Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

photography of a brillant moon

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 10:24:18 PM

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

Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising
moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
preferred, whatever.
Regards from Pensacola
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 4:31:51 AM

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

I too have similar problems. I'd love to get a good full moon rise over the Atlantic Ocean
(NJ) but I'm just not there yet.

Dave



"Tom Callahan" <pensacola-beachcomber@NOSPAMNEVERcox.net> wrote in message
news:fl8sd.2559$Fp.317@lakeread05...
| Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising
| moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
| either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
| preferred, whatever.
| Regards from Pensacola
|
|
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 4:31:52 AM

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

It can be done... this isn't perfect, I HAVE seen better but I am fairly
pleased with it, it's a decent Image I think...oh and this was taken in
north-west New Jersey, no ocean view available here.
http://photo.mike721.com/gallery/moon/moon8785?full=1
Digital rebel, with Canon 100-400 L lens @ 400, plus a Canon 1.4X
teleconverter. The lens has IS ( stabilization) but on the tripod I turn it
off so it wasn't a factor. Focus was manual, using the 'whole lot of
squinting' method :-)
Exposure time: (1/200) Aperture: f/8.0 ISO equiv.: 200

I have the 'hacked' firmware installed in my Rebelwhich lets me use Mirror
lock up, I think I was using 10 seconds..this seems to be VERY important
since it allows the vibrations to settle down. Google 'wasia' and 'digital
rebel hacked firmware' and you should find it..or else check it out here
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canondigicamhacking/

Have fun!


--

Mikey S.
http://www.mike721.com


"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:bs8sd.411$eq6.80@trndny08...
>I too have similar problems. I'd love to get a good full moon rise over
>the Atlantic Ocean
> (NJ) but I'm just not there yet.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> "Tom Callahan" <pensacola-beachcomber@NOSPAMNEVERcox.net> wrote in message
> news:fl8sd.2559$Fp.317@lakeread05...
> | Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or
> rising
> | moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
> | either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
> | preferred, whatever.
> | Regards from Pensacola
> |
> |
>
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 6:28:43 AM

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

Tom,

I don't have your type of camera, but I did manage to take a fairly
good shot of the moon with my Minolta RD-175 digital and a 400mm lens.
I used a variety of shutter speeds and let the camera set the
aperture, and found one result that was quite decent (I think at
1/400th).

I'm pretty sure I used the camera's spot-metering function, to make
sure that the camera was reading the brightness of the moon itself.

With a lens of less magnification, the shutter speed might not be
quite as fast. But I think the spot metering is the key -- does the
Rebel have this?

If I find the picture I will post it. But it appears to have
vanished. Hmm... did I take a photo of something the moon-beings
didn't want me to see?

HD



On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:24:18 -0600, "Tom Callahan"
<pensacola-beachcomber@NOSPAMNEVERcox.net> wrote:

>Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising
>moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
>either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
>preferred, whatever.
>Regards from Pensacola
>
December 4, 2004 8:03:37 AM

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

In article <fl8sd.2559$Fp.317@lakeread05>, pensacola-
beachcomber@NOSPAMNEVERcox.net says...
>
>Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising
>moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
>either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
>preferred, whatever.
>Regards from Pensacola

If it is the moon, and not the landscape WITH the moon, then set manual focus
to infinity and the aperture to f/16 with the shutter speed as the reciprocal
of the ISO, or an EV equivilent of that combination.

Hunt
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 8:29:53 AM

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

In message <corgf941e0a@news2.newsguy.com>,
noone@hunt.com (Hunt) wrote:

>If it is the moon, and not the landscape WITH the moon, then set manual focus
>to infinity and the aperture to f/16 with the shutter speed as the reciprocal
>of the ISO, or an EV equivilent of that combination.

Sunny f16 will result in under-exposed images, wasting dynamic range.

f10 or even 8 works good for Canon DSLRs.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:05:06 PM

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

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:24:18 -0600, "Tom Callahan"
<pensacola-beachcomber@NOSPAMNEVERcox.net> wrote:

>Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising
>moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
>either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
>preferred, whatever.

We need details of what you have tried (including what lens you are
using, and details about your tripod) and what the results were. "Not
having any luck" doesn't help us figure out where you are going wrong.
Are you metering on the moon, or on the general landscape? You say
"rising moon", is this before sunset, during twilight, or in the full
dark? Are your resulting photos blury, or are they sharp but not
correctly exposed? Do you have motion blur from the moon moving while
the picture is being exposed (when using a really long exposure)? Do
you have motion blur from your tripod not being steady? (Maybe you
need a remote shutter release, or cover the lens with dark paper,
release the shutter, remove the paper and count out your exposure,
cover the lens, THEN close the shutter.) Are you using a lens that
has image stabilization? Etc.

jc
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:51:54 PM

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

I'm using a Quantaray Titan II tripod on a grass surface so the feet will
have stability. I set the camera on ten second delay for the exposure so
I'm not touching either camera or tripod at time of exposure.

I always thought fotos of the moon should be at f11 no matter what ISO
dialed in and the brains of the camera would figure out the exposure time.
I've tried to get both moon in the sky and moon with some background to give
a perspective. It was the harvest moon last month and it was beautiful,
orange and huge, as it moved up from the horizon. I have a lake at my
property line and I was facing east across the water as the moon came up. I
was able to get images with the moon both in the sky and reflected on the
water but it just looks like a round smiley face....no definition as the
moon. I tried with autofocus on, off, manual, various ISOs, etc. I tried
with the Canon 18-55mm lens and also the 75-300mm lens.
The moon was overexposed in almost all of the images.

I've read about the problems digital cameras have with night imagery. I feel
that I could have thrown my old Canon A-1 on the tripod and gotten good
pictures but I've been resisting using film. I want to be able to use this
camera to it's fullest.

As far as downloading software into the camera....that's a quantum leap and
sound scary at this point in time.

I appreciate all of the answers. I've copied some into Word Documents to
use as reference points. I'm glad my ISP told me to look at new newsgroups
this week. That's how I found this group.

Regards again from storm ravaged Pensacola, Tom

P.S. I got some excellent fotos of one of the collection points where the
city and county trucks have been bringing trees and branches to be mulched.
In an average year this area puts about 300 thousand cubic yards of
environmental waste into a landfill. Since Hurricane Ivan they have hauled
away about 4 million cubic yards of stuff. They tried burning it in pits
and decided to mulch it. Imagine piles of mulch about 60 feet high covering
your hometown football stadium. That doesn't even include the industrial
waste (siding, houses, lumber, shingles, carpets, sheetrock, washers,
dryers, dishwashers, freezers, refrigerators, etc.......all sorts of stuff
ruined by salt water invasion).








"JC Dill" <jcdill04@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:kq82r05gk1vs5ime18p0tm8glqgaauvrt0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:24:18 -0600, "Tom Callahan"
> <pensacola-beachcomber@NOSPAMNEVERcox.net> wrote:
>
>>Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising
>>moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
>>either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
>>preferred, whatever.
>
> We need details of what you have tried (including what lens you are
> using, and details about your tripod) and what the results were. "Not
> having any luck" doesn't help us figure out where you are going wrong.
> Are you metering on the moon, or on the general landscape? You say
> "rising moon", is this before sunset, during twilight, or in the full
> dark? Are your resulting photos blury, or are they sharp but not
> correctly exposed? Do you have motion blur from the moon moving while
> the picture is being exposed (when using a really long exposure)? Do
> you have motion blur from your tripod not being steady? (Maybe you
> need a remote shutter release, or cover the lens with dark paper,
> release the shutter, remove the paper and count out your exposure,
> cover the lens, THEN close the shutter.) Are you using a lens that
> has image stabilization? Etc.
>
> jc
>
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 2:38:00 PM

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

Tom Callahan wrote:

> Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising
> moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
> either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
> preferred, whatever.
> Regards from Pensacola

"Lunar 'leven / Sunny sixteen" are the applicable guidelines.

Don't use the meter, it's pointing at black space (will overexpose) or the moon
(will underexpose).

In manual mode.
Set the ISO to 100.
Set the shutter speed equal to the ISO (as close as possible) so 1/90, 1/100 or
1/125 as your camera permits.

Set the aperture to f/11 (this is the lunar 'leven part).

Focus carefully (your lens at the far stop might be out of focus, not at infinity)

Shoot.

1) When the moon is low, lunear 'leven. When the moon is high: sunny sixteen
(f/16).

2) Reciprocity: f/16 might not be the sharpest part of the lens, so try f/11 but
at twice the shutter speed (1/200 .. 1/250 instead of 1/100 .. 1/125) for "sunny
sixteen".

Why "sunny 16"? 'cause the moon is in the sunlight... so expose as you would
somebody in open sunlight ... 1/ISO, f/16 (or applicable reciprocals).

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 2:38:01 PM

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

Thank you very much. I will probably frame your post and stick it to my
camera bag with some duct tape!!

Off topic: Do you know what they call duct tape here in the south? Chrome.

Anyhow, thanks again, Tom

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cosp56$j83$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Tom Callahan wrote:
>
>> Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising
>> moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
>> either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
>> preferred, whatever.
>> Regards from Pensacola
>
> "Lunar 'leven / Sunny sixteen" are the applicable guidelines.
>
> Don't use the meter, it's pointing at black space (will overexpose) or the
> moon (will underexpose).
>
> In manual mode.
> Set the ISO to 100.
> Set the shutter speed equal to the ISO (as close as possible) so 1/90,
> 1/100 or 1/125 as your camera permits.
>
> Set the aperture to f/11 (this is the lunar 'leven part).
>
> Focus carefully (your lens at the far stop might be out of focus, not at
> infinity)
>
> Shoot.
>
> 1) When the moon is low, lunear 'leven. When the moon is high: sunny
> sixteen (f/16).
>
> 2) Reciprocity: f/16 might not be the sharpest part of the lens, so try
> f/11 but at twice the shutter speed (1/200 .. 1/250 instead of 1/100 ..
> 1/125) for "sunny sixteen".
>
> Why "sunny 16"? 'cause the moon is in the sunlight... so expose as you
> would somebody in open sunlight ... 1/ISO, f/16 (or applicable
> reciprocals).
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 3:07:40 PM

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

"Tom Callahan" <pensacola-beachcomber@NOSPAMNEVERcox.net> wrote in message
news:y4msd.419$Eu3.190@lakeread05...
> Thank you very much. I will probably frame your post and stick it to my
> camera bag with some duct tape!!
>
> Off topic: Do you know what they call duct tape here in the south?
> Chrome.
>


200mph tape... ;-)

--

Rob
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 3:42:15 PM

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

Tom Callahan wrote:

> Thank you very much. I will probably frame your post and stick it to my
> camera bag with some duct tape!!

The "sunny sixteen" rule is a common nugget going back for many decades. From
there, via reciprocity you can confidently use a range of aperture/speed
settings in "sunny" photos. Lunar 'leven is just a variation on the theme.

I'm just saying the above as it is one of the things you don't need to tape to
your bag ... after you do it successfully, it will stick in your head.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 3:46:13 PM

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

Tom Callahan wrote:

> Thank you very much. I will probably frame your post and stick it to my
> camera bag with some duct tape!!

Something you _should_ print out and keep in your bag is the following:

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm and in particular:
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#Light%20Intensity... and
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#EXPOSURE%20FACTOR...

.... esp at EV's of about 1 or less, this guide will help you get difficult low
light shots when your meter is not sensitive enough.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:32:01 PM

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

Mike:

That is a great shot ! It puts my Quantarray 75~300mm to shame. However, I don't have
trouble taking shots of a full moon or a partial moon. It is a moon rise that I am having
trouble with when the moon is low on the horizon and the colour is reddish-orange.

Dave



"Mikey S." <abcxyz@att.net> wrote in message news:W7Gdnb5hFu5w3SzcRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
| It can be done... this isn't perfect, I HAVE seen better but I am fairly
| pleased with it, it's a decent Image I think...oh and this was taken in
| north-west New Jersey, no ocean view available here.
| http://photo.mike721.com/gallery/moon/moon8785?full=1
| Digital rebel, with Canon 100-400 L lens @ 400, plus a Canon 1.4X
| teleconverter. The lens has IS ( stabilization) but on the tripod I turn it
| off so it wasn't a factor. Focus was manual, using the 'whole lot of
| squinting' method :-)
| Exposure time: (1/200) Aperture: f/8.0 ISO equiv.: 200
|
| I have the 'hacked' firmware installed in my Rebelwhich lets me use Mirror
| lock up, I think I was using 10 seconds..this seems to be VERY important
| since it allows the vibrations to settle down. Google 'wasia' and 'digital
| rebel hacked firmware' and you should find it..or else check it out here
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canondigicamhacking/
|
| Have fun!
|
|
| --
|
| Mikey S.
| http://www.mike721.com
|
|
| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
| news:bs8sd.411$eq6.80@trndny08...
| >I too have similar problems. I'd love to get a good full moon rise over
| >the Atlantic Ocean
| > (NJ) but I'm just not there yet.
| >
| > Dave
| >
| >
| >
| > "Tom Callahan" <pensacola-beachcomber@NOSPAMNEVERcox.net> wrote in message
| > news:fl8sd.2559$Fp.317@lakeread05...
| > | Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or
| > rising
| > | moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
| > | either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
| > | preferred, whatever.
| > | Regards from Pensacola
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 6:03:25 PM

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

In message <ski2r097t0b5n8c5f2fvr96ffiisl4rrvm@4ax.com>, I,
JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <corgf941e0a@news2.newsguy.com>,
>noone@hunt.com (Hunt) wrote:
>
>>If it is the moon, and not the landscape WITH the moon, then set manual focus
>>to infinity and the aperture to f/16 with the shutter speed as the reciprocal
>>of the ISO, or an EV equivilent of that combination.
>
>Sunny f16 will result in under-exposed images, wasting dynamic range.
>
>f10 or even 8 works good for Canon DSLRs.

I'm talking about a moon in a high, clear sky.

Nearer the horizon or in a compromising atmosphere, it will take much
more exposure.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 6:03:26 PM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <ski2r097t0b5n8c5f2fvr96ffiisl4rrvm@4ax.com>, I,
> JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> In message <corgf941e0a@news2.newsguy.com>,
>> noone@hunt.com (Hunt) wrote:
>>
>>> If it is the moon, and not the landscape WITH the moon, then set
>>> manual focus to infinity and the aperture to f/16 with the shutter
>>> speed as the reciprocal of the ISO, or an EV equivilent of that
>>> combination.
>>
>> Sunny f16 will result in under-exposed images, wasting dynamic range.
>>
>> f10 or even 8 works good for Canon DSLRs.
>
> I'm talking about a moon in a high, clear sky.
>
> Nearer the horizon or in a compromising atmosphere, it will take much
> more exposure.

Moonrise over Ripley, California (Believe It Or Don't)
http://www.fototime.com/FBCC40983D6D0F6/orig.jpg

ISO 50
F 3.6
1/125
All camera-chosen (Point and Shoot) except
Spot-meter
f/l ~ 111mm equiv
Exposure Bias -0.30
Through the window of a 70MPH bus
Image untouched other than reduce to size and Save For Web at PhotoShop
30 quality

Just to give an example of the other end of the moonshot spectrum, so to
speak.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 6:53:23 PM

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

Ahh, OK, I don't think I ever tried that..I'll have to see if I can give it
a shot when conditions are right, that's something I always wanted to try
too. My guess would be that getting it perfect it might require 2 different
exposures, one long one for the landscape and one short one for the moon and
then some Photoshop work to put them together,( probably with the moon
bigger than it actually appears to make it look more realistic as our
eyes/brain see it) but I guess there is only one way to find out.



--

Mikey S.
http://www.mike721.com


"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:BTjsd.777$S33.568@trnddc03...
> Mike:
>
> That is a great shot ! It puts my Quantarray 75~300mm to shame. However,
> I don't have
> trouble taking shots of a full moon or a partial moon. It is a moon rise
> that I am having
> trouble with when the moon is low on the horizon and the colour is
> reddish-orange.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> "Mikey S." <abcxyz@att.net> wrote in message
> news:W7Gdnb5hFu5w3SzcRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> | It can be done... this isn't perfect, I HAVE seen better but I am fairly
> | pleased with it, it's a decent Image I think...oh and this was taken in
> | north-west New Jersey, no ocean view available here.
> | http://photo.mike721.com/gallery/moon/moon8785?full=1
> | Digital rebel, with Canon 100-400 L lens @ 400, plus a Canon 1.4X
> | teleconverter. The lens has IS ( stabilization) but on the tripod I turn
> it
> | off so it wasn't a factor. Focus was manual, using the 'whole lot of
> | squinting' method :-)
> | Exposure time: (1/200) Aperture: f/8.0 ISO equiv.: 200
> |
> | I have the 'hacked' firmware installed in my Rebelwhich lets me use
> Mirror
> | lock up, I think I was using 10 seconds..this seems to be VERY important
> | since it allows the vibrations to settle down. Google 'wasia' and
> 'digital
> | rebel hacked firmware' and you should find it..or else check it out here
> | http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canondigicamhacking/
> |
> | Have fun!
> |
> |
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 12:27:45 AM

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

In message <cosp56$j83$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>1) When the moon is low, lunear 'leven. When the moon is high: sunny sixteen
>(f/16).

It would be a good idea to check exposure after this; I bet most of the
right side of the histogram will be empty.

If you're shooting RAW, on a Canon DSLR, you can go to f8 without
blowing out the highlights, on high moon, in a clear sky
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 12:27:46 AM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <cosp56$j83$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>1) When the moon is low, lunear 'leven. When the moon is high: sunny sixteen
>>(f/16).
>
>
> It would be a good idea to check exposure after this; I bet most of the
> right side of the histogram will be empty.
>
> If you're shooting RAW, on a Canon DSLR, you can go to f8 without
> blowing out the highlights, on high moon, in a clear sky

Got a link (example)? RAW would tend to record the low end, not give the
highlights any additional room. And if what you say is so, then as discussed in
the past there would seem to be a discrepency in ISO 100 (or any ISO) for film
and ISO 100 for digital.

Here's one of Bret's shots: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/36790522 and as you
can see from the EXIF it is shot at 1/3 stop under "lunar 'leven".

IAC the OP was looking for a starting point and was, from all evidence, simply
way out of the ball park. Lunar 'leven/Sun16 will get him going.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 3:29:32 AM

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

In message <cotg3m$kfk$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> In message <cosp56$j83$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1) When the moon is low, lunear 'leven. When the moon is high: sunny sixteen
>>>(f/16).
>>
>>
>> It would be a good idea to check exposure after this; I bet most of the
>> right side of the histogram will be empty.
>>
>> If you're shooting RAW, on a Canon DSLR, you can go to f8 without
>> blowing out the highlights, on high moon, in a clear sky
>
>Got a link (example)? RAW would tend to record the low end, not give the
>highlights any additional room.

No. The 20D has 1 to 2 stops more headroom in the RAW data than what
gets clipped at 255 by default.

>And if what you say is so, then as discussed in
>the past there would seem to be a discrepency in ISO 100 (or any ISO) for film
>and ISO 100 for digital.

No doubt. Any shot I take with either the 10D or 20D with "sunny f/16"
rules or my Sekonic meter are dark, compared to what the camera exposes
at automatically.

>Here's one of Bret's shots: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/36790522 and as you
>can see from the EXIF it is shot at 1/3 stop under "lunar 'leven".

We don't know what he did to levels. That is sometimes actually _as_
significant, or even moreso, than compensation at the time of exposure.

>IAC the OP was looking for a starting point and was, from all evidence, simply
>way out of the ball park. Lunar 'leven/Sun16 will get him going.

And I'm saying to experiment, to see how high you can expose it without
clipping. People are often happy that they get a usable picture, but
they may get a better one if they use the full dynamic range of the
system.

If you are taking JPEG pictures on a Canon DSLR, and getting pictures
that come only as close as a full stop from clipping, then you are
throwing away 2 bit of bit depth, and getting only 1/4 the
signal-to-noise you could be, if you shot RAW and just short of
clipping.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 2:23:36 PM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:

>>Got a link (example)? RAW would tend to record the low end, not give the
>>highlights any additional room.
>
>
> No. The 20D has 1 to 2 stops more headroom in the RAW data than what
> gets clipped at 255 by default.

References then?

>>Here's one of Bret's shots: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/36790522 and as you
>>can see from the EXIF it is shot at 1/3 stop under "lunar 'leven".
>
>
> We don't know what he did to levels. That is sometimes actually _as_
> significant, or even moreso, than compensation at the time of exposure.
>
>
>>IAC the OP was looking for a starting point and was, from all evidence, simply
>>way out of the ball park. Lunar 'leven/Sun16 will get him going.
>
>
> And I'm saying to experiment, to see how high you can expose it without

That's what "starting point" means.


> clipping. People are often happy that they get a usable picture, but
> they may get a better one if they use the full dynamic range of the
> system.
>
> If you are taking JPEG pictures on a Canon DSLR, and getting pictures
> that come only as close as a full stop from clipping, then you are
> throwing away 2 bit of bit depth, and getting only 1/4 the
> signal-to-noise you could be, if you shot RAW and just short of
> clipping.

Again, I'd like to see references for this or a full set of example shots with EXIF.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 11:22:55 PM

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

In message <covcm6$jiv$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>>>Got a link (example)? RAW would tend to record the low end, not give the
>>>highlights any additional room.
>>
>>
>> No. The 20D has 1 to 2 stops more headroom in the RAW data than what
>> gets clipped at 255 by default.
>
>References then?

I have tools to look directly at the RAW data myself, and compare to the
JPEG. I don't need any references. This information *isn't* out there.
The only people who know this stuff are the people at Canon, and the
people who have reverse-engineered the data themselves.

>>>Here's one of Bret's shots: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/36790522 and as you
>>>can see from the EXIF it is shot at 1/3 stop under "lunar 'leven".

>> We don't know what he did to levels. That is sometimes actually _as_
>> significant, or even moreso, than compensation at the time of exposure.

>>>IAC the OP was looking for a starting point and was, from all evidence, simply
>>>way out of the ball park. Lunar 'leven/Sun16 will get him going.

>> And I'm saying to experiment, to see how high you can expose it without

>That's what "starting point" means.

Not exactly. If someone gets a useable image, they may stop there, and
never get the better image. People have to be reminded that this is not
film, and the higher you expose, the higher the quality of the data.

>> clipping. People are often happy that they get a usable picture, but
>> they may get a better one if they use the full dynamic range of the
>> system.

>> If you are taking JPEG pictures on a Canon DSLR, and getting pictures
>> that come only as close as a full stop from clipping, then you are
>> throwing away 2 bit of bit depth, and getting only 1/4 the
>> signal-to-noise you could be, if you shot RAW and just short of
>> clipping.

>Again, I'd like to see references for this or a full set of example shots with EXIF.

Here's one from the 10D:

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/32751804


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 2:10:22 AM

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

Tom,
I just took some pretty good moonrise photos last week. I don't have a
Digital Rebel, but I did use an Olympus E-1 Digital SLR on a tripod. I
played around with the settings in manual mode, and the best exposures that
I got was with these settings:
Manual Focus

Exposure Time: 1/125 sec

F-Stop: 11.0

ISO: 400

Focal Length: 200 mm (I was using a 50-200mm zoom lens)

What I do is set the camera to manual mode, then I play with the
exposure time & aperature until I start getting good results. I use the
camerals LCD screen to display the image, and keep fiddling with the
exposure time & f-stop until I can see details on the face of the moon. The
great thing about digital photography is that you can always delete the ones
that you don't like while they are still in the camera.

Randy L.


"Tom Callahan" <pensacola-beachcomber@NOSPAMNEVERcox.net> wrote in message
news:fl8sd.2559$Fp.317@lakeread05...
> Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising
> moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
> either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
> preferred, whatever.
> Regards from Pensacola
>
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:47:01 PM

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

Kibo informs me that Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca>
stated that:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>>>Got a link (example)? RAW would tend to record the low end, not give the
>>>highlights any additional room.
>>
>> No. The 20D has 1 to 2 stops more headroom in the RAW data than what
>> gets clipped at 255 by default.
>
>References then?

JPS is correct about this. I have literally hundreds of 10D photos where
I've taken advantage of the extra headroom in RAW mode to extend the
dynamic range for very contrasty shots. The same photos have terribly
blown out highlights in the JPEG previews, but the highlight detail
comes up perfectly when processed in RAW mode.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 8:43:10 AM

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

Tom Callahan wrote:

> Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising
> moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
> either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
> preferred, whatever.
> Regards from Pensacola

When it comes down to it, the moon is just another sunlit object: for a
bright, full- or nearly-full moon, try the ol' Sunny-16 rule as a
starting point:
shutter = 1/ISO, aperture f/16.

So at 100 ISO, you'd use 1/100 shutter, f/16
or 1/200 @ f/11
of 1/400 @ f/8
or 1/50 @ f/22

....and so on. Bracket from there.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 11:03:10 AM

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

Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> writes:
> Tom Callahan wrote:

>> Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or
>> rising moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having
>> any luck either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time,
>> apperture preferred, whatever.

> When it comes down to it, the moon is just another sunlit object:
> for a bright, full- or nearly-full moon, try the ol' Sunny-16 rule
> as a starting point: shutter = 1/ISO, aperture f/16.

Actually, with the the moon, the rule of thumb is Lunar 'leven
(ISO 100, 1/100 shutter, f/11). Bracket from there.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 2:32:34 PM

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

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

> Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> writes:
>>When it comes down to it, the moon is just another sunlit object:
>>for a bright, full- or nearly-full moon, try the ol' Sunny-16 rule
>>as a starting point: shutter = 1/ISO, aperture f/16.
>
>
> Actually, with the the moon, the rule of thumb is Lunar 'leven
> (ISO 100, 1/100 shutter, f/11). Bracket from there.

I don't agree. When the moon is high, it is very sunny-16.
When below about 30 - 45 deg, it is Lunar-11 or dimmer.
The above, for slide film, works fine.

JPS indicates that his results for the Canon 20D point towards the Canon being
either less sensitive or having higher dynamic headroom and hence a lunar-11 or
more open setting for the moon even when high.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 5:21:31 PM

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

Tom Callahan wrote:
>
> Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or rising
> moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having any luck
> either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time, apperture
> preferred, whatever.
> Regards from Pensacola

remember that the lighting
is full sunlight for a bright clear moon.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 1:51:20 PM

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

Tom Callahan wrote:
> Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or
> rising moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having
> any luck either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time,
> apperture preferred, whatever.
> Regards from Pensacola

If you don't use manual exposure (and check the histogram), try:

- fixed infinity focus
- spot metering
- meter on the moon
- optional, -1 stop or even -2 stops exposure compensation

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 3:27:28 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

> Tom Callahan wrote:
>
>>Has anyone got the solution to getting a good image of the full or
>>rising moon using a Digital Canon Rebel on a tripod? I'm not having
>>any luck either on manual or auto focus, automatic, manual, time,
>>apperture preferred, whatever.
>>Regards from Pensacola
>
>
> If you don't use manual exposure (and check the histogram), try:
>
> - fixed infinity focus
> - spot metering
> - meter on the moon
> - optional, -1 stop or even -2 stops exposure compensation

If you spot meter the moon, it will drive to an underexposure, so the comp
should be +ve, not negative.

Easier to manually expose using sunny-16/lunar-11 and perhaps another stop open.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 8:42:01 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
[]
> If you spot meter the moon, it will drive to an underexposure, so the
> comp should be +ve, not negative.

Not on my camera - spot meter means meter the chosen spot for 18% grey
level, which with a typical moon seems to give about the right results
allowing the brighter parts of the image to stand out crisply. Other
cameras may differ, or different phases of the moon of course.

> Easier to manually expose using sunny-16/lunar-11 and perhaps another
> stop open.

A good starting point. Of course, you would likely want to experiment to
see what exposure gave the best results. Perhaps using automatic exposure
bracketing might make things easier.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 8:42:02 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
> []
>
>>If you spot meter the moon, it will drive to an underexposure, so the
>>comp should be +ve, not negative.
>
>
> Not on my camera - spot meter means meter the chosen spot for 18% grey
> level, which with a typical moon seems to give about the right results
> allowing the brighter parts of the image to stand out crisply. Other
> cameras may differ, or different phases of the moon of course.

The moon is not 18% grey. It is not quite white either. Offhand I'd place it
as straddling zones VI to VII (when well above the horizon). That's 1.5 stops
from 18% grey.

Just about all cameras meter for 18% grey so pointing the spot at a white object
will drive an underexposure of about 2 stops unless corrected (all those grey
looking ski photos, for example.)

>
>
>>Easier to manually expose using sunny-16/lunar-11 and perhaps another
>>stop open.
>
>
> A good starting point. Of course, you would likely want to experiment to
> see what exposure gave the best results. Perhaps using automatic exposure
> bracketing might make things easier.

I'm so tired of people saying "bracket". I s'pose it is a cheap solution for
digital cameras, but it is just as easy to understand and learn the meter well,
as well as the response of the CCD/CMOS sensor.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 9:39:40 PM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>> []
>>
>>> If you spot meter the moon, it will drive to an underexposure, so
>>> the comp should be +ve, not negative.
>>
>>
>> Not on my camera - spot meter means meter the chosen spot for 18%
>> grey level, which with a typical moon seems to give about the right
>> results allowing the brighter parts of the image to stand out
>> crisply. Other cameras may differ, or different phases of the moon
>> of course.
>
> The moon is not 18% grey. It is not quite white either. Offhand I'd
> place it as straddling zones VI to VII (when well above the horizon).
> That's 1.5 stops from 18% grey.
>
> Just about all cameras meter for 18% grey so pointing the spot at a
> white object will drive an underexposure of about 2 stops unless
> corrected (all those grey looking ski photos, for example.)

But the moon is not a pure white object either, as seen by my spot meter!
As I indicated, on my camera using the "spot" meter produces good results.
The "spot" meter covers both the black and white parts of the moon - so
perhaps it covers more area than on your camera. Obviously, as with any
unusual subject you may need to epxeriment to see what works best with the
equipment you have to hand.

>>> Easier to manually expose using sunny-16/lunar-11 and perhaps
>>> another stop open.
>>
>>
>> A good starting point. Of course, you would likely want to
>> experiment to see what exposure gave the best results. Perhaps
>> using automatic exposure bracketing might make things easier.
>
> I'm so tired of people saying "bracket". I s'pose it is a cheap
> solution for digital cameras, but it is just as easy to understand
> and learn the meter well, as well as the response of the CCD/CMOS
> sensor.

I would agree with you. I tend to use full manual aperture and shutter
for such circumstances, but not all the time. Start off with auto-spot
just to get one shot "in the bag". I've never used the automatic
bracketing myself, but I can see that it might help here.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 9:39:41 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alan Browne wrote:
>>>[]
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you spot meter the moon, it will drive to an underexposure, so
>>>>the comp should be +ve, not negative.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not on my camera - spot meter means meter the chosen spot for 18%
>>>grey level, which with a typical moon seems to give about the right
>>>results allowing the brighter parts of the image to stand out
>>>crisply. Other cameras may differ, or different phases of the moon
>>>of course.
>>
>>The moon is not 18% grey. It is not quite white either. Offhand I'd
>>place it as straddling zones VI to VII (when well above the horizon).
>>That's 1.5 stops from 18% grey.
>>
>>Just about all cameras meter for 18% grey so pointing the spot at a
>>white object will drive an underexposure of about 2 stops unless
>>corrected (all those grey looking ski photos, for example.)
>
>
> But the moon is not a pure white object either,

That's what I say above. You suggested -ve compensation. However the moon is
definitely brighter than zone V. It is not quite as bright as zone VII. For a
spot meter, this would always require opening up. It beleived the light is
brighter than it actually is and sets a lower exposure... becasue it assumes
that 'bright' light is coming off of an 18% grey reflector... so it chokes it down.

> as seen by my spot meter!

Your spot meter does not know the difference between white, grey or black. It
assumes that everything is 18% grey. Which is why using it on a white object
requires opening up two stops (slide film) and on textured black requires
closing two stops... to correct for the meter's assumption. The moon is not
white, so 1.5 stops is enough. On negative film, opening 3 even 4 stops will
work fine. Digital 2 stops, even 3 in RAW mode (as recently discussed in this
thread).

> As I indicated, on my camera using the "spot" meter produces good results.
> The "spot" meter covers both the black and white parts of the moon - so
> perhaps it covers more area than on your camera. Obviously, as with any

If it covers 'both' parts of the moon, then it is no longer a spot reading.
Just a happy go lucky mix of the white and the dark area that ends up close to 18%.

> unusual subject you may need to epxeriment to see what works best with the
> equipment you have to hand.

Been there/Done that ... long ago. I suggest you experiment with a grey card
and a white card under the same light. The grey card reading will be correct
and the white card will read about 2 stops under the grey card. Expose the
white card at its spot meter reading and it will turn out grey. 18% grey. Open
up two stops (+2 EV comp) and it will yiled the correct white (slide/digital).
This holds for all cameras that have correctly calibrated meters.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:44:27 PM

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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:05:27 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> > as seen by my spot meter!
>
>Your spot meter does not know the difference between white, grey or black. It
>assumes that everything is 18% grey.

His spot meter may include some of the sky surrounding the moon in the
area sampled, and thus the average reading works perfectly to place
the moon itself in zone VII.

jc
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:44:28 PM

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

JC Dill wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:05:27 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>>as seen by my spot meter!
>>
>>Your spot meter does not know the difference between white, grey or black. It
>>assumes that everything is 18% grey.
>
>
> His spot meter may include some of the sky surrounding the moon in the
> area sampled, and thus the average reading works perfectly to place
> the moon itself in zone VII.

And maybe it doesn't. It's very difficult to guess at how the weighting of
parts of a scene will affect the meter. (And, yeah I take guesses at it too
when forced).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 2:00:44 AM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cpsjt0$ks6$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
SNIP
> The moon is not 18% grey. It is not quite white either. Offhand
> I'd place it as straddling zones VI to VII (when well above the
> horizon). That's 1.5 stops from 18% grey.

AFAIK the moon's average albedo is estimated to be roughly 0.12
(varies with area and solar angle to the normal) which means about 12%
of incident sunlight is reflected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon).
That is a tiny bit more than half stop darker than 18% reflection.
Visual brightness overestimation is common because of all the
surrounding dark.

> Just about all cameras meter for 18% grey so pointing the spot at
> a white object will drive an underexposure of about 2 stops unless
> corrected (all those grey looking ski photos, for example.)

I believe the ISO specifies 12.5% as average scene reflectance for
calibrating exposure meters. My Seconic is calibrated for 12.5%, and
gives almost identical readings to my camera meter.

Bart
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 2:00:45 AM

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

Bart van der Wolf wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:cpsjt0$ks6$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> SNIP
>
>>The moon is not 18% grey. It is not quite white either. Offhand
>>I'd place it as straddling zones VI to VII (when well above the
>>horizon). That's 1.5 stops from 18% grey.
>
>
> AFAIK the moon's average albedo is estimated to be roughly 0.12
> (varies with area and solar angle to the normal) which means about 12%
> of incident sunlight is reflected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon).
> That is a tiny bit more than half stop darker than 18% reflection.
> Visual brightness overestimation is common because of all the
> surrounding dark.

Next clear night, I'll go test this with the 300+2x TC.

>>Just about all cameras meter for 18% grey so pointing the spot at
>>a white object will drive an underexposure of about 2 stops unless
>>corrected (all those grey looking ski photos, for example.)
>
>
> I believe the ISO specifies 12.5% as average scene reflectance for
> calibrating exposure meters. My Seconic is calibrated for 12.5%, and
> gives almost identical readings to my camera meter.

The old Sekonic v. 18% argument. My Minolta VF meter agrees with my Maxxum 9
meter to within 1/3 of a stop (spot on grey v. incident in same light). Of
course they're fromt he same company, so goes to follow...

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 2:15:09 AM

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

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:41c206b0$0$36861$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:cpsjt0$ks6$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> SNIP
> > The moon is not 18% grey. It is not quite white either. Offhand
> > I'd place it as straddling zones VI to VII (when well above the
> > horizon). That's 1.5 stops from 18% grey.
>
> AFAIK the moon's average albedo is estimated to be roughly 0.12
> (varies with area and solar angle to the normal) which means about
12%
> of incident sunlight is reflected
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon).

P.S. Some other sources quote an albedo of 0.07 or 7% reflectance,
which is approx. 4/3rd of a stop darker than 18%, or 1 stop darker
than 12.5%.

Bart
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 4:16:28 AM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cpt37b$rv$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
SNIP
> Next clear night, I'll go test this with the 300+2x TC.

Just to make sure, if the phase of the moon is not full moon, then the
mountain shadows on the lit surface will result in much lower average
reflection for metering. Lunar/11 without metering works fine for me.

Bart
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:27:25 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
[]
>> As I indicated, on my camera using the "spot" meter produces good
>> results. The "spot" meter covers both the black and white parts of
>> the moon - so perhaps it covers more area than on your camera.
>> Obviously, as with any
>
> If it covers 'both' parts of the moon, then it is no longer a spot
> reading. Just a happy go lucky mix of the white and the dark area that
> ends up
> close to 18%.

Yes, that's why I said you may need to experiment if, like mine, your
"spot" meter covers more than just the illuminated area. It may also be
one of those times when shooting RAW rather JPEG is worthwhile, at least
until you get the exposure down to a fine art!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 10:04:26 PM

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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:38:14 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>JC Dill wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:05:27 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>as seen by my spot meter!
>>>
>>>Your spot meter does not know the difference between white, grey or black. It
>>>assumes that everything is 18% grey.
>>
>>
>> His spot meter may include some of the sky surrounding the moon in the
>> area sampled, and thus the average reading works perfectly to place
>> the moon itself in zone VII.
>
>And maybe it doesn't. It's very difficult to guess at how the weighting of
>parts of a scene will affect the meter. (And, yeah I take guesses at it too
>when forced).

It's difficult to guess, but it's not difficult to know. If he spot
meters on a full moon, shoots with that exposure (no compensation),
and the moon comes out properly exposed, then we would *know* that his
spot meter includes exactly the right amount of bright moon and dark
sky to produce a properly exposed full moon.

jc
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 11:33:31 PM

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

In message <q53by99xap.fsf@kaksi.ifi.uio.no>,
Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+njus@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

>Actually, with the the moon, the rule of thumb is Lunar 'leven
>(ISO 100, 1/100 shutter, f/11). Bracket from there.

Yep; and that's if the ISO sensitivity is similar to film. I've found
that Canon 10D and 20D are almost a stop over-stated in their ISO
sensitivity. I find myself shooting full moons high in the sky with
these cameras a stop or two (for RAW mode) more exposed than that.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 11:41:15 PM

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

In message <cpn4j1$lm2$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

>> Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com> writes:
>>>When it comes down to it, the moon is just another sunlit object:
>>>for a bright, full- or nearly-full moon, try the ol' Sunny-16 rule
>>>as a starting point: shutter = 1/ISO, aperture f/16.

>> Actually, with the the moon, the rule of thumb is Lunar 'leven
>> (ISO 100, 1/100 shutter, f/11). Bracket from there.

>I don't agree. When the moon is high, it is very sunny-16.
>When below about 30 - 45 deg, it is Lunar-11 or dimmer.
>The above, for slide film, works fine.

>JPS indicates that his results for the Canon 20D point towards the Canon being
>either less sensitive or having higher dynamic headroom and hence a lunar-11 or
>more open setting for the moon even when high.

Not exactly. The "11" has nothing to do with the moon. I said the 10D
was a "sunny f10/11" camera for bright, sunlit scenes under clear skies,
due to ISO differences. The moon is a bit darker, because it is losing
light by diffusion to the surrounding dark night sky, and getting none
in return. I use lunar 7.1 or even 6.3, I think, for RAW files, with
their extra headroom.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 11:42:59 PM

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

In message <41C0B8EB.32F0@cox.net>,
Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote:

>remember that the lighting
>is full sunlight for a bright clear moon.

Remember that anything on the ground that is close has light coming both
directy from the sun, and through diffusion, but also loses some through
diffusion. The moon in the night sky loses light to diffusion, and
gains none back.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 12:51:24 AM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote in news:0t7us01mmc51tghnu46j24q022rj1h4c4t@4ax.com:

> The moon is a bit darker, because it is losing
> light by diffusion to the surrounding dark night sky, and getting none
> in return.

It is also a bit darker beacuse it is made out of darker matter.
(NOTE - not "dark matter" :)  The moon reflects approx 9%. A Kodak
gray card reflects 18%, i.e. one stop more.


/Roland
!