the moon today

superflyninja

looks massive. anybody got any info? and will it last until tonight?

TPD

As far as I know, it's a Harvest Moon and should last tonight. Might be a bit red if you're in a city/near light pollution. First full moon after the autumn solstice looks closer than any other time of the year or something.

DaireQuinlan

superflyninja wrote: »

looks massive. anybody got any info? and will it last until tonight?

Optical illusion :mad:
Take a picture and it'll still be as disappointingly tiny as ever.

TPD

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Optical illusion :mad:
Take a picture and it'll still be as disappointingly tiny as ever.

I was wondering about that. A nifty fifty is meant to be pretty close to what the human eye sees isn't it? Surely that could capture the larger appearance of the moon.

DaireQuinlan

The Perfect Drug wrote: »

I was wondering about that. A nifty fifty is meant to be pretty close to what the human eye sees isn't it? Surely that could capture the larger appearance of the moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion

"An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality. "

dudara

I was out for a walk last night and thought that the moon looked amazing. I might try to take some photos tonight,

Micilin Muc

Here's a picture I got in Belfast on Saturday night:

NORTH1

I was driving through Ballymun by Ikea this morning and the moon looked fabulous sitting over the store's roof, I had the camera in the car but wasn't in a position to stop in traffic and take a shot.

I've been fustrated all morning now because its going through my head I should have stopped!!

aidan18

Now I know why my moon shots are never any good thanks Daire

superflyninja

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Optical illusion :mad:
Take a picture and it'll still be as disappointingly tiny as ever.

bugger!!!!! :9 it looked incredible today in the bus to city west.(near the red cow)

LightningBolt

I came in from work at 4am on Saturday morning and it was fantastic. The sky was a bluey white and there was a massive orange ring dwarfing the moon itself. A load of silky, puffy clouds ran through the moon occasionally. Raging I couldn't get a decent shot:(

smelltheglove

Oh I hope someone got a pic of tonights moon, it looked fab, but rushing around so much couldnt get to photograph it.

Lady_North

I tried on Saturday to get pics but no success. It just looked too bright and blown out. No detail visible. (Canon 50D) I think maybe a filter of some kind might have helped. Any suggestions on that one? Thanks in advance.

DaireQuinlan

Lady_North wrote: »

I tried on Saturday to get pics but no success. It just looked too bright and blown out. No detail visible. (Canon 50D) I think maybe a filter of some kind might have helped. Any suggestions on that one? Thanks in advance.

No filter needed, you just didn't expose correctly. The moon is a wee little dot in an otherwise black sky, so the cameras meter gets confused. Either switch your metering to spot metering (if your camera can do that) and meter directly off the moon or switch to manual. A good starting exposure at 100 asa should be 1/100 and F/11 or F/8. Start from their, check the resulting pic and adjust as needed.

AnimalRights

Here Daire, I took this shot of the Moon earlier when there were clouds going by, admittedly they were very small thin clouds but none of them showed up in my final pictures!!




ISO 400 - Spot Metering - f5.6 - 1/1250 shutter speed

Zillah

AnimalRights wrote: »

Here Daire, I took this shot of the Moon earlier when there were clouds going by, admittedly they were very small thin clouds but none of them showed up in my final pictures!!

One of the frustrating things about photography is that the human brain/eyes are incredibly sophisticated. We basically run a HDR conversion program in our head all the time, hence we see both the moon and its halo, but shooting it with a camera requires different meterings.

The obvious conclusion is that someone should do a HDR of the moon and its clouds. Gotta be quick though, that little bugger with drift quickly

AnimalRights

Er these were actually clouds going by...hehe

I took this shot from my balcony, neighbours walking by included, was tempted to shoot the Ilac centre as well but.....

Thirdfox

Here's my take on the moon from tonight :P

(It's behind the campanile )

Ruu_Old

Tonights moon, 96% full.

Dodgykeeper

Looks a bit Geoid Ruu (I know it is but it looks too geoid) also its a tad soft, have a look at Animal Rights previous pic, thats what you should be looking for!

AnimalRights

I used a 100-400L IS /Tripod/ wired shutter release and the settings I mentioned earlier Ruu if thats any help.
Also why are our Moon's diff colours?

DaireQuinlan

Thirdfox wrote: »

Here's my take on the moon from tonight :P

(It's behind the campanile )

Thirdfox wins the thread for ...

1. Having a perfectly valid moon shot that doesn't actually contain the actual moon ...

2. Using the word 'campanile'

Morrisseeee

Yes the moon is small, but perfect for my 'little' composition:



/I used a filter for the top left so that the moon didn't overexpose toooo much :eek:

Ruu_Old

AnimalRights wrote: »

I used a 100-400L IS /Tripod/ wired shutter release and the settings I mentioned earlier Ruu if thats any help.
Also why are our Moon's diff colours?

Dunno, it was a tad cloudy at times. I used ISO 400 - Spot Metering - f8 - 1/399 shutter speed. I didn't change anything about light settings.

More moon pictures here. Link, for anyone interested.

gipo2

The difference between them is probably white balance?

SkepticOne

Hand-held attempt. 500mm, f8, 1/320 sec, ISO 100

AnimalRights

Great steady hands you have, do you trapeze walk too?

gary82

Got a shot of the moon last night as well...



Handheld as I've lost the head of my tripod!

Nikon D60, Sigma 70-300 APO
300mm | f/5.6 | 1/400sec | iso

You've nice detail in your shot AnimalRights... I think I might try a faster shutter speed tonight if the sky allows.

Zillah

SkepticOne wrote: »

Hand-held attempt. 500mm

Seriously? Impressive.

SkepticOne

Zillah wrote: »

Seriously? Impressive.

Image stabilisation helps greatly.

superflyninja

wow those are impressive handheld shots!!!

JohnK

Some great shots there, mine was a bit crap
I've a feeling the lens is just a waste since I've never been happy with the sharpness from it.

DaireQuinlan

JohnK wrote: »

Some great shots there, mine was a bit crap
I've a feeling the lens is just a waste since I've never been happy with the sharpness from it.

Might have more to do with your technique than the lens. Did you handhold that shot ? Shutter speed was 1/200. I have fairly steady hands, but there's no way I'd try and handhold a shot at 300mm at a speed of 1/200 and expect a sharp image. Up the speed somehow or use a tripod. OTOH if you ARE using a tripod and mirror lockup for that shot then yeah, it looks fairly soft.

gary82

JohnK wrote: »

Some great shots there, mine was a bit crap
I've a feeling the lens is just a waste since I've never been happy with the sharpness from it.

What lens you using? You're only at ISO100 in that shot - if you pump up the iso a bit you'll be able to use a faster shutter speed, then cutting down on loss of sharpness due to camera shake..

JohnK

Thanks for the suggestions. The lens is a Tamron 28-300 XR DI LD (whatever the hell that means!) and I was using it on a tripod but I suppose there might have been a bit of shake when I pressed the button. If its clear again tonight I'll bump up the ISO and see if that makes much of a difference.

DaireQuinlan

JohnK wrote: »

Thanks for the suggestions. The lens is a Tamron 28-300 XR DI LD (whatever the hell that means!) and I was using it on a tripod but I suppose there might have been a bit of shake when I pressed the button. If its clear again tonight I'll bump up the ISO and see if that makes much of a difference.

Oh right, I gotta say, for something like a 3rd party 28->300 all bets are off. It IS probably the lens in that case There's a reason there isn't any comparable own brand Canon or Nikon equivalent ...

gary82

JohnK wrote: »

Thanks for the suggestions. The lens is a Tamron 28-300 XR DI LD (whatever the hell that means!) and I was using it on a tripod but I suppose there might have been a bit of shake when I pressed the button. If its clear again tonight I'll bump up the ISO and see if that makes much of a difference.

Use the self-timer on the camera!

JohnK

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Oh right, I gotta say, for something like a 3rd party 28->300 all bets are off. It IS probably the lens in that case There's a reason there isn't any comparable own brand Canon or Nikon equivalent ...

Guess theres a reason it was so cheap

gary82 wrote: »

Use the self-timer on the camera!

I'll give that a go too, might actually do something for me

smash

Considering NASA are planning on blowing a 3mile whole in the moon tomorrow do you think we'll be able to get a good shot?

thecommander

steve06 wrote: »

Considering NASA are planning on blowing a 3mile whole in the moon tomorrow do you think we'll be able to get a good shot?

Be daytime here I think.

smash

thecommander wrote: »

Be daytime here I think.

ah crap!

Well take a pic tonight, because tomorrow night there'll be an extra hole in it!

m_s_nixon

the moon was visible at 11am this morning (and probably later than this), i believe the explosion will be around 12.30 irish time so it might be possible to get a snap of it, clouds and rain due tomorrow though

SkepticOne

JohnK wrote: »

Some great shots there, mine was a bit crap
I've a feeling the lens is just a waste since I've never been happy with the sharpness from it.

I think this one could be improved by adjusting the levels. The moon is really just various shades of grey and you need to process the image to bring out the differences. Then after you have reduced the size, sharpen the image to bring out features like craters.

NORTH1

Moon photography sure shows up how dirty your glass is!!



Taken this morning

Canon 450d Tamron 70-300@300mm Tripod and timer

TelePaul

Tonights effort. Visibility wasn't perfect but this is my first shot of the moon. I think with a bit more reach it could be a pretty cool genre to get into.

.Longshanks.

This was my 55-250mm lens on my crop senor maxed out from about 10 mins ago

AnimalRights

Thats the type of clouds/Moonshot I want to get...my clouds were faint and somehow disapeared!

Zillah

steve06 wrote: »

Considering NASA are planning on blowing a 3mile whole in the moon tomorrow do you think we'll be able to get a good shot?

It's 14 metres not 3 miles

Zillah

Longshanks100 wrote: »

This was my 55-250mm lens on my crop senor maxed out from about 10 mins ago

Is that just a straight shot, you didn't do HDR or did some PS work to bring out the clouds?

NORTH1

It looks like its been rotated 90 degrees?

.Longshanks.

Zillah wrote: »

Is that just a straight shot, you didn't do HDR or did some PS work to bring out the clouds?

Levels & sharened and a reduced opacity high pass filter after i processed the raw file. The moon was just about to disappear behind the clouds

NORTH1 wrote: »

It looks like its been rotated 90 degrees?

Afraid not, although my camera may not have been 100% level on the tripod - it wasn't too fAr off of it! I didn't see need to try & correct as there are no horizontal references in the frame