[tuggie76]

Hi, I'd like to photograph the super moon this weekend. Is this a time I should be using the star tracking feature? Any advice would be helpfull.

Tuggie76

[Jome]

Hello, which focal distance will you use?

Here is a sample with Celestron 8 (2000mm @ f6.3 (focal reductor from 10 to 6.3)) and K-3. 1/500 , no need to use any tracking system (except to let the moon stay in the field)

[photoptimist]

The exposure settings for the full moon are similar to those used for any full sun day-light photograph because the moon is in full sun. It's known as the Looney 11 rule of using f/11 and a shutter speed of 1/ISO (e.g., f/11, ISO 200, 1/200 second). Of course, you can adjust that for the sweet spot aperture of your lens. If that's f/8, then open the lens to f/8 and reduce either the ISO or shutter by 1 EV.

The rule is f/11 and not f/16 (as in the sunny f/16 rule) because the material of the moon is actually quite dark as seen here in the NASA photo of the moon and earth:



Our eyes think the moon is bright gray because compared to the blackness of space, it is bright. But compared to materials on earth, the moon is the dark gray and black of volcanic materials.

[victormeldrew]

I would suggest that a close-up of the moon can be done any time...the point of a super-moon (so-called) is that it is unusually large, so finding a location where you can show it in relation to landmarks or scenery is probably best.
It's worth getting an Ephemeris type app and work out a location where you can put something of interest between you and the moon such as this classic of the Glastonbury Tor:

[Dartmoor Dave]

Um. . . it might be worth mentioning that, unless you really are Matt Cardy, you didn't actually take that photo yourself.

[AstroDave]

I'm a professional astronomer.

Photoptimist has it right: shooting the moon is very similar to shooting outside on a sunny day, except that the moon's surface is rather darker than stuff here on Earth, so open up a stop or two more than for "sunny 16.". So, your exposures won't be long enough to worry about tracking (unless you are stopped way down!).

Secondly - don't get carried away about the "super" moon. The orbit of the moon has an eccentricity (the amount by which it is not circular) of about 5.5%. This means that at its farthest or closest approach to the Earth, it is only 5.5% smaller or larger than average. Unless you compare images carefully, you won't notice this, and with the naked eye the difference is essentially a non-factor. Because the apparent brightness of the moon depends on its apparent area, the brightness changes, too, but not by a whole lot either: around +/- 11% - again barely noticeable without careful comparison.

Check out wikipedia for more on the moon's orbit: Orbit of the Moon - Wikipedia

I consider the Supermoon hype to be mostly just that - hype!

So, go take pictures of the moon anytime. And, in fact, you will find the most interesting lunar pictures to be those taken when it is in partial phases. There will be interesting shadows caused by mountains and crater rims near the terminator (the area between the bright and dark areas of the surface - basically where sunset is on the moon at the moment). Pictures taken during full moon tend to be very flat.

[Na Horuk]

Great replies already.
Tracing the stars is not a good idea, because as far as I know they move differently than the moon. I don't know if the astrotracer can be configured to follow the moon or a specific celestial object, but it shouldn't matter because the moon shot will be exposed for almost daylight.

This leaves the problem of the surroundings - which will be dark, night time. This is a problem for astrophoto in general. A lot of supermoon photos you see are actually composites. If you can see stars, earth features, and the moon all correctly exposed, then they were probably taken with separate photos and then merged into one. Is this cheating? I think if you took all of the shots on the same night, with the same lens from the same spot, then no. If you take a moon photo from another lens, another location, and paste it into a sky photo, then that is more photoshop than photography. Still a valid work of art, but it should be noted in the commentary or subtext.

Anyway, the most important part is using a long lens and getting some other nice features into the shot. Airplane, mountains, monuments.. Then you can easily use tripod, 2 sec timer, and do exposure bracketing to get a shot of stars, moon, and foreground.

What I am really interested in is Pixel shift! Can Pixel shift be used for such purposes? Potentially it could save a lot of noise and bring out a lot of moon detail! i don't have a camera with PS, so I really don't know

[Adam]

Keys to shooting the moon include:

• Focusing correctly (the most important- use live view if possible)
• Having a stable tripod and a remote
• Using a fast enough shutter speed (this will depend on your focal length)
• Using a sharp lens (you'll want to pick the widest aperture setting that's sharp)

Ultimately all this will take some trial-and-error, so be patient and have fun!



The astrotracer isn't needed since it isn't designed for shooting the moon, nor will you be working with long exposures

[tuggie76]

Thanks for all the info guys, I'll have no excuse to not get a great photo!

I'll try pixel shift just for Na Horuk!

Now for a clear night.

Tuggie76

[brightseal]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/27...your-moon.html

[photoptimist]

What I am really interested in is Pixel shift! Can Pixel shift be used for such purposes? Potentially it could save a lot of noise and bring out a lot of moon detail! i don't have a camera with PS, so I really don't know

That's a very good question! Let see if we can predict what will happen...

The moon moves about 70 microradians per second.

The K-3 can do about 8 frames per second, implying that the total time the camera is watching the moving moon during the four frames of PS series in about 3/8 second plus 4 times the shutter speed (has anyone tested this?). If the shutter speed is fast, call it 3/8 second of lunar motion or about 26 microradians.

The pixels of the K-3 are 3.91 microns across which implies that the pixels have a 26 microradian angle-of-view with a 150 mm lens. With a 150 mm lens, the moon will move about 1 pixel during the PS series, potentially introducing motion artifacts. So, somewhere up to about a 150 mm lens should be able to handle pixelshift of the moon but whether the PS images start getting jaggy artifacts with a 100 mm lens or things are still OK with a 200 mm lens will depend on the lens and atmospheric conditions.

Good luck!

(If the night is clear, I'll try these shots, too. On my K-1 -- which has larger pixels but a slower frame rate -- the threshold focal length would be an estimated 93 mm.)

[tuggie76]

Yeah, that was the figures I came up with, well almost!

Thanks for the post though, so my 27-135 may be my best bet for Pixel Shift?

Tuggie76

[wildman]

Is it really all that complicated?
An old file. As I recall I pretty much just pointed it at the moon, used common sense settings, and pulled the trigger.
Taken with a 1000mm achromatic doublet.

Model PENTAX K20D
Shutter Speed 1/100 s
F-Number f/0
ISO ISO 100
Exposure Bias Value -0.30 eV
Metering Mode Spot
Flash Off, Did not fire
Focal Length 0 mm
Lens Model M-42 or No Lens
Date/Time Original 10/7/2011 7:11:39 PM

[wtlwdwgn]

This super moon will be at 100% at around 0700 and will be setting. With a bright moon I start with 1/125 @ f/8 at ISO 100 and adjust from there. You can also shoot when the sun is still out.

[Apet-Sure]

I'm a professional astronomer.

I'm jealous!