Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

canon digital rebel and moonshot!!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 12:19:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

hi fellow cannoners!


could someone please let me know the best settings in term of shutter
speed and iso to take a cool moon shot?

thanks!!!

Please go EZ on me, i am a hardcore noo-b, so i am starting to learn
digital photography , iso, and the such! ":) 

thanks everyone!
March 20, 2005 12:19:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rutman" <elcid2k@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
mk6p311fvo58pad4kkfhrai8gv08gpq159@4ax.com...
> hi fellow cannoners!
>
>
> could someone please let me know the best settings in term of shutter
> speed and iso to take a cool moon shot?
>
> thanks!!!
>
> Please go EZ on me, i am a hardcore noo-b, so i am starting to learn
> digital photography , iso, and the such! ":) 
>
> thanks everyone!


Here are my settings:
http://dhost.info/photocanon/sigma/crw_0158_lune.htm?si...

But it could depend on the weather (mist, no mist, low on the horizon, high,
etc...)

--
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 4:00:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>could someone please let me know the best settings in term of shutter
>speed and iso to take a cool moon shot?

By and large, at ISO 100, f/16 at 1/125 is good for daylight, and f/8
or f/11 is good for the moon. But you have a dSLR. Start with f/8,
1/125 and ISO 100. See what you get. Take it from there. The moon
isn't going anywhere.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related resources
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 4:08:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <j51%d.71157$Qg.2024707@wagner.videotron.net>, Mike
<mike@home.com> writes
>
>"rutman" <elcid2k@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>mk6p311fvo58pad4kkfhrai8gv08gpq159@4ax.com...
>> hi fellow cannoners!
>>
>>
>> could someone please let me know the best settings in term of shutter
>> speed and iso to take a cool moon shot?
>>
>> thanks!!!
>>
>> Please go EZ on me, i am a hardcore noo-b, so i am starting to learn
>> digital photography , iso, and the such! ":) 
>>
>> thanks everyone!
>
>
>Here are my settings:
>http://dhost.info/photocanon/sigma/crw_0158_lune.htm?si...
>
>But it could depend on the weather (mist, no mist, low on the horizon, high,
>etc...)
>
Nice picture.

To Rutman - the useful message from Mike's picture is that the moon is
just a piece of rock being illuminated by the sun just like the earth -
and it's at (approximately) the same distance from the sun as we are.
Thus the exposure for the moon is similar to that for a daylight picture
of something close to you, with perhaps a slight increase to allow for
the atmospheric conditions here. Mike's picture is about one stop less
than would be "normal" for a picture at ISO 100 in bright sunlight here
on earth.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 4:34:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

thanks guys!!!!

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 01:00:11 GMT, joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
wrote:

>>could someone please let me know the best settings in term of shutter
>>speed and iso to take a cool moon shot?
>
>By and large, at ISO 100, f/16 at 1/125 is good for daylight, and f/8
>or f/11 is good for the moon. But you have a dSLR. Start with f/8,
>1/125 and ISO 100. See what you get. Take it from there. The moon
>isn't going anywhere.
>
>-Joel
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 5:52:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:19:46 GMT, rutman <elcid2k@hotmail.com> wrote:

>hi fellow cannoners!
>
>
>could someone please let me know the best settings in term of shutter
>speed and iso to take a cool moon shot?

Read about the "sunny F16 rule"; it applies for moon shots as well.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 7:07:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <ff3r315jpsldsfmbgntp1ks1evsok8mcql@4ax.com>,
secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:19:46 GMT, rutman <elcid2k@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>hi fellow cannoners!

>>could someone please let me know the best settings in term of shutter
>>speed and iso to take a cool moon shot?

>Read about the "sunny F16 rule"; it applies for moon shots as well.

I would never shoot the moon like that, literally, with a DSLR; it will
always be too dark.

First of all, the moon loses light through diffusion, which objects on
the ground do not experience in the same way. A distant mountain loses
light going through the same amount of atmosphere, but what is lost is
replaced by the light that diffuses from the sky and adjacent mountains,
so there is no real net loss of light level, just a loss of contrast.
The moon loses to the night sky around it, and gains nothing back from
its surroundings.

Also, exposure depends on your workflow. If you shoot RAW and want the
best possible capture, you will "overexpose" just short of clipping its
white spots. If you shoot JPEGs that go straight to the printer, then,
of course, you can't "overexpose".

In the clearest of (NYC-area, not New Mexico) skies, shooting RAW, I
have used "sunny f/8" on a high moon, without blowing highlights.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 8:22:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <so6r31ls1p847ammescc2dgeh6bqgub793@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
wrote:

> >Read about the "sunny F16 rule"; it applies for moon shots as well.
>
> I would never shoot the moon like that, literally, with a DSLR; it will
> always be too dark.

It depends on the phase and the height in the sky. Only a full moon at
it's zenith follows the sunny f16 rule. A setting quarter moon or
crescent is a completely different story.

m-m
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 8:39:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> >Read about the "sunny F16 rule"; it applies for moon shots as well.
>>
>> I would never shoot the moon like that, literally, with a DSLR; it will
>> always be too dark.
>
>It depends on the phase and the height in the sky. Only a full moon at
>it's zenith follows the sunny f16 rule. A setting quarter moon or
>crescent is a completely different story.

The only reason it's so hard to get the moon right is that it's
usually too small to meter correctly with a built-in light meter.

But with a digital camera, you have the luxury of trying a bunch of
settings and seeing which ones worked. As long as your camera has a
fairly accurate review mode, with some indication of overexposure,
you're set. Take a shot, review it, see if it's too light or too
dark, and if it is, try again. (Or take 15 shots, and check when you
get home.)

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 9:56:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message
<nospam-AF4F6B.12225620032005@netaxs.com.client.newsread.com>,
M-M <nospam@ny.more> wrote:

>In article <so6r31ls1p847ammescc2dgeh6bqgub793@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
>wrote:
>
>> >Read about the "sunny F16 rule"; it applies for moon shots as well.
>>
>> I would never shoot the moon like that, literally, with a DSLR; it will
>> always be too dark.
>
>It depends on the phase and the height in the sky. Only a full moon at
>it's zenith follows the sunny f16 rule.

Actually, that is the condition I had in mind. I don't think f/16 is
*ever* a good choice for a DSLR, if you're shooting RAW. In fact, f/16
is only usable on the ground, IMO, when there is bright white bird
plumage where you want to get detail; sunny f11 otherwise.

>A setting quarter moon or
>crescent is a completely different story.
>
>m-m

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 2:43:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:07:12 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>I would never shoot the moon like that, literally, with a DSLR; it will
>always be too dark.

The "Sunny f/16 Rule" absolutely applies when shooting the moon and a
number of photography texts, that I own, agree. For brevity, I'll
site just one: "SLR Photography" by Dolores Brown page 65 (ISBN
0817421785).
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:10:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <382s31p2pi1n4r91i0d2r5hsbn4d0b0bi7@4ax.com>,
secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:07:12 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>>I would never shoot the moon like that, literally, with a DSLR; it will
>>always be too dark.
>
>The "Sunny f/16 Rule" absolutely applies when shooting the moon and a
>number of photography texts, that I own, agree. For brevity, I'll
>site just one: "SLR Photography" by Dolores Brown page 65 (ISBN
>0817421785).

This is *D*SLR photography. Film and digitized sensors are two
completely different mediums. The best-recorded zones are about 3 stops
apart, comparing film and digital.

I've shot the moon, high in the sky on a clear night, with "sunny f/16".
The dynamic range of the RAW data was under-utilized by at least two
stops.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 12:37:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote:
> secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> >On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:07:12 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
> >
> >>I would never shoot the moon like that, literally, with a DSLR; it will
> >>always be too dark.
> >
> >The "Sunny f/16 Rule" absolutely applies when shooting the moon and a
> >number of photography texts, that I own, agree. For brevity, I'll
> >site just one: "SLR Photography" by Dolores Brown page 65 (ISBN
> >0817421785).
>
> This is *D*SLR photography. Film and digitized sensors are two
> completely different mediums. The best-recorded zones are about 3 stops
> apart, comparing film and digital.
>
> I've shot the moon, high in the sky on a clear night, with "sunny f/16".
> The dynamic range of the RAW data was under-utilized by at least two
> stops.

As I've mentioned before, I find that if I spotmeter my subjects and place
them where I want them on slide film, sunny 16 underexpososes by at least a
whole stop, sometimes two.

"With the camera assembled and the image composed and focused, I could not
find my Weston exposure meter! Behind me, the sun was about to disapear
behind the clouds and I was desperate. I suddenly recalled that the
luminance of the moon was 250 candles per square foot. I placed this value
on zone VII of the exposure scale; with the Wratten G (deep yellow filter),
the exposure was one second at f/32."

(This was 1941 and he was shooting with an 8x10 view camera.)

From you-know-who's autobiography. (The discussion of how many years later
he figured out that it was 1941 would interest Roger Clark.)

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@film.lives.but.only.in.larger.formats.and.only.for.the.nonce.com
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 3:02:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:10:04 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>This is *D*SLR photography. Film and digitized sensors are two
>completely different mediums.

But ISO is ISO... and CCD cameras are built such that people can
easily move from one system to the next without having to rethink
everything they've learned.

As far as exposing for the moon... like I said, in my punny little
library, 3 books state that you can start with "Sunny f/16".
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 1:57:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <58dt31t7eev9hqasdp889bropge0cmo73i@4ax.com>,
secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:10:04 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>>This is *D*SLR photography. Film and digitized sensors are two
>>completely different mediums.

>But ISO is ISO...

It's supposed to be, but in reality, there is a lot of play. The Canon
10D meters as if it had +2/3 EC exposure compensation built in. When it
says ISO100, it really means about ISO 63. That's not the issue in this
context, of course, as we are not relying on metering, but the issue is
actually related to how much dynamic range lies on either side of
"medium grey", or more precisely "medium green", as it is generally used
in digital cameras. In the case of the Canons, middle green is about
360 out of about 3900+ RAW levels.

>and CCD cameras are built such that people can
>easily move from one system to the next without having to rethink
>everything they've learned.

It "works", most of the time. It is far from optimal, though.

>As far as exposing for the moon... like I said, in my punny little
>library, 3 books state that you can start with "Sunny f/16".

The concept of "starting" sounds fine in theory, but the fact is, people
rarely ever drift to the optimal point from starting points. Lack of
ingenuity and psychological obstacles prevent people from discovering
the optimal, so it must be put right in front of their face.

I can guarantee you that anything higher than "sunny f/11" is never
going to be optimal for the moon. The moon is very dark, and it loses
light to the atmosphere.

I can guarantee you that none of the three authors gave the issue a
whole lot of thought, especially as it pertains to digital. People who
write books are not gods; they are people, and some of what they write
is usually incorrect, and if it is not incorrect at the time of writing,
it may be incorrect in the future, in a different context.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!