I never come in here, because I know nothing about photography. But I love trying!

Anyway, moon was stunning down here last night and would be cool to get some shots of the estate for the website. The moon was hovering over the bay and to the naked eye it was breathtakingly beautiful. Of course, I couldn't get anywhere with my camera. I went with the Canon Powershot that you lovely people recommended me ages ago. The 480 I think. Set it on night mode and went for exposure lengths of between 4 and 6 seconds mostly. However, photos were crap. Any tips please?

Okay, but how were they crap? Too noisy, too dark, camera movement …

Mark

I think the exposures were too long. The full moon can be amazingly bright, so exposing for the surroundings will overexpose it.

This sounds like a job for a multiple exposure. Take a shot with the moon properly exposed and another for the general scene, then a bit of post-processing jiggerypokery.

Heather, you're right. The moon was bright. I've clearly no clue.

Here's probably the clearest one (be nice):



That was just balanced on the steps of the manor house, no tripod.

Okay cool, so what end result were you looking for?
Did you want to pick out details on the Moon's face? I see you've got some nice cloud movement. (8+)
Is that image 100%? Have you tried reducing the exposure level in software and seeing how much detail you can recover from the bright glowy object in the sky?

Mark

I've got Irfanview and that's it! No CS3 here I'm afraid. That's 25% with a sharpen on resize. I'm not sure I can describe what I was after. The shot is taken from the steps of the manor house looking out to sea. A bit more detail in the moon would be cool. But I also wanted to capture the way the moon lit the ocean and silhouetted the trees. Seems I did ok with the clouds! I absolutely love the clear sky down here, the lack of light pollution is amazing, but trying to convey the fullness of that in a photo might be asking too much....

It's a really good shot to be truthful - the triple halo around the moon is particularly nice. Would have been a good contender for the "Light" photo compy.

If you then take a photo on a shorter exposure you could cut and paste the lunar disc onto the above photo and it would look amazing.

It would be asking rather a lot to do it with a single exposure though - even your eyes can't do that. The dynamic range is colossal.

The image conveys that to me.
You have to remember that a camera lens is not like the human eye, which is capable of pulling details out of views that a camera lens simply fails at.
For what you say you wanted out of the image the only part you fall on is the detail in the moon.
As for software, I don't use CS3 either but I do use Lightroom, which has a full feature 30 day trial.
Out of interest, did you shoot RAW or jpg?

Mark

Well thanks guys. It's just that I think maybe a longer exposure would give greater detail, except for the fact that the moon is so bloody bright. I know it's a ridiculous comparison between the eye and the camera, but my main reason for ever taking a photo is to share it with others. If I can't show them what I saw, I'm often disappointed. The desert and mountains of the mid-west US is a classic example.

So essentially the verdict is, that can't be done with a single shot and no post-pro?

I shot in 10meg jpg btw.

Filters over the lens will dull down the immediate glow of the moon whilst retaining it's effect on the landscape below.
Don't ask me what filters though as I don't know because I don't own any.

Mark

Hmmm..... I see what happens with the cloud cover tonight. It's gorgeous blue sky here right now. Maybe I'll try a different approach.

Is this the wrong place to ask for an explanation about f stops and white balance and all the other crap I can change apart from exposure length?

I don't think so.

Ask away, but bear in mind it depends on your camera model and what control you have.

Heather, I literally have zero idea about anything. All I know is that longer times let more light in. Could you possibly run over the basic settings and how they might relate to me composing shots?
The camera is a Canon Powershot A480. I think I can change most things if I choose to, but most of the time I just pick a mode or use auto. Could adjusting any other settings have helped in this case?

Okay, here's a list to kick you off.

Keep the camera steady. A tripod would be best, but you placed it on some steps which is quite adequate. Use the timer release to fire the shutter so you don't accidentally jog it firing it manually.

I found a link to a forum post where somebody explained how he photographed the moon. He was using a DSLR, but the settings may help you a little.

http://digital-photography-school.com/f ... -moon.html

The problem is you want to keep a lot of the surrounding landscape as well as the moon's face exposed correctly.

Because the moon is so bright, especially when full like it is at the moment, you need to consider stopping down or using a faster shutter speed. From my experience, I made the same error you did, assuming the moon needed a long exposure. In fact, I had to stop quite a way down in order to avoid it being blown away. ƒ/11 at 1/40th second worked for me on my DSLR.

It may help to set the camera on manual mode, if you can. If not, then set it so you set the aperture and the camera works out how long it needs to open the shutter. On a compact, you will have limitations on the aperture settings, possibly up to a maximum of ƒ/8. Strangely, this sort of equates to about ƒ/32 on a larger sensor, so you should be able to get away with around ƒ/4 or 5.6.

As digits are cheap, you can experiment with different combinations of shutter speed and aperture. Try a few, then review them to see if you're holding detail where you want it, and whether the moon is totally blown away or not.

I'm not sure what software you use, but as Mark said you can download a trial of Lightroom and have a play to see what you can do with retrieving stuff from underexposed areas. I have a gut feeling that provided the moon isn't blown away totally you may be able to pull down the highlights to reveal a little detail in it without adding noise to the landscape.

And, as suggested, consider two different exposures - one for the moon, one for the landscape - and combine them later in software.

The important thing to remember is that while you may not feel confident about the mechanics of taking a photo under such circumstances, it costs nothing these days to play around with settings to see what works best. There will be a level of compromise required between the overly bright moon and the dark landscape, but you should try to have fun experimenting and learning while you're at it.

Hope that helps.

That's great Heather thanks. However, it don't even know what this F business means. Could you please enlighten me? I literally have no idea about anything.