Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · Moonlight madness

  
 
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Moonlight madness


I have wanted to try this shot for a long time. This is a waterfall about 15 miles from my house and it is a nice falls but because it is recessed in a canyon, it never gets full sun. I wanted to try it with a full moon. So I got up this morning at 3:00AM when the moon had the best chance of penetrating this canyon. As you will see, it does not. Note the brightness on the left side of the wide view to see where the moonlight actually fell.

Here are two shots, they are not worth much because I really had to push the ISO. I did not worry about stars here because a full moon washes out the black sky anyway.

I focused at infinity using the moon as a target. I then sat my speed and aperture and adjusted ISO until I got a usable exposure. I should have gone even higher. The LCD fools you.

Composition is nearly impossible as you can just barely see anything in the view finder, so you take one, look at it and move stuff a bit until you get one you like.

I did not spend a lot of time with processing. I am showing these as curiosities. I think we are 10 years away from cameras with the light gathering ability to do this sort of shot.

But any suggestions are most welcome.




wide view






narrow vertical




Aug 10, 2014 at 09:45 AM
FarmerJohn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Moonlight madness


Hey Ben, That looks like a really cool place. Any chance the moon would illuminate it at a different time of year?

The first one looks really too bright to me for a nighttime image. I like my nighttime images looking properly dark. Do you have any wide-vertical images? I think that would look really good with the waterfall and stars above.



Aug 10, 2014 at 01:17 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Moonlight madness


FarmerJohn wrote:
Hey Ben, That looks like a really cool place. Any chance the moon would illuminate it at a different time of year?

The first one looks really too bright to me for a nighttime image. I like my nighttime images looking properly dark. Do you have any wide-vertical images? I think that would look really good with the waterfall and stars above.


I took some exposed for the sky for blends, the land portion is too dark to be usable. Wide verticals are difficult because there is a road at the bottom. I am already tilting pretty far upward at 70mm it would be pretty weird.

I have learned from many such images that if you want stars, go on a dark night and forego terrestrial stuff.

The whole reason to do full moon shoots is to use the bright moon light the same as sunlight.You can see shadows and color in such light. But it really kills the sky. I have some where I was able to work down as low as ISO800 when the moon was directly at my back.




Aug 10, 2014 at 01:33 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Moonlight madness


This is not a good image, but it does provide an example of a type of image that would be interesting when the technology advances sufficiently, primarily in DR and noise.

If you just want an image of a dark sky, leave the lens cap on :-) Dark images seem pointless to me.

I think this is the whole point of night photography, to use the long exposure option to collect light that the eye does not see. It will then be much brighter because that is the objective.

A full moon directly at your back will make the landscape bright enough to photograph at settings that are fairly low in noise. But the sky will be light blue and only the brightest stars will show.

There are several low cost tracking devices around these days so that you can get shots that look like they were taken at an observatory. But this is not what the eye sees if you want dark sky’s. And of course you will need a separate untracked shot for the land portion.

If the sky is dark enough for a good milky way, the land will require some artificial lighting. I dislike light painting, and prefer either moonlight or twilight for my light source. In both cases you need to set up the shot for the dark session and then wait for light, or reverse the order. I have not worked out the logistics yet.

But no matter, I don’t own a tracking device and that means a Milky Way shot will need to be ISO3200m 30 seconds f2.8 at 17mm or wider to avoid tracks and get enough light. But the noise will ruin the shot. The ones you see on the web mask the noise with the small size of the image.

I had hoped to get some alternative ideas on the subject. Any takers? I have many examples or night images.


















Aug 11, 2014 at 10:09 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Moonlight madness


Strategically, the logistics of such can aided by the astronomical chart/data to glean varying lighting conditions.
Here's a thread that contains a handy link.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1310200/0#lastmessage

http://www.suncalc.net/#/25.7891,-80.204,12/2014.08.04/06:16
(refresh using now button on page)

Your point @ different shooting time/lighting for foreground vs. sky is pertinent. Dark sky vs. astronomical twilight vs. nautical twilight vs. civil twilight can be some key time frames to be aware of.

As to the lighting though, terrestrial ambient light without direct sunlight will always be softer diffuse light. Moonlight is identical to using a reflector as it will be a reflected diffuse light by comparison with the direct sunlight being reflected off the moon.

Sans the moon for reflecting the sunlight, (and penetrating the atmosphere at an angle of refraction that retains the greater specularity), then the remnant of lighting received by terrestrial subjects will be that which is refracted by the atmosphere at angles similar to that which produce our daylight cyanic sky (albeit a lesser amount and diff angle of refraction). In short, it is going to be soft & blue as you are taking a picture of the light refracting through the atmosphere, which is different from the non-refracting, non-reflecting light, non-generating/emitting light in "dark" space.

Terrestrial subjects are illuminated by the sun. The path of that light is refracted by our atmosphere iaw with AI=AR and the subsequent color and corresponding angles of AI=AR at the subject will have a degree of contrast @ specular/diffuse accordingly. An angle of refraction @ 0, 45, 90, 135 or 180 degrees will have different amount of contrast as a result of the AI=AR family of angles involved as the light feathers/fans out. Shooting with the sun on the "other side" of the earth means that the angle of refraction will always be somewhere between 90 & 180 ... i.e very soft @ the vector force.

Expecting anything less than "soft light" when shooting @ max dark defies physics. Granted, the volume of light can be offset by the addition of more time, but the quality of the light will remain diffuse vs. specular. A desire for more specular light will require a shooting time with a different angle of refraction through the atmosphere (reflected moonlight or sans moon).



Aug 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Moonlight madness


Hi Kent, that second is a neat program. I have been using TPE but it only shows direction of setting and rising for the moon and sun with no intermediate positions.

I have used dark frames, stacked via RegiStax etc. to reduce noise. If I were to really get into this I would skip that and just get a tracker and problem solved. Long exposures at much lower iso.

But I am not sure I want to do Milky Way shots alone. I want something like my mesa arch shot. That was taken with a full moon at my back and as you see, a decent iso and even fairly stopped down. Thats a printable image. So is the Monument Valley shot. Yet even those two shots are too dark for my taste when printed.

But thanks again for the link, I have it bookmarked now.






Aug 11, 2014 at 10:41 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Moonlight madness


Diggin' the arches shot ... do tell more about it.


Aug 11, 2014 at 10:42 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Moonlight madness


Hi Kent:

I planed an entire vacation around moonlit shots. I started in Moab and drove out very early, the time stamp here is 5:38, and this is Mar. I had to leave Moab an hour earlier. I had maybe 1/2 hour before the light painter guys started showing up.

Normally you need to get close to the arch to keep other photographers out of your frame, but at this hour I could back up and had many more compositional options. But I had to watch for shadows. Even earlier with the moon higher would have been better. But as you see, I have good dof, a low ISO, and a decently dark sky. Thats because of low light pollution.

Of course I stayed for sunrise and got my starburst shot that I have shown here before. It is one of my top three images.

My next stop was Monument valley where you can take pictures from your room balcony. I also went out the next morning and got some moonlit shots in the back area, but nothing really worked.

My last place this trip was Zion and the light angle was not good there. I have taken night shots in Zion on several occasions however, it is my favorite nearby park.



Aug 11, 2014 at 10:57 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Moonlight madness


By the way, I would be pleased with the second shot (vertical) of the waterfalls had it had less noise. As it is, NR killed the detail. I should have framed for no sky at all, opened up to perhaps f3.2. and shoot a full minute exposure. I may try that someday. The composition would probably be 100mm, and this is an always windy place so one minute would be a challenge.



Aug 11, 2014 at 11:03 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Moonlight madness


ben egbert wrote:
nearby park.

Drool ...

+1 @ second image (WF)



Aug 11, 2014 at 11:04 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Moonlight madness


RustyBug wrote:
Drool ...

+1 @ second image (WF)


Well nearby is relative, 276 miles. But close enough for a two night trip.

On that second image, it is tough in daylight because some areas are well lit while the main notch in the cliff where the falls descend is always in shadow. Also people are always climbing around so its tough to get people free shots. This is only 10 miles or so from the BYU campus.

The ideal is to get flat light of some sort, maybe just a very overcast day. It also has a pretty decent show of fall color, those are scrub oak along side. But alas, they tend to turn color at different times as you go from top to bottom and scrub oak is ugly shortly after the red phase.



Aug 11, 2014 at 11:22 AM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.