Moon Shots and Elevation

Ben_Edict · 06-19-2009, 05:23 AM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

Originally posted by imtheguy

Now thats confusing to me. Sounds like we need to bring all those mountain top telescopes back down to sea level because they are too high?

No. The poster referrs to the old wisdom, that sometimes the air is calmer (less star twinckling) if it is in a humid environment at lower level. You can read the facts in-depth in "High Resolution Astro Photography" by Dragesco, a noted astrophotographer (High Resolution Astrophotography Practical Astronomy Handbook Series: Jean Dragesco: Amazon.de: Richard McKim: Englische Bücher)

In general a mountain top location is better suited for astrophotography, because you have less atmosphere between the camera and the stars, but micro climatic conditions can counterbalance this advantage. Especially when the mountain range serves as a break to a wind stream (in our region that would be the Westerly ridges) the local turbulences will make for very bad shooting conditions.

Favourable places in the mountains ly within a region which helps to calm down local turbulences (i.e. woodlands, like Mount Wilson or Calar Alto or the sea like Mauna Kea) or are extravagantly dry (like the Atacama mountains for the ESO telescopes on Paranal). If this is not the case, it is sometimes better to go into the lee of a mountain for photography.

Ben

AM|Photography · 06-19-2009, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Dr_who

Next are 3 images up close at ISO 200, Shutter Speed 1/30 sec in Manual mode.

What lens(es) were used for your moon shots DR WHO? Terriffic photos!

Dr_who · 06-19-2009, 08:32 PM

The closeups were taken with a Skywatcher SKYMAX-180 PRO. It's a F15 2700mm focal length Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope.

Ben_Edict · 06-20-2009, 12:27 PM

This is one of my recent moon shots with a small telescope, a 100mm (diameter) f/6 (= 600mm focal length) semi-Apo, combined with a Pentax 2x-L tc.

Attached Images

Ben_Edict · 06-20-2009, 01:25 PM

three images with the K20 and 2s mirror lock-up taken with my old Lichtenknecker Cassegrain (250/3000) in the primary focus at fl 3000mm.

And all were taken out of our rooftop observatory right in the center of a small town at only 150m above sea level. I have taken about 15 shots of each moon area and the "seeing" caused heavy and widely varying distortions between each shot. I am planning to assemble 8-10 shots to form one big moon mosaic, but I have no idea, how Photoshop will cope with the different distortions...

graphicgr8s · 06-25-2009, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Dr_who

Ok so I was up at 4am as our apt was 30C even thou outside is only 20C. Last time I get a south facing apt with windows from the floor to the ceiling. Anyhow I was getting a drink from the fridge and I noticed the moon was peaking over the buildings and rising during the day. So I thought heck its the worst possible time to try and take a photo of the moon, with sunlight already coming up, Light polution living walking distance from downtown, but hey why not have some fun and see whats possible.

Anyways here are some images I thought I'd post just to show even under bad settings you can get somethign image if you just drive out of the city for 30 min how much better a result you could get.

Just a image I took to show how much sun glow was creaping into the sky
The "star" on the left is Jupiter.

Just a question. How can the moon be in front of the wires?

Ben_Edict · 06-25-2009, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by graphicgr8s

Just a question. How can the moon be in front of the wires?

It isn't. If you look closely, you will see, that the wire still leaves a small "dent" in the moon. There are two factors, that can lead this seemingly impossible effect:
1. the moon is way too bright and thus the place, where the moon is, burns out - as is the case here - and no detail will be left
2. during exposure time, the foreground object might mnove a bit back and fro, just enough to widen its image and make the moon shine through at any possible place (the same effect you use in architectural photography, when you want to make passers by "invisible" through an extended exposure time)

Ben

Squier · 06-27-2009, 03:33 AM

I suspect that the UK is far closer to sea level than many areas of the USA, but its still possible to get decent moons shots - sometimes you get lucky with the conditions on any particular night, but its not absolutely necessary to be way high up.

I guess it may come down to how much detail one is after.

joebob · 06-28-2009, 05:58 AM

Those are might fine pictures Ben_Edict.

Ben_Edict · 06-28-2009, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by joebob

Those are might fine pictures Ben_Edict.

Thanks Joebob. Somehow digital helps a lot with astrophotography - I never accomplished anything like that on film.

Ben

joebob · 06-29-2009, 09:42 AM

I've had the reverse. I've had better luck with moon pictures with film than with digital. No matter what scope I use, I can't seem to obtain sharp focus. Pictures come out "ok" but just not as sharp with and without eyepieces.

Ben_Edict · 06-29-2009, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by joebob

I've had the reverse. I've had better luck with moon pictures with film than with digital. No matter what scope I use, I can't seem to obtain sharp focus. Pictures come out "ok" but just not as sharp with and without eyepieces.

Maybe it's the smaller viewfinder? I use an Olympus Vari-Magnifinder for astrophotography and this gives me much better results, then using the plain viewfinder, despite the Pentax ones are quite good.

Ben

Dr_who · 07-12-2009, 09:09 AM

Here is a video I put on youtube of the moon I recorded with the Pentax K7. The camera is stationary and is a example of how fast the moon moves with a large focal length.

YouTube - Passing Moon recorded with Pentax K7

8540tomg · 07-12-2009, 10:31 AM

Great moon shots Ben.

I took a few shots early this morning with the M 400/5.6. The results were not good. I'll have to read and practice some more and try to come close to your efforts here.

Tom G

Ben_Edict · 07-13-2009, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Dr_who

Here is a video I put on youtube of the moon I recorded with the Pentax K7. The camera is stationary and is a example of how fast the moon moves with a large focal length.

YouTube - Passing Moon recorded with Pentax K7

That's a nice video, which shows clearly the effect of atmospheric seeing, aka the warping of the moon, due to turbulences. This makes understanding the difficulties of shooting the moon much easier to understand, than a long verbal description...

Ben

06-20-2009, 01:25 PM	#20
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	three images with the K20 and 2s mirror lock-up taken with my old Lichtenknecker Cassegrain (250/3000) in the primary focus at fl 3000mm. And all were taken out of our rooftop observatory right in the center of a small town at only 150m above sea level. I have taken about 15 shots of each moon area and the "seeing" caused heavy and widely varying distortions between each shot. I am planning to assemble 8-10 shots to form one big moon mosaic, but I have no idea, how Photoshop will cope with the different distortions... Attached Images

07-12-2009, 09:09 AM	#28
Dr_who Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 777	K7 video Here is a video I put on youtube of the moon I recorded with the Pentax K7. The camera is stationary and is a example of how fast the moon moves with a large focal length. YouTube - Passing Moon recorded with Pentax K7

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
February Moon (feel free to post your moon shots)	GLThorne	Post Your Photos!	11	05-02-2016 12:00 PM
Nature Moon shots (yop, one more thread on the moon)	Martin_Qc	Post Your Photos!	3	05-25-2010 10:01 PM
Night My best Moon shots so far	bdery	Post Your Photos!	0	10-10-2009 07:51 AM
No Moon Shots	Buddha Jones	Post Your Photos!	7	03-21-2008 01:22 PM
moon shots	button	Post Your Photos!	3	04-11-2007 11:32 AM

06-19-2009, 05:23 AM	#16
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. Originally posted by imtheguy Now thats confusing to me. Sounds like we need to bring all those mountain top telescopes back down to sea level because they are too high? No. The poster referrs to the old wisdom, that sometimes the air is calmer (less star twinckling) if it is in a humid environment at lower level. You can read the facts in-depth in "High Resolution Astro Photography" by Dragesco, a noted astrophotographer (High Resolution Astrophotography Practical Astronomy Handbook Series: Jean Dragesco: Amazon.de: Richard McKim: Englische Bücher) In general a mountain top location is better suited for astrophotography, because you have less atmosphere between the camera and the stars, but micro climatic conditions can counterbalance this advantage. Especially when the mountain range serves as a break to a wind stream (in our region that would be the Westerly ridges) the local turbulences will make for very bad shooting conditions. Favourable places in the mountains ly within a region which helps to calm down local turbulences (i.e. woodlands, like Mount Wilson or Calar Alto or the sea like Mauna Kea) or are extravagantly dry (like the Atacama mountains for the ESO telescopes on Paranal). If this is not the case, it is sometimes better to go into the lee of a mountain for photography. Ben

06-19-2009, 03:46 PM	#17
AM\|Photography Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 41	Originally posted by Dr_who Next are 3 images up close at ISO 200, Shutter Speed 1/30 sec in Manual mode. What lens(es) were used for your moon shots DR WHO? Terriffic photos!

06-19-2009, 08:32 PM	#18
Dr_who Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 777	The closeups were taken with a Skywatcher SKYMAX-180 PRO. It's a F15 2700mm focal length Maksutov-Cassegrain telescope.

06-20-2009, 12:27 PM	#19
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	This is one of my recent moon shots with a small telescope, a 100mm (diameter) f/6 (= 600mm focal length) semi-Apo, combined with a Pentax 2x-L tc. Attached Images

06-25-2009, 11:08 AM	#21
graphicgr8s Guest	Originally posted by Dr_who Ok so I was up at 4am as our apt was 30C even thou outside is only 20C. Last time I get a south facing apt with windows from the floor to the ceiling. Anyhow I was getting a drink from the fridge and I noticed the moon was peaking over the buildings and rising during the day. So I thought heck its the worst possible time to try and take a photo of the moon, with sunlight already coming up, Light polution living walking distance from downtown, but hey why not have some fun and see whats possible. Anyways here are some images I thought I'd post just to show even under bad settings you can get somethign image if you just drive out of the city for 30 min how much better a result you could get. Just a image I took to show how much sun glow was creaping into the sky The "star" on the left is Jupiter. Just a question. How can the moon be in front of the wires?

06-25-2009, 11:38 AM	#22
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by graphicgr8s Just a question. How can the moon be in front of the wires? It isn't. If you look closely, you will see, that the wire still leaves a small "dent" in the moon. There are two factors, that can lead this seemingly impossible effect: 1. the moon is way too bright and thus the place, where the moon is, burns out - as is the case here - and no detail will be left 2. during exposure time, the foreground object might mnove a bit back and fro, just enough to widen its image and make the moon shine through at any possible place (the same effect you use in architectural photography, when you want to make passers by "invisible" through an extended exposure time) Ben

06-27-2009, 03:33 AM	#23
Squier Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxfordshire UK Photos: Albums Posts: 706	I suspect that the UK is far closer to sea level than many areas of the USA, but its still possible to get decent moons shots - sometimes you get lucky with the conditions on any particular night, but its not absolutely necessary to be way high up. I guess it may come down to how much detail one is after.

06-28-2009, 05:58 AM	#24
joebob Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery Posts: 184	Those are might fine pictures Ben_Edict.

06-28-2009, 07:39 AM	#25
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by joebob Those are might fine pictures Ben_Edict. Thanks Joebob. Somehow digital helps a lot with astrophotography - I never accomplished anything like that on film. Ben

06-29-2009, 09:42 AM	#26
joebob Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery Posts: 184	I've had the reverse. I've had better luck with moon pictures with film than with digital. No matter what scope I use, I can't seem to obtain sharp focus. Pictures come out "ok" but just not as sharp with and without eyepieces.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-29-2009, 02:44 PM	#27
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by joebob I've had the reverse. I've had better luck with moon pictures with film than with digital. No matter what scope I use, I can't seem to obtain sharp focus. Pictures come out "ok" but just not as sharp with and without eyepieces. Maybe it's the smaller viewfinder? I use an Olympus Vari-Magnifinder for astrophotography and this gives me much better results, then using the plain viewfinder, despite the Pentax ones are quite good. Ben

07-12-2009, 10:31 AM	#29
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	Great moon shots Ben. I took a few shots early this morning with the M 400/5.6. The results were not good. I'll have to read and practice some more and try to come close to your efforts here. Tom G

07-13-2009, 01:49 AM	#30
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by Dr_who Here is a video I put on youtube of the moon I recorded with the Pentax K7. The camera is stationary and is a example of how fast the moon moves with a large focal length. YouTube - Passing Moon recorded with Pentax K7 That's a nice video, which shows clearly the effect of atmospheric seeing, aka the warping of the moon, due to turbulences. This makes understanding the difficulties of shooting the moon much easier to understand, than a long verbal description... Ben