Moon Critique

[Hockey-whino]

I decided to try a moon shot. This is the first time and I can't decide if its is properly exposed or not. Could it be better? the only processing was cropping.



Exif Data: ISO 200, f7.1, 1/500 ,70-300mm

[natek313]

If you want more people to critique it, you may want to post this in the Critique Forum.

Anyway, the first thing I noticed was that the picture looks a bit soft. I can certainly see some details, but they look slightly out of focus. Did you use manual or automatic focus? It could just be my eyes, though.

Also, the white balance looks off. The color of the moon looks a little on the cold side. I'm not sure if that's how it really looked the night you took it, but all the times I've seen it, it had a cream/yellow tone to it.

But, with respect to your question, the exposure looks good.

Hope this helps.

[Hockey-whino]

Originally Posted by natek313

If you want more people to critique it, you may want to post this in the Critique Forum.

Anyway, the first thing I noticed was that the picture looks a bit soft. I can certainly see some details, but they look slightly out of focus. Did you use manual or automatic focus? It could just be my eyes, though.

Also, the white balance looks off. The color of the moon looks a little on the cold side. I'm not sure if that's how it really looked the night you took it, but all the times I've seen it, it had a cream/yellow tone to it.

But, with respect to your question, the exposure looks good.

Hope this helps.

Thanks I feel stupid, I thought I posted in the critique section. My mistake. Thanks for the critique... The moon actually had a bluish cast to it that evening. As to the focus... now that you say it, it does seem a little soft. I'll have to revisit the moon idea and shoot again and try to get more focus.

HW

[natek313]

No need to feel stupid. It was an honest mistake.

I wish I had the opportunity to capture the moon when it had that color. I've never seen it like that. I took a picture of the moon last weekend, though. I added some stars to it in post processing. It's over in the Critique Forum; the thread is named "Moon and Stars." Feel free to check it out.

[ckodonne]

Wow what a great shot; love the colour.

I'm guessing you were at 300mm when you took this. 1/500 is sort of the borderline shutter speed for getting sharp photos at that focal length. The longer the length, the faster your shutter speed needs to be to avoid camera shake, etc. I forget the exact ratio of shutter speed to focal length, but I have a 300mm prime and always notice a reduction in sharpness under 1/500.

If you're taking a moon shot with nothing in the foreground, I would open up your aperture as far as it will go. That will bump up the shutter speed without affecting the ISO, etc.

Also, I took a similar shot like this and adjusted the sharpness in photoshop and made a HUGE difference...really brought out the craters and such.

[A.CSIKY]

Originally Posted by ckodonne

Wow what a great shot; love the colour.

I'm guessing you were at 300mm when you took this. 1/500 is sort of the borderline shutter speed for getting sharp photos at that focal length. The longer the length, the faster your shutter speed needs to be to avoid camera shake, etc. I forget the exact ratio of shutter speed to focal length, but I have a 300mm prime and always notice a reduction in sharpness under 1/500.

If you're taking a moon shot with nothing in the foreground, I would open up your aperture as far as it will go. That will bump up the shutter speed without affecting the ISO, etc.

Also, I took a similar shot like this and adjusted the sharpness in photoshop and made a HUGE difference...really brought out the craters and such.

Congratulations on the "once in a blue moon" image. The old mechanical shutter guideline for shutter speeds with long lenses was 1 over focal length, e.g. for a 500 mm lens 1/500 would be the slowest recommended shutter speed. Of course shutter speeds don't corelate exactly with lens focal lengths, but you get the idea -- 1/250 would probably be fine with a 300 mm lens.

[ckodonne]

Originally Posted by A.CSIKY

Congratulations on the "once in a blue moon" image. The old mechanical shutter guideline for shutter speeds with long lenses was 1 over focal length, e.g. for a 500 mm lens 1/500 would be the slowest recommended shutter speed. Of course shutter speeds don't corelate exactly with lens focal lengths, but you get the idea -- 1/250 would probably be fine with a 300 mm lens.

Thanks for the formula; I forgot how people came to it but I didn't remember it was that simple, haha.

[sfisher]

Originally Posted by A.CSIKY

Congratulations on the "once in a blue moon" image. The old mechanical shutter guideline for shutter speeds with long lenses was 1 over focal length, e.g. for a 500 mm lens 1/500 would be the slowest recommended shutter speed. Of course shutter speeds don't corelate exactly with lens focal lengths, but you get the idea -- 1/250 would probably be fine with a 300 mm lens.

You're forgetting to add in the sensor size factor. The 1/focal length guide applies to film photography, so the focal length used should be the 35mm effective focal length. On an XT, the 300mm lens will have the same FoV as a 480mm lens on a 35mm camera, so the 1/focal length guide indicates a minimum shutter speed of 1/500 sec.

Quite interesting that ckodonne reports the same minimum shutter speed for his 300mm lens!

[ckodonne]

Originally Posted by sfisher

You're forgetting to add in the sensor size factor. The 1/focal length guide applies to film photography, so the focal length used should be the 35mm effective focal length. On an XT, the 300mm lens will have the same FoV as a 480mm lens on a 35mm camera, so the 1/focal length guide indicates a minimum shutter speed of 1/500 sec.

Quite interesting that ckodonne reports the same minimum shutter speed for his 300mm lens!

Thanks for that bit of input; I knew from my own experience with the 300mm that anything under 1/500 produced some noticeable motion blur...I always shoot 1/750+ to play it safe if I can...though that may be unnecessary now. I used to shoot on the Canon 30D which has a 1.6 crop sensor, but now I have a full-frame sensor. Good to know that I can get a little more versatility out of my 300mm now.