Astrophotography - First attempts (w/ PICS)

Well, it was kind of a cool full Moon last night so I made a couple attempts at some Lunar photography. No telescope here, just a camera.

I'm sure these pale in comparison to some of the work here by other members, but I'm working on it. Anyway...

First shot was of the Moon about 30 minutes after sundown. You can still see the color of the sunset in the atmosphere near the horizon...



Next shot was about 20 minutes later with the Moon about 10 degrees higher azimuth...




Still experimenting around with exposures. Neither of these two photos are 'stacked', just single shots. Probably pretty feeble first attempts, but it's a start.

I like them, and actually (I think that) today's moon is supposed to be the "pink moon", I had just saw a headline that mentions this.

Anyway, I see a lot of moon shots from people and this is a LOT better than most. If you want a good starting out point use these settings below. I used the camera below, but these settings are still the usual starting point for the moon, that is, with a tripod, I do take moon shots all of the time though hand-held using different settings.
Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
EF400mm f/2.8L IS USM +1.4x

The main thing is to go out and take shots, most of the time I am too lazy, and by no means am I an expert... I have astro-photography gear that I rarely use, I am hoping to use it more this year than last.

Of course you probably know that the full moon is the hardest to take, it shows less detail than say the half moon.

ƒ/6.3
1/160
125

If you want to see what one looks like with these settings...
Moon

a reply to: recrisp

Interesting. I made these shots at about

f/6.3
1/200
200

So...looks like I need to slow down the ISO and shutter speed. I did do some at 1/160.

Edit...gee, my pictures look pretty amateur in comparison!

Edit II...Oh, and the camera was a Canon 7D w/ Sigma (85mm-) 300mm f3.5-6.3 IS/USM (with AF and IS turned off). So factoring in the crop factor I guess it would be 480mm (is that right, or is it still just 300mm?)

When I take pics of the moon it's a blurry blob! Good job here I'd say, not sure which one is better. Both are great!!

I have Bushnell 10 x 50's and they are about all you can hand-hold as binoculars go. My daughter has a new Cannon Eos and I gave her all my equipment as she likes photography. Monopod, tripod, triggers, telephoto lenses and macro as well.

All in all a pretty good start, however we both see the need for a mount that tracks the planets, moon and stars. They range in about the 3-400 dollar territory.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Nicely over contrasted. Its harder to defeat the glare when its full. If I may, the moon is better shot with partial shadow, highlighting mountains and craters and bringing out its spherical shape.

The first mistake of noob astro bugs is to want to catch it whole (a perfect circle), flat and featureless.

image

image

It's actually pretty surprising how fast the Earth rotates and the Moon moves when you're trying to photograph it. Just about the time you get everything set the Moon has moved just enough to make you have to start over. I wound up having to predict where the Moon was going to be, then setting up and waiting on the Moon to move into position.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: recrisp

Interesting. I made these shots at about

f/6.3
1/200
200

So...looks like I need to slow down the ISO and shutter speed. I did do some at 1/160.

Edit...gee, my pictures look pretty amateur in comparison!

Edit II...Oh, and the camera was a Canon 7D w/ Sigma (85mm-) 300mm f3.5-6.3 IS/USM (with AF and IS turned off). So factoring in the crop factor I guess it would be 480mm (is that right, or is it still just 300mm?)

That's not a bad setting actually, and really, when you shoot the moon when it's not full is a better time to 'figure it out', but still, not many people can resist shooting it when full, I can't.

I ain't going to lie, I do quite a bit of Photoshop to mine, it does not come out of the camera that way. I have never seen a really nice shot of the moon that hasn't been altered in some way, it's just like a milky way shot, there's a lot that is done in post.

You are right, it is your focal length x's your crop, which in your case is 480. (300 multiplied by the camera's crop factor, 1.6 for those that aren't familiar)

I have a 7D mkII, I never had the 7D mkI, but it's a very good camera, I have several cameras and my 7D mkII is my favorite, my 1D mkIV cost a LOT more than my 7D mkII but I rarely use it now.

I am assuming that you had this on a tripod.

It's a good shot, I can guarantee that when taken into Photoshop it will look a lot better.

a reply to: intrptr

Question: what do you mean by "over contrasted"? (photographically speaking)

Here's an article of the "pink moon", not that it's actually going to be, "pink".
www.fox4news.com...

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: intrptr

Question: what do you mean by "over contrasted"? (photographically speaking)

You already know that...

contrast (photographically speaking)

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Those are pretty shots!

Better than my phone camera can do at any rate!

Really nice shots m8. Ill be taking some tonight with the settings you used and recrisp suggested.

I saw on youtube that a pink moon was expected for tonight.

The equipment i have at the moment is a Canon 6D with 70-200 L MK II.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Really nice shots m8. Ill be taking some tonight with the settings you used and recrisp suggested.

I saw on youtube that a pink moon was expected for tonight.

The equipment i have at the moment is a Canon 6D with 70-200 L MK II.

Remember, the settings that I put up there are really just a starting point. After taking a shot, look at your camera's screen and see what you have. Ideally you want your shot to not be blown out or too dark. "blown out" means all of the light details are gone, so you don't want that. It's usually best to always take a shot that is slightly lighter than darker, you can always recover details (that aren't blown out) from a lighter image than a darker one.

Also, I put a link up in one of my posts above that explains the "pink moon".


Your 6D is a REALLY good camera for all of astro, but I guess that is why you own it. If you have a 1.4 extender that would be a good thing, you'll need it, especially with a full-frame, which you also already probably know.


Good luck with your shots tonight too!

a reply to: recrisp

Thanks m8. Ill shoot in raw so theres less chance to blow anything out.

I was thinking a small amount of exposure bracketing might be useful.

I recently ordered a telescope that you can mount to a SLR camera.
You have made me that much more excited, those are great pics.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Great shots!

You should share them in our official Astrophotography Thread that we have stickyed in our Space Exploration forum.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: recrisp

Thanks m8. Ill shoot in raw so theres less chance to blow anything out.

I was thinking a small amount of exposure bracketing might be useful.

It sounds like you know what to do, sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I am 'all that'... heheh I was just trying to help, that's all, I mean, how many times does a "pink moon" come along anyway.

Come to think of it, they sure have a lot of new names for moons (at least to me) in the last few years, almost like advertisers got their hands into it. So I guess there's a blue moon, hunters moon, pink moon, super moon, blood moon, harvest moon, and I know there's more, but can't think of it off the top of my noggin.

Also, I know a lot of you don't care for Facebook, but here is a video by a well known photographer that knows quite a bit, I respect him anyway, but it might be helpful to those that might want try out taking a shot of the moon.

www.facebook.com...

I hope this helps.