one for the moon. You then have to superimpose one onto the other in your favourite image editing software to create the final image.

You'll need a surprisingly high shutter speed in order to avoid blur in the moon due to movement ! Try about 1/125th for starters.

[Graham.J]

That's the problem I'm finding, I don't have a particularly good camera (Fuji FinePix 2800Z) so can only adjust the white balance and EV with the settings it gives me.

Shutter speed is done by choosing whether I have flash (shortest shutter speed), anti-red eye (flash again), no flash (longest shutter speed) or some other setting which still has a flash.

With the flash I still get the white blob.

I'm thinking of upgrading to a better camera but am pretty hard up at the moment

[zetec]

I have tried to search, but, I am sure there was a thread on PH a while back that dealt with moon shots. I will try again.

[Nacnud]

Hmmmm, well you could try fooling the metering.

Most cameras lock the exposure when you half press the shutter. Hence if you introduce some extra illumination into the picture, half press the shutter, remove the unwanted illumination and then press the shutter the whole way to start the exposure.

Maybe a bit of card illuminated by a torch or something....

[Graham.J]

I remember the moon thread actually, I'll have a search.

Found it - www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=71443&f=109&h=0

The problem with the metering is when I half press the shutter it focus's (no manual focus) so if I focus on a card in front of me then the moon and clouds will be out of focus.

>> Edited by Graham.J on Saturday 6th March 22:57

[dcw@pr]

Does your camera have a spot metering mode? Have a look in the manual if you are unsure. If it does, then select this, and have the moon right in the middle of the shot when you half press the button. This shoudl set the exposure for roughly the right level.

[scoakes]

I remember in the good old days of film when you could double expose on the same bit of film. The trick was to take a telephoto shot of the moon then later double expose over a landscape/seascape. The effects were quite good and you could get the moon craters too!

[Graham.J]

dcw@pr said:

Does your camera have a spot metering mode?

Nope

I really need a better camera

[simpo two]

I think there was a thread about this before.

Yuo can either expose for the moon, in which case the sky will be black, or vice versa - there's simply too much contrast to get both properly at once. One answer is to fiddle it with PS or similar. Faced with this problem, I might put the camera on a tripod and take two shots, one for each exposure. Then you can cut out the good moon and stick it on the good clouds!

[beano500]

Remember that the moon is simply an object in full sunlight - so it almost warrants the same exposure treatment as a light object on a bright summers day!

At ISO 100 that's probably 1/125 at f8 to get any detail!

I'd agree that the best work is likely to be gained in photoshop. (Although Ansel Adams didn't have that advantage for Moon Over Half Dome!) But definitely get that camera ROCK steady on a tripod to get the detail sharp.

[Graham.J]

Talking of tripods I could do with a better one of those, mine is old and bits of it have been broken by neglect from it's previous keeper aka my father

Any ideas for a decent digital camera for under £500?

[simpo two]

Graham.J said:

Any ideas for a decent digital camera for under £500?

Seriously, if you're planning to do stuff like this and maybe try more demanding things in future as your interest and skills develop, consider getting an SLR. Digital SLRs are c£1K, but your budget would get a very good film SLR and lenses too.... does it have to be digital?

[Graham.J]

To be honest, I take LOTS of pictures (took 24 pictures to get those 2 remotely decent moon shots).

On one outing I took around 80 pictures, I couldn't do that with a film camera and the processing bills would be terrible, especially to get them all put onto CD's as well.

It would really have to be digital. With me being ill, a days photography knocks me back for a few days and I'd normally chill out and rest whilst scanning through the pictures instead of having to go into town to boots to get the films developed.

I have been looking at This Fuji S7000.

>> Edited by Graham.J on Sunday 7th March 23:58

[david010167]

Just to add to this thread.

You will need to make two photos and then using the wonders of digital technology, you can then merge the two pictured.

However there is a problem. The moon is moving surprising fast across the sky, you can see this by setting up a camera on a tripod and doing a 30sec exposure. What you will end up with is an oval shape as the moon moves within the 30secs. I have no idea how fast the moon is moving but it is quite quick.

So to get the double exposure trick to work you need to do two quite quick exposures.

David

[bommaz]

here you go Graham, i foun this, don't know if it will help but it is interesting, i got better results from it

http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/howtophoto/

[viper_larry]

I took this photo a few years ago by hooking up my 25 year old Pentax SLR to my telepscope (bird watching type) and 20x eyepiece. Considering the 'heath robinson' affair it was, rather pleased with the result! This is a poor quality scan really - must get a better copy.



>> Edited by viper_larry on Monday 18th October 21:14

[robertuk]

simpo two said:

Graham.J said: Any ideas for a decent digital camera for under £500? Seriously, if you're planning to do stuff like this and maybe try more demanding things in future as your interest and skills develop, consider getting an SLR. Digital SLRs are c£1K, but your budget would get a very good film SLR and lenses too.... does it have to be digital?

Canon's Powershot range is excellent.
You could pick up a Canon G5 for about £450
(was £699 6 months ago).

Full manual controls and a swiveling LCD display.
(Useful if your at a tennis event and the chap in front is 6ft 4 ! Just hold the camera above your head and tilt the display down. )

I have a G3 and have taken over 4000 shots in under a year.