So, I was taking pictures of last night’s supermoon. I tried taking some on the 18th as well, but none of them were coming out how I’d have liked. A few nights before, I took this one:
Which, really, I seriously love.
But all my subsequent attempts didn’t really produce anything as good. This was the best one:
Now, I took both of these in London. So light pollution will certainly have reduced sharpness, and it’s entirely possible that the atmosphere was a bit clearer for the first shot than it was for the second.
But actually, I think it’s more to do with the position of the sun. The full moon is much flatter and duller than the waxing moon, which is rather to be expected — relative to the camera, the sun illuminates the waxing moon from the side, and a full moon from behind. If I was shooting people with flash, I’d expect much the same thing to happen. So — if it’s not too much to ask — it would be excellent if the universe could contrive to stick gigantic remote flash in high orbit around the moon.
Or, failing that, all practical suggestions on how to do a better job for the next supermoon (14th November 2016) gratefully received. Already on the list:
- Longer lens, or an extender
- A thermos, a warm jumper, and a nice hill in the middle of nowhere
Wanted: gigantic flash orbiting moon (and other sensible suggestions) http://harrymetcalfe.com/2011/03/on-dire…
@harrym One problem you have is that the moon is moving, and with a relatively slow 5.6 at 300mm, you need more than 100 ISO to be sharp
@rgarner not sure I understand. Was shooting at 1/640 for most of those, even at iso100 & f/5.6 – fast enough surely?
@harrym Only other thing I can suggest is that you make sure you were manually focussed to marked hyperfocal length?
@harrym I tried this with a 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 tele, so 280@f4 and had to aim for unexpectedly high shutter speeds for sharpness
My favourite book on photography is called “The Moment it Clicks” by Joe McNally. It includes the memorable line (from memory): “If you want something to look interesting, don’t light all of it”.
Flat moon discs are always going to look basically the same: one can aim for greater or lesser precision and contrast, try and show Tycho as the mega bombsite it really is, and so on, but essentially it’s a round disc with some features.
The genius of your top image is the texture and depth given by the shadow, particularly the crater bottom left (which I think is actually Tycho). So much more visually satisfying.
Half-moon shots FTW. Perigee or no perigee.
Mmm, I’ll look that book up. It’s already been an amazon-one-click-ordering day so one more can’t hurt
But yes, I think you’re right. I was hoping to get a really crisp, clear shot, which I think would have made up for the boring lighting a bit. But I don’t think I really have the gear or the location for it.