«

If my calculations are correct, I have the opportunity to photograph
the moon setting directly behind Mt. Evans mere minutes before sunrise
from Capitol Hill in Denver on August 13th. I intend to use my Lumix
FZ35 with a teleconverter that gives it the equivalent of a 826mm
focal length if it were a 35mm, which it isn't. If you are interested,
here is a picture I took of *just* the moon using the same setup:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314...57623129010923

I somehow calculated exposure time and aperture for that photo, but I
have long since forgotten how I did it. Anyway, for my moonset shot,
I *could* let the FZ35 figure out everything for itself--it's a pretty
smart camera--or I could select certain parameters and let the camera
figure out the rest. For example, I was thinking of selecting a "film
speed" of 100; would you recommend anything different for an almost
daylit moonset shot? I figure I could use up to an eighth of a second
exposure and the moon shouldn't have time to move more than one pixel;
should I use all the time available, or go faster?


--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |

On Jul 20, 9:02*am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> If my calculations are correct, I have the opportunity to photograph
> the moon setting directly behind Mt. Evans mere minutes before sunrise
> from Capitol Hill in Denver on August 13th. *I intend to use my Lumix
> FZ35 with a teleconverter that gives it the equivalent of a 826mm
> focal length if it were a 35mm, which it isn't. *If you are interested,
> here is a picture I took of *just* the moon using the same setup:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314.../set-721576231...
>
> I somehow calculated exposure time and aperture for that photo, but I
> have long since forgotten how I did it. *Anyway, for my moonset shot,
> I *could* let the FZ35 figure out everything for itself--it's a pretty
> smart camera--or I could select certain parameters and let the camera
> figure out the rest. *For example, I was thinking of selecting a "film
> speed" of 100; would you recommend anything different for an almost
> daylit moonset shot? *I figure I could use up to an eighth of a second
> exposure and the moon shouldn't have time to move more than one pixel;
> should I use all the time available, or go faster?
>
> --
> Please reply to: * * * * * *| "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
> pciszek at panix dot com * *| *indistinguishable from malice."
> Autoreply is disabled * * * |

If you let the camera figure it out, might be hit or miss, since the
moon is just a small part of the scene. I would opt for manual
settings, with exposure bracketing if your camera can do that.
Shooting the moon is almost like shooting broad daylight. There is a
"Sunny 16" rule that you can use to get close to the right exposure.
Since you are shooting near moonset, it will be darker, so adjust
accordingly. Probably should bracket exposures and check on the LCD
screen to see if is right.

Another issue is dynamic range. If you get the exposure right for the
moon, everything else will be dark. You probably will need to take
two (or more) shots at different exposures and then merge them in
post.

The moon travels very fast, so the shorter the exposure, the less
blurry the picture for the shots of the moon itself.

I would practice ahead of time at least once or twice at moonset
time. Sure the phase of the moon will be different, and the
background, too, but you will learn a lot from those practice
sessions. One of the practice sessions should be the night before the
event, so the moon is very close to the right phase, and you can
figure out the exposures to use the next night.

Hopefully the weather cooperates.

In article <j06n6d$lh0$>,
(Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> If my calculations are correct, I have the opportunity to photograph
> the moon setting directly behind Mt. Evans mere minutes before sunrise
> from Capitol Hill in Denver on August 13th. I intend to use my Lumix
> FZ35 with a teleconverter that gives it the equivalent of a 826mm
> focal length if it were a 35mm, which it isn't. If you are interested,
> here is a picture I took of *just* the moon using the same setup:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314...57623129010923


The setting moon is completely different from the moon high up in the
sky. High up it is as bright as daylight, but setting it can be as dim
as night.

If the mountain is tall and the moon is still high up in the sky as it
disappears behind it, you might have a chance but you will not get both
the mountain and the moon exposed. Either the moon will be properly
exposed and the mountain will be just a silhouette or the moon will be
overexposed to get the mountain.

Here is a small Quicktime movie I made from stills at Zion Nat'l park,
done @1500mm:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/1-20.mov

If the moonset is near the horizon, you can get them both exposed since
the moon will be very dim through the atmosphere but it will blur from
the long exposure and the earth's movement.

You can do it with 2 shots, one for the mountain and one for the moon
and superimpose them.

--
m-m
Photo Gallery:
http://www.mhmyers.com

In article <nospam.m-m->,
M-M <nospam.m-> wrote:
>
>
>The setting moon is completely different from the moon high up in the
>sky. High up it is as bright as daylight, but setting it can be as dim
>as night.
>
>If the mountain is tall and the moon is still high up in the sky as it
>disappears behind it, you might have a chance but you will not get both
>the mountain and the moon exposed. Either the moon will be properly
>exposed and the mountain will be just a silhouette or the moon will be
>overexposed to get the mountain.

I will probably lean towards an overexposed moon. It would be great if
it worked out so that moonset was a few minutes *after* sunrise instead
of a few minutes before, but you take what you can get. The next day
the moon sets quite a bit later so that it will be harder to see in the
bright sky, and at an azimuth for which I can't make it line up with
any feature I'm interested in.

>Here is a small Quicktime movie I made from stills at Zion Nat'l park,
>done @1500mm:

Can't make Quicktime work from the machine I am on right now; I'll
have to look at it later. Thank you.

>You can do it with 2 shots, one for the mountain and one for the moon
>and superimpose them.

What can I say? Getting set up before 6AM and catching the shot "for
real" is part of the fun. I prefer manual transmission, too. Go figure.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:02:53 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Ciszek)
wrote:
: If my calculations are correct, I have the opportunity to photograph
: the moon setting directly behind Mt. Evans mere minutes before sunrise
: from Capitol Hill in Denver on August 13th. I intend to use my Lumix
: FZ35 with a teleconverter that gives it the equivalent of a 826mm
: focal length if it were a 35mm, which it isn't. If you are interested,
: here is a picture I took of *just* the moon using the same setup:
:
: http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314...57623129010923
:
: I somehow calculated exposure time and aperture for that photo, but I
: have long since forgotten how I did it. Anyway, for my moonset shot,
: I *could* let the FZ35 figure out everything for itself--it's a pretty
: smart camera--or I could select certain parameters and let the camera
: figure out the rest. For example, I was thinking of selecting a "film
: speed" of 100; would you recommend anything different for an almost
: daylit moonset shot? I figure I could use up to an eighth of a second
: exposure and the moon shouldn't have time to move more than one pixel;
: should I use all the time available, or go faster?

Go as fast as you can. My limited experience photographing moonsets suggests
that
1) you can get away with a shorter exposure than you may think, and
2) that "one pixel" of motion can sure as hell show as blur.

Bob

On Jul 20, 10:02*am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> If my calculations are correct, I have the opportunity to photograph
> the moon setting directly behind Mt. Evans mere minutes before sunrise
> from Capitol Hill in Denver on August 13th. *I intend to use my Lumix
> FZ35 with a teleconverter that gives it the equivalent of a 826mm
> focal length if it were a 35mm, which it isn't. *If you are interested,
> here is a picture I took of *just* the moon using the same setup:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314.../set-721576231...
>
> I somehow calculated exposure time and aperture for that photo, but I
> have long since forgotten how I did it. *Anyway, for my moonset shot,
> I *could* let the FZ35 figure out everything for itself--it's a pretty
> smart camera--or I could select certain parameters and let the camera
> figure out the rest. *For example, I was thinking of selecting a "film
> speed" of 100; would you recommend anything different for an almost
> daylit moonset shot? *I figure I could use up to an eighth of a second
> exposure and the moon shouldn't have time to move more than one pixel;
> should I use all the time available, or go faster?
>
> --
> Please reply to: * * * * * *| "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
> pciszek at panix dot com * *| *indistinguishable from malice."
> Autoreply is disabled * * * |

1. Wait for a dawn where the air is still and humid, it means "seeing
conditions" will likely be good.
2. Try not to shoot over buildings, roads as the release heat trapped
in the daytime causing heat waves that blur images.
3 Shoot lots of shots as fast as possible at the fastest shutter
speed that is practical.
4. Expose for the moon, add about 1 stop.
5. Shoot from a high location to get a decent background.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/84768839

Paul Ciszek <> wrote:
>I somehow calculated exposure time and aperture for that photo, but I
>have long since forgotten how I did it. Anyway, for my moonset shot,
>I *could* let the FZ35 figure out everything for itself--it's a pretty
>smart camera--or I could select certain parameters and let the camera
>figure out the rest. For example, I was thinking of selecting a "film
>speed" of 100; would you recommend anything different for an almost
>daylit moonset shot? I figure I could use up to an eighth of a second
>exposure and the moon shouldn't have time to move more than one pixel;
>should I use all the time available, or go faster?

You'll have many minutes to experiment as the moon is setting.
See what works. Bracket.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
> If my calculations are correct, I have the opportunity to photograph
> the moon setting directly behind Mt. Evans mere minutes before sunrise
> from Capitol Hill in Denver on August 13th. I intend to use my Lumix
> FZ35 with a teleconverter that gives it the equivalent of a 826mm
> focal length if it were a 35mm, which it isn't. If you are interested,
> here is a picture I took of *just* the moon using the same setup:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/3585314...57623129010923
>
> I somehow calculated exposure time and aperture for that photo, but I
> have long since forgotten how I did it. Anyway, for my moonset shot,
> I *could* let the FZ35 figure out everything for itself--it's a pretty
> smart camera--or I could select certain parameters and let the camera
> figure out the rest. For example, I was thinking of selecting a "film
> speed" of 100; would you recommend anything different for an almost
> daylit moonset shot? I figure I could use up to an eighth of a second
> exposure and the moon shouldn't have time to move more than one pixel;
> should I use all the time available, or go faster?


A nice picture, there; it reminds me of some shots I snapped, half
a decade ago.

I'd bought a Kodak "P850" digicam (5 megapixels, 12x optical zoom),
in May of 2006. My first use of it, was on July 5th of that year.

Among my 93 images (and one brief movie clip) was a series of 22
moon photos. (Similar to yours, except in a 3/4 phase.) It was a
bright evening (still light), in Omaha, Nebraska.

I experimented with the P850's manual settings, trying to get
a proper exposure of the difficult subject. My best effort and
its selected EXIF info, are listed below:

100_0094.JPG (580KB)

Make EASTMAN KODAK COMPAMY
Model KODAK P80 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA
Original date and time Wednesday, July 05, 2006 9:15:04 PM
Pixel height 1944
Pixel width 2592
Exposure program Manual
Exposure mode Manual exposure
Exposure time 1/400 second
F number 3.7
Lens aperture F/3.6 (3.70)
Max aperture F/3.6 (3.70)
Shutter speed 1/405 sec. (8.66)
Focal length 72.0 mm
Focal length in 35mm 432 mm
Flash used Yes
ISO speed 100
White balance Auto

Oh, so, you're wondering why flash was utilized It was my debut
with the P850, and I needed to become better acquanted with it,
before making the correct adjustments.

(The flash was enabled on the initial 14 of the pix in question,
and off for the final 8.)

Anyway...good luck, in your own lunar quest!

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>