[campdog]

I have seen some amazing photos of the moon rising over the ocean. I have been trying to capture that with long exposures but can only get the moon without the moonlight water. I can take great night shots of cities where there is plenty of light. I use a tripod set camera in aperture priority, 2 second timer delay ets. tried different shutter speeds and aperture settings. I didnt want too long an exposure to have the moon rising in the shot.Only thing I havent tried is to wait for the moon to rise more and more moonlight. I have no trouble with pre sunrise shots on long exposure.
John

[Ash]

The moon is a more difficult subject to shoot.
Longer telephotos and quicker shutter speeds are usually required.
Try spot metering the moon and see how you go.
The light from the moon and the reflection should be reasonably balanced for it to come out as planned. So some PP may be in order.

[campdog]

The moon is a more difficult subject to shoot.
Longer telephotos and quicker shutter speeds are usually required.
Try spot metering the moon and see how you go.
The light from the moon and the reflection should be reasonably balanced for it to come out as planned. So some PP may be in order.

Thanks Ash, I tried spot metering the moon but still ended up with dark images. I was using a sigma 17-70 . I will definetly keep trying though. I have 80-200 pentax on the way so I will give that a go next moon.
Thanks
John

[Ash]

Lucky you. The 80-200 should give you quite a workout!

[campdog]

Lucky you. The 80-200 should give you quite a workout!

Im on the US tracking everyday waiting for it to hit Australian soil. Cant wait. I decided on a good lens and update my K10D when I feel I have the need. I would love to get to Broom one day to photograph stairway to the moon.

[Canada_Rockies]

The full moon is actually a big rock frontally lit by the sun. That makes a good starting exposure to be 1/ISO @ f/16, the same exposure used for a landscape when the sun is high and behind you. half moon is side lit, and you must decide if you want to expose for the dark half or the light half. The lighter half is 1/ISO @ f/11 for a starting exposure. The dark half is lit by earth shine, so the exposure varies greatly as the moon rises and sets.

Some recommend the full moon starting exposure to be f/11, but I would prefer to use f/16 to avoid any possibility of blowing the highlight detail.

With negative film, shooting at f/8 was usually a good start for the full moon. The film had an overexposure tolerance that gave reasonable results with two stops over, and allowed a faster shutter speed to reduce camera shake effects.

The camera "spot" meter covers too large an area to meter the moon correctly. With most Pentax cameras the spot meter is about 2.5% of the image. The Pentax Spot Meter (a handheld separate meter) is a 1 degree meter, and would be closer on exposure than the in camera meter.

One metering approach would be to turn on the highlight warnings and use the review until the reds no longer appear on the moon's surface.

[wildlifephotog]

Or you could go for a 2 shot blend. Shoot one of the moon. Then shoot one of the scenery. Then you can combine the two in PS.
That's what I did here as an experiment.

---

Last edited by wildlifephotog; 09-27-2013 at 07:21 AM.

[LeoTaylor]

wildlifephotog: Good Moon shot combined with foreground. I like your signature line.

The Full Moon is way too bright to try and get the foreground in the same shot without some tricks to expand dynamic range. Some people do, but I've never been able to unless the Moon is overexposed.

I always use full manual for astrophotography.

[philbaum]

wildlifephotog: Good Moon shot combined with foreground. I like your signature line.

The Full Moon is way too bright to try and get the foreground in the same shot without some tricks to expand dynamic range. Some people do, but I've never been able to unless the Moon is overexposed.

I always use full manual for astrophotography.

I agree with this post and the wildlifephotog post.

If you properly expose the moon for the details, the moonlight on the sea will be far too dark. You might be able to locally develop the sea moonlight separate from the moon itself by layers or LR graduated filter, but i'm not sure if you will have sufficient DR.

I always use Manual mode for long exposures.

[mysticcowboy]

If you see both the foreground and the moon clearly and sharp, it's either a double exposure or stacked photos. The moon is moving quickly enough that you want at least 250th exposure to capture it clearly. If you expose for the foreground the moon will be a bright blur.

Also, that moon that looks so big on rising really isn't. That's an optical illusion that your camera won't capture. Again two exposures are necessary to make a photo that looks like what you saw. Back in the day, I'd shoot one landscape shot, switch lenses to a 200mm and re-set at 250/f8, repositioning the frame so the moon ended up in the right part of the frame. Now it's easy with Photoshop and layers. Just place the sharp moon over the blurry spot that you got with setting for the foreground exposure. You'll probably have to adjust the size of the moon so it looks right.


Here's a shot without the second exposure:


michael mckee
My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs

[LeoTaylor]

...
Also, that moon that looks so big on rising really isn't that's an optical illusion that your camera won't capture.

The book, "Bad Astronomy" has a test you can do when the "huge" Full Moon is on the horizon. Turn your back to the Moon, bend over, and look between your legs. The Moon will look its normal size when you head is upside down. My wife had to take a picture of me performing that scientific observation.

[photog]

mysticcowboy - You said that right.

[mysticcowboy]

The book, "Bad Astronomy" has a test you can do when the "huge" Full Moon is on the horizon. Turn your back to the Moon, bend over, and look between your legs. The Moon will look its normal size when you head is upside down. My wife had to take a picture of me performing that scientific observation.

Tried that and it works. Not something I'd want my wife to photograph.

[Flacosaurio]

I've taken a few shots of the moon on its own several times but... I was wondering, has anyone ever tried with a graduated ND filter like the ones used for landscapes? Would that even work? I'm guessing it would have to be a really strong filter on the moon-side...

[jon.partsch]

I've taken a few shots of the moon on its own several times but... I was wondering, has anyone ever tried with a graduated ND filter like the ones used for landscapes? Would that even work? I'm guessing it would have to be a really strong filter on the moon-side...

I seriously doubt that would work outside of like a dusk or dawn condition where the contrast between the moon and the sky is lower. You'd never be able to do it in full dark - that's for sure. I can't even get close with a 3-stop graduated ND.

~J