DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Large moon shots
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 35, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/19/2007 04:53:18 PM · #1
This was my entry in "time:"



Yes, I know it was a stretch for the challenge topic, but that's not my point. One of my commenters commented on the fact that he'd never seen the moon so big compared to the surroundings. In fact, this is exactly what makes me lust after shots like this: photographically creating the illusion of an oversized celestial body using distance and magnification. See the rest of my gallery of attempts here.

I got a validation request on the first day of voting, and my original was validated within 24 hours, but I still think some people look at big moon shots like this and think they must be faked. It can be done, but only if you manage to put yourself where the moon is rising by some interesting foreground objects, and then shoot with a very long lens to magnify both the foreground buildings and the moon. Here is my shooting location, shot with my Tam 28-75 at 28mm:



This is very true to the "naked eye" experience of standing at this location and looking out over the lake. You can see what using a 400mm lens will do to a shot like this.

Here's an out-take from a bit earlier in the sequence (a tighter crop as well):



And here's a GIF animation of the whole 14 minute sequence that it took for the moon to climb out of frame (big file warning!):



Finally, a pic of the setting sun, shot from a different location, but again, using extreme magnification to create a photographic illusion of extreme size for the sun:



BTW, calculating just when the sun or moon will rise or set near a specific landmark is an interesting exercise. The moon is much harder than the sun, because the moon's rising/setting point changes dramatically night by night. I use both maps and computer software to help predict occasions when interesting sun/moon rise/set occurrences are going to happen, then hope the weather cooperates.
 03/19/2007 05:00:12 PM · #2
That's very impressive stuff! I admit I was one of the skeptics when I saw your most recent entry. Your examples are really, really nice.

I had done a similar sort of shot with Pittsburgh, but I cheated by using two exposures, and purposely exaggerating the moon:



Message edited by author 2007-03-19 17:00:26.
 03/19/2007 05:21:20 PM · #3


:D

03/19/2007 05:22:09 PM · #4
Awesome post. I've always wondered how this all happens. I'll have to give it a try some day when I can get a longer lens. I don't think 200mm would cut it.
 03/19/2007 05:23:34 PM · #5

Guess it really doesn't give the scope of the size, but still.
 03/19/2007 05:27:45 PM · #6
a grainy 2000+- mm of the Nov. 8,2005 eclipes at sunset. Coolpix 990 through 80mm 20-60x spotting scope (at 20X)
 03/19/2007 05:29:29 PM · #7
Originally posted by traquino98:
Awesome post. I've always wondered how this all happens. I'll have to give it a try some day when I can get a longer lens. I don't think 200mm would cut it.

You'd be surprised. This was shot with my 70-200mm at 200. It's a slight crop, but you can get some very respectable results with 200mm.

03/19/2007 06:10:34 PM · #8
Using a 70-300 IS USM @ 300mm. I was surprised with the results

03/19/2007 06:49:32 PM · #9
your shooting location looks like a nice choice... a fixed version of the photo i used for the postcard challenge.


03/19/2007 06:59:44 PM · #10
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
your shooting location looks like a nice choice... a fixed version of the photo i used for the postcard challenge.

Bugz, where were you standing for that shot? Looks like a view from the south, but I can't place where. Great shot and edit, BTW.
 03/19/2007 07:06:31 PM · #11
I was about 25 yards to the left of the dock. Wanted to go out there but way too many people fishing. Kept imagining my camera getting hooked by a cast and ending up in the lake. Amazing how close the colors of the sky are in both photos... I have a bunch from this night, some are almost identical to yours.
03/19/2007 07:09:42 PM · #12
aha! so THAT'S how it's done.

For those interested, here's a page about the moon ilussion- //www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/3d/moonillu.htm
 03/19/2007 09:20:26 PM · #13
LARGE MOON SHOTS!!!!

I'm outraged that you immoral people would suggest that we moon our own cameras and take pictures of our excessively large posteriors to post on DPC. What kind of place is this? What example do you think you are setting for our youth?

Have you no shame!?

Oh... wait... Ahhhhh, I see... you mean earth's natural orbiting satellite. I get it now.

Just wished you made it clearer before I filled up half a memory card.

You mean something like this:



Message edited by author 2007-03-19 21:21:01.
 03/19/2007 09:24:08 PM · #14
Just for you Steve:

03/19/2007 09:51:46 PM · #15
Apr 2nd is the next full moon right ?
 03/19/2007 09:58:45 PM · #16

Forgot about this one.
 03/19/2007 10:42:34 PM · #17
Ah! Thanks so much for confirming a theory I had. Turns out you did exactly what I guessed would work.

Next question: how did you expose for both the moon and the building at the same time? In fact, it looks like your building's a little overexposed. I find that the moon is extremely bright compared to lit buildings.

Meanwhile, here's my composite. The moon was in that spot, but I took two shots a minute or so apart to expose it correctly and zoom in for a bigger moon.

03/19/2007 11:40:23 PM · #18
Originally posted by strangeghost:
BTW, calculating just when the sun or moon will rise or set near a specific landmark is an interesting exercise. The moon is much harder than the sun, because the moon's rising/setting point changes dramatically night by night. I use both maps and computer software to help predict occasions when interesting sun/moon rise/set occurrences are going to happen, then hope the weather cooperates.

Moon and Sun data calculator at least helps you narrow down the time.

In general, in the Northern Hemisphere, the moon rises/sets farther to the North in the Winter, opposite of what the Sun does.

03/20/2007 08:23:20 AM · #19
Very cool large moon shot.. It's today's Astronomy Picture of the Day.
 03/20/2007 09:19:10 AM · #20
Very nice shots John, as usual. Up until a few years ago I always thought, as do a lot of people, that the Moon was bigger on the horizon due to some "horizon magnification." I was wrong of course, and I thought this is the perfect thread for other similar-minded people who don't know about the Moon Illusion. It's actually slightly smaller when it's on the horizon due to being a little farther away (by about the radius of the Earth). Kind of interesting.
 03/20/2007 10:30:40 AM · #21

03/20/2007 11:30:35 AM · #22
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
Very nice shots John, as usual. Up until a few years ago I always thought, as do a lot of people, that the Moon was bigger on the horizon due to some "horizon magnification." I was wrong of course, and I thought this is the perfect thread for other similar-minded people who don't know about the Moon Illusion. It's actually slightly smaller when it's on the horizon due to being a little farther away (by about the radius of the Earth). Kind of interesting.

A few years ago, I actually had a conversation with a guy who was a relative newbie to amateur astronomy, but had some experience (and equipment) in photography. He wanted to photography the moon in detail, but only had a 100mm lens (or something in that range). I told him how big the moon would appear on his negatives at that focal length, and that he would be pretty disappointed in the results. He said his plan was to photograph the moon when it was very near to the horizon, when it's bigger. In the moment, I elected not to go into the moon illusion with him, figuring that his own methods would be a much better teacher than I could ever be.
 03/20/2007 11:36:00 AM · #23
Strangeghost, can you help me with my exposure question?

How did you expose for both the moon and the building at the same time? I find that the moon is extremely bright compared to lit buildings. Is there any trick I'm missing, like a neutral density filter for the sky?
 03/20/2007 11:49:12 AM · #24
Originally posted by strangeghost:
In the moment, I elected not to go into the moon illusion with him, figuring that his own methods would be a much better teacher than I could ever be.


That's too funny! I can almost hear the confused "Huh?" sound when he received his prints.
 03/20/2007 11:49:42 AM · #25
Originally posted by levyj413:
Strangeghost, can you help me with my exposure question?

How did you expose for both the moon and the building at the same time? I find that the moon is extremely bright compared to lit buildings. Is there any trick I'm missing, like a neutral density filter for the sky?

Sorry Jeffrey, I completely overlooked your question!

There's no escaping the brightness of the moon. It will almost always overwhelm any city lights or foreground objects. I've never used any graduated filters, though this would certainly be worth exploring. Here's what I've done:

1) Use the atmosphere to filter the moon's brightness. My moonrise shots, by definition, are catching the moon when it's very low, and still sometimes partially obscured by the atmospheric muck right at the horizon. See for instance, the first few frames of this GIF, you can see the moon emerging from the muck and getting brighter as it rises:



2) Shoot a day or so before full, when the waxing moon is rising during twilight, or even before sunset. This leaves the sky significantly illuminated, making it possible to get a better balance of light without totally blowing out the moon:



3) Always shoot in RAW - much more control over dynamic range in post processing. I always process the RAW image into two exposures, one set for the city lights, the other adjusted for the moon, and then combine into a single PSD file and mask as needed.

4) As a last resort, I have "cheated" a few times and used two separate exposures, and combined. The image above in #2 was created from a single exposure using RAW adjustments as described in #3. This image was shot with two separate exposures. The moon had risen just a little higher, and was already too bright to capture correctly without terribly underexposing the city:



Message edited by author 2007-03-20 12:38:46.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 03:43:32 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 03:43:32 PM EDT.