Which WB setting for moon shot

PentaxPoke · 05-04-2009, 11:19 AM

8in Meade SC (Pretty much the same setup Leo discussed.) , k20d, ISO 400, 1/250, converted from RAW (auto WB), 2 exposures stitched to get the entire disk:

**sholtzma** · 05-04-2009, 03:06 PM

Thanks for the compliments on my moon shot. It was only the second time I have tried astrophotography since getting my telescope last fall. I'm pretty sure I can do better, given more practice and mistakes.

I have a Celestron NexStar 8 GPS that I was using as my "lens". My K20D (according to the EXIF info I can find) was set at ISO 200, 1/125 sec, centerweighted metering, and I only shoot in RAW. I remember I used Live View to preview what I was doing and compose, and almost surely used the 2 sec timer to diminish the effects of vibrations. I converted using ACR and processed in Photoshop CS. I doubt I went as far as aligning the color channels. Probably just cropped, boosted saturation carefully, probably tweaked the contrast/brightness, and I know I sharpened a bit.

I remember being a bit disappointed that the image through the scope wasn't sharper. I'll have to think through the possible obstacles to sharpness in order to reduce them. Some of it might have been the "seeing" that particular night. And I was in my small city, with its light pollution. I might try a filter next time to block out some light pollution. Or perhaps a different kind of filter....

And, yes, you do not even need a telescope to get a nice shot of the moon. A nice long lens on a firm tripod with a cable release should get you most of the way there. When I get a camera mount for my telescope bracket, I'll also try attaching a camera on top of the scope and using the scope's motor drive to keep the camera on target. Probably try my Bigma with a 1.4x TC.

While the full moon is the brightest, it usually helps to take a shot with the moon less then full. That provides more contrast on the lunar surface. But if the moon is at large gibbous, there is still enough light to allow for a short shutter speed. It's a fun subject to explore.

**LeoTaylor** · 05-04-2009, 06:15 PM

Sholtzma:

You've learned a lot for someone who only just started astrophotography. I started astrophotography in 1997 with my wife's K1000 and I agree with everything you wrote.

Your shot is about a sharp as they get. As you mentioned it is seeing you are up against. The only way to improve on that is move to another state (Florida and Arizona come to mind) or stack multiple shots. Unfortunately with most DSLRs (except Canon) it is shutter torture to take hundreds of the rapid fire shots needed to average out the seeing.

For my next Moon session I'l try a few dozen to see if that is enough to show a difference.

Note: The word seeing Sholtzma used refers to a combination of steadiness and clarity of the night sky. The night sky can be cloud free but if the stars are twinkling the "seeing" is poor.

PentaxPoke: Your Earthbound photos are great too!

**sholtzma** · 05-04-2009, 07:45 PM

Thanks, Leo.

Can one use the intervalometer on the K20D to "automate" the multiple shots needed to "average out the seeing"? I assume by "shutter torture" you mean that one has to manually trip the shutter many, many times.

**LeoTaylor** · 05-05-2009, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by sholtzma

Thanks, Leo. Can one use the intervalometer on the K20D to "automate" the multiple shots needed to "average out the seeing"? I assume by "shutter torture" you mean that one has to manually trip the shutter many, many times.

I don't have a K20D thus do not know about that mode.

I have no problem pressing the shutter button, I use a computer to cycle the shutter. For star trails I put the K100D in 30 second exposure continuous mode. I was referring the the wear and tear of taking hundreds of frames in a few minutes time. Using a webcam on Jupiter I'll often take several thousand frames in less than a hour. This would significantly reduce the lifetime of a DSLR with a mechanical shutter. Lifetime is usually around 100,000 shutter clicks and the camera is not designed to run at 100% duty cycle. I envy the Canon which can hold the mirror up and download continuous exposures at medium resolution.

I'm willing to take a few dozen shots of the Moon with my "daytime" camera, the K100D. With my astro K110D I reluctantly will take 100+ shots per session of the International Space Station because I don't have a good alternative.

ISS March 17, 2009 Pentax K110D at 4000mm:

http://pages.cthome.net/astroleo/iss16.jpg

I love my Pentax! My wife and I each have a K1000, 2 DSLRs, and many low cost lenses. But, if I was to start from scratch to buy an Astro DSLR I'd chose a Canon. The camera control capability and software support is far better.

falconeye · 05-05-2009, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by sholtzma

Probably just cropped, boosted saturation carefully, probably tweaked the contrast/brightness, and I know I sharpened a bit.

I remember being a bit disappointed that the image through the scope wasn't sharper. I'll have to think through the possible obstacles to sharpness in order to reduce them. Some of it might have been the "seeing" that particular night.

sholtzma, great photo and it would be looking a lot more crisp if you wouldn't have forgotten to adjust brightness (in PS) by about one stop (cf. attachment to show the effect).

Originally posted by LeoTaylor

The only way to improve on that is move to another state (Florida and Arizona come to mind) or stack multiple shots.

Are you sure stacking would work?

It sure would render a lot more contrast for dark objects, eliminate tracking errors and reduce the atmospheric turbulence distortion (the seeing) for small objects like stars or planet surfaces.

But I guess a large object like the moon would be distorted in shape, not just in position, right? So, the stacking aligner would have to undistort the moon first. What is certainly feasible by identifying matching features on the surface. But does any available software do this?

**LeoTaylor** · 05-05-2009, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by falconeye

Are you sure stacking would work?

Stacking multiple photos is mentioned by the link Ex Finn posted. People stack Moon shots all the time, I do when I use a web cam. My favorite software for the Moon is RegiStax 4 which is free. I also use Images Plus and K3CCDTools. They have the ability to rate the quality of each image and toss out those below your desired threshold. Distorted frames should be the first to be skipped.

Going back to using my Pentax DSLR I'd hesitate to take a LOT of images so I will try a dozen shots next time. It looks like we won't have clear weather until the waning Moon so I may need to stay up late for the test.

**Ex Finn.** · 05-05-2009, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

8in Meade SC (Pretty much the same setup Leo discussed.) , k20d, ISO 400, 1/250, converted from RAW (auto WB), 2 exposures stitched to get the entire disk:

Very nice , don`t know what the original looks like.
Run that through Focus Magic, one ore two pixel out of focus blur, might crispy up some more.

Cheers. Mike.

falconeye · 05-05-2009, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by LeoTaylor

They have the ability to rate the quality of each image and toss out those below your desired threshold. Distorted frames should be the first to be skipped.

Going back to using my Pentax DSLR I'd hesitate to take a LOT of images so I will try a dozen shots next time. It looks like we won't have clear weather until the waning Moon so I may need to stay up late for the test.

I wonder how a distorted image would be recognized. It doesn't show in the Fourrier space.

As for the wear, I wouldn't mind at all.
The wear on 100 shutter activations for a K20D is about exactly as expensive as ordering a 5x7 print. The time and wear on the harddrive needed to stack'em all would be a larger concern

**sholtzma** · 05-05-2009, 06:28 PM

"sholtzma, great photo and it would be looking a lot more crisp if you wouldn't have forgotten to adjust brightness (in PS) by about one stop (cf. attachment to show the effect)."

Thanks, falconeye. I feel sure I played with brightness but probably wasn't sure how far to go. There are so often trade-offs involved in our processing choices. Does one risk blowing out highlights? Does one maximize "crispness"? Does one maximize perceived sharpness? Push saturation hard? I'll try your suggestion next time I mess with that image.

falconeye · 05-06-2009, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by sholtzma

I feel sure I played with brightness but probably wasn't sure how far to go

Yes, I know what you mean. Therefore, I appreciate comments which help me a lot.

When I saw your photo, my first reaction was "Wow", second reaction immediately following "Why is it so dark?".

After all, the moon is an object illuminated by direct sunshine where your moon looks like lying in the shadow of something. So, the histogram should definitely fill the entire range. There is one full stop left to expose to the right, cf. attachment.

res3567 · 05-08-2009, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Squier

Terrific shot - real nice

Two nights ago I saw the moon up above.

I dusted off my TOU/FIVE STAR 500mm f/8 and my Cosina 2x TC and began shooting.

The WB was set to daylight since when I first started shooting, the first shot was blue.

I had the camera set to tunstgen.

I eventully got the right combo of shutter speed and focus and posted the best pic in the lens forum.

People have looked but no one replied.

After looking at yours and others in this thread, mine is soft and out of focus a little.

Or better yet, it just plain sucks compared to the ones here.

Nice moon shots!

iNVision ART · 05-08-2009, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

8in Meade SC (Pretty much the same setup Leo discussed.) , k20d, ISO 400, 1/250, converted from RAW (auto WB), 2 exposures stitched to get the entire disk:

Thats an awesome shot and is way better than mines. I also used Auto WB but used a opteka 650mm

**LeoTaylor** · 05-10-2009, 05:36 AM

iNVision ART:

A lot of the difference in the two Moon photos you compared is processing. Indeed, processing for astrophotos is quite different then for normal daytime images. In astro you can pump up details with Van Cittert Deconvolution (Solar System), Lucy Richardson Deconvolution (Deep Space Objects), Unsharp Masking, Wavelet Spatial Filters, and other functions that would ruin regular daytime images.

You might try Unsharp Masking on your Moon photo since that function is found in most photo processing programs. I recall the first Moon photo I posted on an AOL discussion group back in the film days. A fellow snatched my image, performed an Unsharp Mask, and sent it back to me. I was amazed at how the craters suddenly jumped out from my very flat looking photo.

falconeye · 05-10-2009, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by LeoTaylor

In astro you can pump up details with Van Cittert Deconvolution (Solar System), Lucy Richardson Deconvolution (Deep Space Objects), Unsharp Masking

This is an interesting list of techniques.

On most (regular) images, I found FocusMagic to do a much better job than both Van Cittert as well as Lucy Richardson deconvolution. FocusMagic does deconvolution with an unpublished blend of algorithms. It may be worth a trial.

05-05-2009, 08:45 AM	#36
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by sholtzma Probably just cropped, boosted saturation carefully, probably tweaked the contrast/brightness, and I know I sharpened a bit. I remember being a bit disappointed that the image through the scope wasn't sharper. I'll have to think through the possible obstacles to sharpness in order to reduce them. Some of it might have been the "seeing" that particular night. sholtzma, great photo and it would be looking a lot more crisp if you wouldn't have forgotten to adjust brightness (in PS) by about one stop (cf. attachment to show the effect). Originally posted by LeoTaylor The only way to improve on that is move to another state (Florida and Arizona come to mind) or stack multiple shots. Are you sure stacking would work? It sure would render a lot more contrast for dark objects, eliminate tracking errors and reduce the atmospheric turbulence distortion (the seeing) for small objects like stars or planet surfaces. But I guess a large object like the moon would be distorted in shape, not just in position, right? So, the stacking aligner would have to undistort the moon first. What is certainly feasible by identifying matching features on the surface. But does any available software do this? Last edited by falconeye; 06-15-2011 at 05:28 AM.

05-06-2009, 12:29 AM	#41
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by sholtzma I feel sure I played with brightness but probably wasn't sure how far to go Yes, I know what you mean. Therefore, I appreciate comments which help me a lot. When I saw your photo, my first reaction was "Wow", second reaction immediately following "Why is it so dark?". After all, the moon is an object illuminated by direct sunshine where your moon looks like lying in the shadow of something. So, the histogram should definitely fill the entire range. There is one full stop left to expose to the right, cf. attachment. Last edited by falconeye; 06-15-2011 at 05:28 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Yet another moon shot... K7	fillerupmac	Post Your Photos!	6	06-20-2010 09:26 PM
Moon Shot with 1.5 TC	68wSteve	Post Your Photos!	0	03-10-2009 04:18 AM
Another Moon Shot	Ecosse	Post Your Photos!	0	04-22-2008 10:48 AM
First moon shot	lost	Post Your Photos!	5	02-19-2008 05:59 PM
Setting Moon	Mark Castleman	Post Your Photos!	6	01-27-2008 09:16 PM

05-04-2009, 11:19 AM	#31
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	8in Meade SC (Pretty much the same setup Leo discussed.) , k20d, ISO 400, 1/250, converted from RAW (auto WB), 2 exposures stitched to get the entire disk:

05-04-2009, 03:06 PM	#32
sholtzma Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Salisbury, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,043	Thanks for the compliments on my moon shot. It was only the second time I have tried astrophotography since getting my telescope last fall. I'm pretty sure I can do better, given more practice and mistakes. I have a Celestron NexStar 8 GPS that I was using as my "lens". My K20D (according to the EXIF info I can find) was set at ISO 200, 1/125 sec, centerweighted metering, and I only shoot in RAW. I remember I used Live View to preview what I was doing and compose, and almost surely used the 2 sec timer to diminish the effects of vibrations. I converted using ACR and processed in Photoshop CS. I doubt I went as far as aligning the color channels. Probably just cropped, boosted saturation carefully, probably tweaked the contrast/brightness, and I know I sharpened a bit. I remember being a bit disappointed that the image through the scope wasn't sharper. I'll have to think through the possible obstacles to sharpness in order to reduce them. Some of it might have been the "seeing" that particular night. And I was in my small city, with its light pollution. I might try a filter next time to block out some light pollution. Or perhaps a different kind of filter.... And, yes, you do not even need a telescope to get a nice shot of the moon. A nice long lens on a firm tripod with a cable release should get you most of the way there. When I get a camera mount for my telescope bracket, I'll also try attaching a camera on top of the scope and using the scope's motor drive to keep the camera on target. Probably try my Bigma with a 1.4x TC. While the full moon is the brightest, it usually helps to take a shot with the moon less then full. That provides more contrast on the lunar surface. But if the moon is at large gibbous, there is still enough light to allow for a short shutter speed. It's a fun subject to explore.

05-04-2009, 06:15 PM	#33
LeoTaylor Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Connecticut Photos: Gallery Posts: 679	Sholtzma: You've learned a lot for someone who only just started astrophotography. I started astrophotography in 1997 with my wife's K1000 and I agree with everything you wrote. Your shot is about a sharp as they get. As you mentioned it is seeing you are up against. The only way to improve on that is move to another state (Florida and Arizona come to mind) or stack multiple shots. Unfortunately with most DSLRs (except Canon) it is shutter torture to take hundreds of the rapid fire shots needed to average out the seeing. For my next Moon session I'l try a few dozen to see if that is enough to show a difference. Note: The word seeing Sholtzma used refers to a combination of steadiness and clarity of the night sky. The night sky can be cloud free but if the stars are twinkling the "seeing" is poor. PentaxPoke: Your Earthbound photos are great too!

05-04-2009, 07:45 PM	#34
sholtzma Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Salisbury, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,043	Thanks, Leo. Can one use the intervalometer on the K20D to "automate" the multiple shots needed to "average out the seeing"? I assume by "shutter torture" you mean that one has to manually trip the shutter many, many times.

05-05-2009, 07:01 AM	#35
LeoTaylor Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Connecticut Photos: Gallery Posts: 679	Originally posted by sholtzma Thanks, Leo. Can one use the intervalometer on the K20D to "automate" the multiple shots needed to "average out the seeing"? I assume by "shutter torture" you mean that one has to manually trip the shutter many, many times. I don't have a K20D thus do not know about that mode. I have no problem pressing the shutter button, I use a computer to cycle the shutter. For star trails I put the K100D in 30 second exposure continuous mode. I was referring the the wear and tear of taking hundreds of frames in a few minutes time. Using a webcam on Jupiter I'll often take several thousand frames in less than a hour. This would significantly reduce the lifetime of a DSLR with a mechanical shutter. Lifetime is usually around 100,000 shutter clicks and the camera is not designed to run at 100% duty cycle. I envy the Canon which can hold the mirror up and download continuous exposures at medium resolution. I'm willing to take a few dozen shots of the Moon with my "daytime" camera, the K100D. With my astro K110D I reluctantly will take 100+ shots per session of the International Space Station because I don't have a good alternative. ISS March 17, 2009 Pentax K110D at 4000mm: http://pages.cthome.net/astroleo/iss16.jpg I love my Pentax! My wife and I each have a K1000, 2 DSLRs, and many low cost lenses. But, if I was to start from scratch to buy an Astro DSLR I'd chose a Canon. The camera control capability and software support is far better.

05-05-2009, 01:35 PM	#37
LeoTaylor Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Connecticut Photos: Gallery Posts: 679	Originally posted by falconeye Are you sure stacking would work? Stacking multiple photos is mentioned by the link Ex Finn posted. People stack Moon shots all the time, I do when I use a web cam. My favorite software for the Moon is RegiStax 4 which is free. I also use Images Plus and K3CCDTools. They have the ability to rate the quality of each image and toss out those below your desired threshold. Distorted frames should be the first to be skipped. Going back to using my Pentax DSLR I'd hesitate to take a LOT of images so I will try a dozen shots next time. It looks like we won't have clear weather until the waning Moon so I may need to stay up late for the test.

05-05-2009, 01:49 PM	#38
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	Originally posted by PentaxPoke 8in Meade SC (Pretty much the same setup Leo discussed.) , k20d, ISO 400, 1/250, converted from RAW (auto WB), 2 exposures stitched to get the entire disk: Very nice , don`t know what the original looks like. Run that through Focus Magic, one ore two pixel out of focus blur, might crispy up some more. Cheers. Mike.

05-05-2009, 03:46 PM	#39
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by LeoTaylor They have the ability to rate the quality of each image and toss out those below your desired threshold. Distorted frames should be the first to be skipped. Going back to using my Pentax DSLR I'd hesitate to take a LOT of images so I will try a dozen shots next time. It looks like we won't have clear weather until the waning Moon so I may need to stay up late for the test. I wonder how a distorted image would be recognized. It doesn't show in the Fourrier space. As for the wear, I wouldn't mind at all. The wear on 100 shutter activations for a K20D is about exactly as expensive as ordering a 5x7 print. The time and wear on the harddrive needed to stack'em all would be a larger concern

05-05-2009, 06:28 PM	#40
sholtzma Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Salisbury, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,043	"sholtzma, great photo and it would be looking a lot more crisp if you wouldn't have forgotten to adjust brightness (in PS) by about one stop (cf. attachment to show the effect)." Thanks, falconeye. I feel sure I played with brightness but probably wasn't sure how far to go. There are so often trade-offs involved in our processing choices. Does one risk blowing out highlights? Does one maximize "crispness"? Does one maximize perceived sharpness? Push saturation hard? I'll try your suggestion next time I mess with that image.

05-08-2009, 07:12 AM	#42
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by Squier Terrific shot - real nice Two nights ago I saw the moon up above. I dusted off my TOU/FIVE STAR 500mm f/8 and my Cosina 2x TC and began shooting. The WB was set to daylight since when I first started shooting, the first shot was blue. I had the camera set to tunstgen. I eventully got the right combo of shutter speed and focus and posted the best pic in the lens forum. People have looked but no one replied. After looking at yours and others in this thread, mine is soft and out of focus a little. Or better yet, it just plain sucks compared to the ones here. Nice moon shots!

05-08-2009, 11:37 PM	#43
iNVision ART Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The 808 State: Hawaii. From Nikon to PENTAX to Canon to Pentax Photos: Gallery Posts: 71	Originally posted by PentaxPoke 8in Meade SC (Pretty much the same setup Leo discussed.) , k20d, ISO 400, 1/250, converted from RAW (auto WB), 2 exposures stitched to get the entire disk: Thats an awesome shot and is way better than mines. I also used Auto WB but used a opteka 650mm

05-10-2009, 05:36 AM	#44
LeoTaylor Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Connecticut Photos: Gallery Posts: 679	iNVision ART: A lot of the difference in the two Moon photos you compared is processing. Indeed, processing for astrophotos is quite different then for normal daytime images. In astro you can pump up details with Van Cittert Deconvolution (Solar System), Lucy Richardson Deconvolution (Deep Space Objects), Unsharp Masking, Wavelet Spatial Filters, and other functions that would ruin regular daytime images. You might try Unsharp Masking on your Moon photo since that function is found in most photo processing programs. I recall the first Moon photo I posted on an AOL discussion group back in the film days. A fellow snatched my image, performed an Unsharp Mask, and sent it back to me. I was amazed at how the craters suddenly jumped out from my very flat looking photo.

05-10-2009, 05:49 AM	#45
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by LeoTaylor In astro you can pump up details with Van Cittert Deconvolution (Solar System), Lucy Richardson Deconvolution (Deep Space Objects), Unsharp Masking This is an interesting list of techniques. On most (regular) images, I found FocusMagic to do a much better job than both Van Cittert as well as Lucy Richardson deconvolution. FocusMagic does deconvolution with an unpublished blend of algorithms. It may be worth a trial.