Moon photos

[waltesefalcon]

I went out tonight to try and get a few good photos of the moon. I borrowed a tripod from the school yearbook teacher, and went to Lake Ellsworth near my house to set up. I got mixed results. I would have had a few decent photos, but in several of my longer exposures, I had a double exposed moon, and I am not sure why. Could hitting the shutter button have moved the tripod enough to create that effect?

 

[Basil]

That first one looks like a blood Moon

 

[waltesefalcon]

We had a lot of haze today. It was nearly half an hour after moonrise before you could see it coming through the haze. It gave it a strong red tint until it was about 10:00.

 

[GregW]

The short answer is yes. There are a couple things that could be happening. One is pressing the shutter moves the camera on the tripod. The other could be mirror slap. On your particular shots above, the tripod could have had the legs fully retracted to increase it's sturdiness. For long exposures, you can get a remote trigger. I have one that is like a TV remote in that it sends an IR beam to trigger the shutter. So no physical contact with the camera is needed. Mirror slap is when the mirror for the viewfinder has to move out of the sensor's way during exposure. You could go into live mode which moves the mirror up and you use the rear screen to compose the shot. That removes any chance of motion blur from the mirror moving.

 

[GregW]

Additionally, you could set the timer on your camera. So without buying anything, the timer lets the camera settle before the exposure is taken.

 

[equiprx]

How long was the timed exposure?
You do realize that the moon is moving??

 

[DrEntropy]

...but in several of my longer exposures, I had a double exposed moon, and I am not sure why. Could hitting the shutter button have moved the tripod enough to create that effect?

Moon moved, not the camera.

The IR release or a wired remote trigger both work to minimize camera shake. The "old way" was a "mirror lock up" lever but the "live mode" for our cameras approximates that. Not too sure "mirror slap" is all that influential, the shot I posted of that cell tower with the juvenile osprey was taken with the mirror 500mm lens on a 'pod with the wired remote release, lens equivalent to a 750mm on a full-frame camera. It seems acceptably sharp.

Remotes are relatively inexpensive. We got Mitsy an aftermarket (Neewer) IR trigger and I went for the Nikon one, no real difference. I also opted for a wired one, a Kiwi UR-232. Works fine.

 

[GregW]

In that last shot, if the exposure was long enough to have the moon move, I think the water ripples would have been smoothed out.

 

[Basil]

The apparent movement in your last shot could be from camera shake, but I think it more likely too slow of a shutter speed. What makes me think this is the fact that the moon and also a small star in the upper right of the image are showing movement, but the lights on the shore across the water are solid. If it were camera movement I'd think those lights would show the effects also.

Here are some tips on shooting the moon.

Moon Photography Settings: A Guide for Gorgeous Results

What are the best moon photography settings? Discover expert tips to keep your moon shots tack-sharp and well-exposed!

digital-photography-school.com

Note, the author suggests focusing to infinity - I disagree with this. Depending on the lens, focusing the moon as far as your focus will go can (and probably will) result in soft images. I recommend zooming in on the moon on the back screen (most cameras can do a digital zoom of the image you see on the back screen), then rock the focus ring (in manual focus of course) back and forth till the zoomed in image is as sharp as you can get it - which almost certainly won't be at full infinity. (Note: Zooming in on the LCD screen doesn't affect the image you shoot)

One other thing - they don't mention using a tripod, but I highly recommend using one (as you did in this case) because getting sharp moon shots hand held is very difficult - especially if you are using a telephoto lens. If your tripod has a hook under the center pole, hand some weight on it. For my shots of the super moon, I hung a small shoulder camera bag under there with some lenses in it, which weighted about 4 lbs.

 

[waltesefalcon]

Thanks guys. There's a lot of information to sift through here. I went through several different exposure times when shooting, all the way up to 30 seconds. Those did not come out because of the movement of the moon. I hung my camera bag with my two spare lenses under the tripod.

The first photo was exposed at 2 sec.

The second at 15 sec.

The Third at 15 sec.

The fourth at 15 sec.

The shift I am most concerned with in the photos is lateral, making me think it was the stability of my platform. Last night I went out again and this time I overcame some of that by grabbing the camera strap and pulling it down across the tripod head to apply tension to the camera while depressing the shutter button. I haven't gone through those yet but I am hoping for a little better results.

 

[waltesefalcon]

Here are a few from last night. I changed my strategy last night and went with much shorter exposure times with much higher ISOs.
This one is cropped, it was shot at f 5.6 1/30 sec, ISO 1600.
View attachment _WWK5616.jpg
f5.6, 1/30 sec, ISO 3200
View attachment _WWK5622.jpg
f5.6, 1/15 sec, 3200 ISO

I'm not sure why the second and third photos didn't upload, but you can still click on them to see the photos.

 

[waltesefalcon]

Since I bought a tripod this month, I will play with the timer on the camera for now. Next month I will buy a remote trigger.

 

[waltesefalcon]

This one was shot using a 55-200mm lens at 200mm. It was shot at 1/15sec, f32, ISO 50. I cleaned it up a bit in light room and went to black and white.

 

[Basil]

Try a little wider f-stop.

 

[waltesefalcon]

Will do. I wasn't terribly pleased with the photos I got last night and plan on going out again tonight.

 

[Basil]

Every camera and lens is going to be a little different. A good starting point is f8. Then set ISO low, say around 200. Then remember that the full moon is very bright so shoot a faster shutter speed (try 1/250).

 

[waltesefalcon]

Thanks. I wound up not going out last night because I got sucked into a thing by a lady friend, but she did get a photo with an actor she has a crush on, so I guess it was a successful night. Just not for mom photos.

Maybe tonight I'll get some photos.

 

[Basil]

Speaking of moon shots, my camera has a feature that will allow you to get a shot with 400 megapixels. It's only a 45MP sensor, but somehow this camera uses the internal image stabilization and will take one shot, move the sensor slightly, take another shot, move the sensor, take another, etc., until it has taken 9 shots at ever so slightly different sensor position. Then it stitches all the images together to give you a final image with ultra high resolution an d much less noise.

The only hitch is, the subject must be stationary or it will result in a crappy blurry image. Since the moon is movie, I want to try using my StarGuider pro tracker to track the moon and try to get a 400 MP image of the moon. With the tracker set to track the moon, the moon will appear relatively stationary, so in theory it should work. The question will be how good is my tracker.

 

[GregW]

If you could get all nine shots done in less than 25 seconds, you might not need the tracker.

 

[Basil]

If you could get all nine shots done in less than 25 seconds, you might not need the tracker.

The way this high resolution capability works is by making very fine adjustments to the sensor's position. The slightest movement ruins the image. Even a picture of trees slightly blowing an a breeze will look terrible. The image must be stationary (relative to the camera). The moon will have traveled a lot in 25 seconds.

It's a cool feature, but has definite limitations.