canon digital rebel and moonshot!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by rutman, Mar 19, 2005.

  1. rutman

    rutman Guest

    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!
    rutman, Mar 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. rutman

    Mike Guest

    "rutman" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
    ...
    > 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?size=1&exif=

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

    --
    Mike, Mar 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. >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
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Mar 20, 2005
    #3
  4. In article <j51%d.71157$>, Mike
    <> writes
    >
    >"rutman" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
    >...
    >> 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?size=1&exif=
    >
    >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
    David Littlewood, Mar 20, 2005
    #4
  5. rutman

    rutman Guest

    thanks guys!!!!

    On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 01:00:11 GMT, (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
    >----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    rutman, Mar 20, 2005
    #5
  6. rutman

    secheese Guest

    On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:19:46 GMT, rutman <> 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.
    secheese, Mar 20, 2005
    #6
  7. rutman

    Guest

    In message <>,
    secheese <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:19:46 GMT, rutman <> 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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Mar 20, 2005
    #7
  8. rutman

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    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
    M-M, Mar 20, 2005
    #8
  9. >> >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
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Mar 20, 2005
    #9
  10. rutman

    Guest

    In message
    <>,
    M-M <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    >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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Mar 20, 2005
    #10
  11. rutman

    secheese Guest

    On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:07:12 GMT, 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).
    secheese, Mar 20, 2005
    #11
  12. rutman

    Guest

    In message <>,
    secheese <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:07:12 GMT, 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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Mar 21, 2005
    #12
  13. <> wrote:
    > secheese <> wrote:
    > >On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:07:12 GMT, 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

    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 21, 2005
    #13
  14. rutman

    secheese Guest

    On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:10:04 GMT, 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".
    secheese, Mar 21, 2005
    #14
  15. rutman

    Guest

    In message <>,
    secheese <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:10:04 GMT, 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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Mar 21, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bjarne Dollerup
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,093
    steve
    Nov 25, 2003
  2. BPO
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    6,095
  3. Dr Nick

    Digital Rebel 300D vs Rebel XT

    Dr Nick, Oct 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    665
    Matt Ion
    Nov 4, 2005
  4. Rick Geyerman

    Digital Rebel lens to Film Rebel?

    Rick Geyerman, Sep 23, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    467
    Rick Geyerman
    Sep 23, 2006
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Canon 350D/Rebel XT and 400D/Rebel XTi comparison and review

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Oct 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    391
Loading...

Share This Page