Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jim Jensen

A question about shooting the moon.

15 posts in this topic

So tonight I thought I would read through my camera owners manual to try learn how to shoot pictures of the moon. I am looking forward to upgrading to a better camera one day but I need to learn to use this one first. My question is, do I need some sort of lens filter to block the light in order to get a detailed picture of the moon? My camera (Panasonic DMC fz-18) has a setting for shooting a starry sky and that is the setting I used. As you can see by the picture there is to much light to see any detail. Or is it just not possible for my camera to take pictures like this? I must say I was impressed with the picture taking ability. I took it at about eleven thirty PM and it almost looks like day time. Also there are stars in the picture that I couldn't see with my naked eye.

P1040323.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, your camera's meter is trying to get a mid-range exposure, which it always tries for, and that is why the picture looks nearly like daytime and the moon is blown out.

Check your owner's manual for whether the camera has exposure compensation or will work on manual exposure settings. I suspect it has one or both features. If it has exposure compensation or manual exposure settings, you'll want to underexpose in steps until you get to the point where the surroundings are very dark and you can see detail in the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an older Panasonic Lumix that has manual settings and E.C. With live view, you can see the difference, as you're under exposing. Never rely on built in scene settings to give you the photo you desire. Experiment with different settings and shoot lots of pictures. Digital film is cheap. grin Also, you'll want a narrower aperture (higher number) for better depth of field. This will also give you a slower shutter speed, so a tripod is recommended.

Good luck and have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I found the exposure compensation settings and I also found the aperture settings. I am looking forward to trying again tonight. Thanks Steve amd Mike for the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My camera (Panasonic DMC fz-18) has a setting for shooting a starry sky and that is the setting I used.

There is the problem, the moon is very bright, not dark like a stary sky is. It seems wrong at first, but you need a fairly fast shutter speed to shoot the moon, especially a bright full moon.

The FZ18 has full manual settings, if it's clear tonight try something like this:

1/320

F/8

ISO 100

For more detailed/interesting shots you'll want to wait a week or two though, the full moon is going to look pretty flat. At 3/4 to 1/2 moon the craters throw a lot of shadows which I think look a lot more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all of you, I was out trying to get the moon right at moon rise on the night before. It was an entirely different time of night(7:50ish), but I did use ISO 100 with a -2/3 exposure compensation, I was able to get more moon detail but had a slo-o-o-o-w shutter speed. Fortunately I did have a tri-pod. Should I be going to Manual so I can control all settings? I have to admit I have never used Manual yet. Not far enough in my Exposure Workshop book, I guess. Don't I still have to do some kind of metering or can I set any combination I want and go for it? It was a gorgeous moon out there last night, 'Fishing Jim', good for you for getting out there to enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah, I forget which Canon body you have, but check your manual and switch to spot metering (or center-weighted metering if you don't have spot). Then just make sure the center focus point is on the moon and the meter will get you close to the right exposure. Check on the camera back for blinkies (make sure to have the highlight alert feature activated), and if you have blinkies, keep using the EC in increments, underexposing 1/3 stop at a time until the blinkies disappear.

Otherwise, switch to manual exposure mode and start at the settings John provided. In most cases I've been able to expose the moon well without needing really slow shutter speeds. I only stop down one or two stops at most, not because the situation calls for more depth of focus (it doesn't), but because all lenses are at their sharpest stopped down a couple stops, and when shooting the moon at long range I want to get the best sharpness possible out of the lens.

You'll still want to shoot from a tripod, and if you don't have a remote shutter release just use the camera's self timer. If your shutter speeds are from 1/30 to about 2 seconds, you'll want to enable the mirror-lockup feature, which is explained in the manual. This eliminates the slight tremble induced by mirror slap when the shutter trips, which at that range of shutter speeds can introduce vibration enough to render the image soft. Faster than 1/30 and the slap isn't enough to hurt the image. At 2 seconds or faster, the tiny amount of time the camera is trembling from shutter slap is dwarfed by the sharp remainder of the seconds-long exposure, and on balance the image will look tack sharp.

When shooting the moon, exposures of 3 or more seconds can produce softness anyway because while your camera and tripod are not moving at all, the moon is, and a few seconds is enough (if the moon is framed tightly enough) for its movement to blur things a bit.

Here's one from last year with exif data so you have a start at settings with an actual example. You'll note even at iso100 and f9 that a shutter speed of 1/80 made a tripod a good thing to have but that mirror lockup and a remote release or self timer weren't necessary. I'd imagine you could ignore my previous advice about meter changes and stuff and duplicate these settings in manual exposure mode and get pretty darn close to where you want to be.

moon-exif.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you! I will try it again. I have some of the markings, but just not tack sharp. I did use the timer, but was shooting at 1/6 and 1/4. I have read the mirror lock directions, but will get them out for a refresher. I have used spot metering and center weighted and have blinkies enabled should I need to meter. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This first picture was taken with settings recommended by JohnK.

1/320

F/8

ISO 100

At least a hundred times better than my picture last night but a little dark.

P1040350.jpg

This second picture I changed the F number to 4.2 to try to get a little brighter moon.

P1040361.jpg

Steve, your picture of the moon is much whiter/grayer. Does that have to do with the atmosphere or is that something I can change with camera settings?

Thanks again for the help. Learning to use this camera is great fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicely done Jim, sometimes a little trial and error is needed to get just the shot you want. If you reduced the shutter speed and/or opened the aperture up (smaller F number) a little you would have gotten a bit brighter shot, closer to Steves. It could be the atmosphere, there were some shots of a really orange moon a couple of days ago, or yours might just be a little darker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys here is what you can use as an easy starting guide to photographing a FULL moon and this is for a full moon only but will give you a starting point for other moon phases as well. Simply put, the correct exposure for an object lit by bright sun, the full moon is just that, can be a shutter speed of 1/the ISO you're using, with an aperture of f/16. This to us old guys is known as the sunny 16 rule!

For example, if you're using an ISO of 400, a good starting point for a correct exposure of the moon would be f/16 at 1/400s. If you are using ISO 100 at f16 then a shutter speed of 1/100s is a good starting point. You can use any combination of lower aperture, higher or lower shutter speed and so on to keep the exposure the same. As always with these shots you should bracket your exposures.

The different colors of the moon are dependent on how low to the horizon it is. The lower the moon the more red its color due to atmospheric scattering from dust and haze of the light. All the smoke in the atmosphere from the California fires and the fact it is harvest time (dust from field work) is giving you the orange moon and colorful sunsets the last week or so. This also cuts down on the light so you may need slower shutter speeds, more wide open aperture or higher ISO to compensate for the first numbers I mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I just walked outside and photographed the moon to show you the above settings will get you close. I took one shot at ISO 100, f16, 1/100s hand held with the 300/2.8. Looked good in my viewfinder but loaded it on my laptop and it was just slightly underexposed. Opening the aperture to around f11 or so would likely be perfect, this is of course why its important to bracket. I noticed the moon is not quite full so that little bit could easily affect the settings as well. I did brighten the image just slightly with levels in photoshop to compensate for the little bit less light from the the waning moon but as you can see it was easy to bring the brightness back and retain details.

641667126_4Dbv6-L.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice job, Jim. Good answers to your questions, too.

I should note that in my example above I was overexposed about one full stop, and had just a few blown highlights in the moon that I recovered in photoshop. I did that on purpose (I often do) so the mid-range and shadow areas in an image have less noise. Noise is not really an issue on the 5D, especially at iso100, but it had gotten to be a habit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,I will only chime in to say that even a $20 tripod from Wal-Mart is enough to steady a point and shoot camera for moon shots.

The FZ18 should have the ability to turn off the anti shake mechanism [which you should do if using a tripod] the camera should also have a timer on the shutter release so you don't have to touch the camera at all when it fires.

My best advise would be:use a tripod,get it all set in manual mode with a few test shots,then set the auto timer on the shutter and fire a few frames above and below what looks good on your camera's LCD. If the brightness of your camera's LCD doesn't match up with your computer's screen brightness too good,it can fool you.

I can almost smell your photography addiction being born. grin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • And if the leftists get lucky at the convention?     You aren't against human rights, like income, health care, equality, LBGTQ rights, and stuff like that, right?  
    • You scale them, no?
    •   So, why bother with locks?  Honest people won't take your stuff even if the door is unlocked.   I am in the camp that I want to make it at least a little difficult for the crooks.   Especially since three people in our family have had their houses burgled and stuff taken.
    • The result right now is not good. One way or the other the toilet needs flushing
    • Mostly I talk about this with respect to the nonsense about multiple parties or no parties some on here seem so fond of.      It is all a fantasy.   Some new party could possibly take over an existing party, like Trumpism did, or even replace it like happened back in the day but in the end there will be two parties.     Perhaps a parlimentary system with multiple parties would be better than what we have, but, in my opinion, you can't get there from here.  It's like the calls for a Constitutional Convention.   Do you guys seriously think that could happen, and that the result would be good?  
    • I haven't gone up the old Grade, but do head to Outing via Emily and NE from there, and it is really nice. Hardly any roads to go across and little to no ditch riding. I have got to try the Old Grade, as I would think it is like that. We grouse and duck hunt up there now and then, but haven't lately. Great place with lots of public land and opportunity.
    •   But yet I countered with an actual study but you think your own speculative based opinion is better. OK then.     How very hypocritical.      I would end the discussion after that last statement too.
    •     I can guess it is not for humanitarian reasons.   Mexico has about had their fill of fighting the drug war for us, and are moving towards decriminalization.  If California legalizes weed, this would be enough to tip the scales in favor of decriminalization for Mexico.       For years now, Mexico has paid an extraordinarily high price in lives and social disruption for Washington’s insistence that North America’s drug problem be tackled south of the border, where the drugs are grown and transported, rather than primarily in clinics and halfway houses at home to treat the medical and psychological issues of users. Mexican President Pena Nieto.   Successive administrations, starting with President Nixon, have demanded ever-tougher border controls, aerial-spraying programs, and DEA-backed anti-“cartel” operations in Mexico. All those efforts and sacrifices have been for naught. U.S. residents currently export up to $29 billion in cash to Mexican traffickers each year to buy marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines and heroin.   Forcing that trade underground has taken a terrible toll on Mexico in terms of violence, corruption and social upheaval. Since 2006, when President Felipe Calderón ordered his military to join the “war” on drug traffickers, Mexico has lost about 200,000 lives and 30,000 more have disappeared,dwarfing the civilian death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq over that period.   The majority of those killed and disappeared were victims of criminal organizations, but human rights organizations also report soaring rates of human rights violations, including torture and killing, committed by security forces.   The 2016 Global Peace Index, prepared by the Institute for Economics and Peace, estimates the total cost of violence in Mexico at $273 billion, or 14 percent of GDP, with no end in sight. Direct fiscal costs of fighting the war on crime were about $32 billion in 2015 alone. Yet the United States has contributed only about $2.5 billion since fiscal 2008 to Mexico’s drug war, under the so-called “Merida Initiative.” Mexico’s pain shows no signs of easing. The New York Times reported in December that Mexico suffered more than 17,000 homicides in the first 10 months of last year, the highest total since 2012. “The relapse in security has unnerved Mexico and led many to wonder whether the country is on the brink of a bloody, all-out war between criminal groups,” it said.    
    •   But In Del's defense, he only does this on things he would like to stay as is. When you are talking about legislation he is in favor of then it is the law of the land and can't be changed. When it is something that he dislikes, it can and should be changed.
  • Our Sponsors