Lunatic

On August 12th, in the post about the Fuji 100–400mm, I said I once wrote in a magazine article that "there is nothing far enough away to take pictures of with a 180mm—I said even the moon was too close, because the moon filled too much of the frame with the 180mm." So someone suggested that I should take a shot of the moon as one of my test shots with the 100–400mm.

Thursday the 15th was the full moon, so I figured I'd wait. But I'm getting wise to the ways of the weather here—I went out the night before—the 14th—when the moon was visible, in case of clouds on the 15th. And sure enough, I never saw the moon on Thursday. Clouded over.

So here's the almost-full moon on Wednesday.

This is at 400mm (600mm-e), handheld.

The file retained detail in the moon and also in the sparse clouds in the sky, but of course the visual impression is of a brilliantly bright circle against a featureless black sky. The latter would not work in a pictorial representation, with its much lower range of luminances, so I tried to leave just a little cloud detail in the surrounding sky and a little detail on the surface of the moon. Are you seeing that? No idea if you're seeing it that way, because I don't know how your monitor is calibrated, but that's the choice I went with on my monitor.

Here's a detail ("detail" in art means a smaller segment of an image*) of the surface of the moon with the sliders set to show what the sensor recorded. This should be 100% on your monitor after you click on the image to open it.

That's probably not the best picture you ever saw of the surface of the moon, but once again, that's at 600mm-e, handheld.

I'll say again, I lived at just the right time to do what I do. I'm so grateful I started my career practicing basically a variation of 19th-century photography and ended up in the 21st. Because otherwise this might not amaze me so much. And I'm grateful to be amazed. Just blows me away, as we used to say back in the 20th.

Mike

*I've been making an effort to define terms and write out abbreviations occasionally for readers who might not be familiar with them. Don't forget only about 3–5% of readers ever comment. I want to remember as well those who might be quietly lurking.

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Amazon.com • Amazon UK • Amazon Canada
Amazon Germany • B&H Photo • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Comments

[Ronny Nilsen]

You really want to take a picture of the moon almost any other time than full moon. When the moon is full you have axial light and you get boring light. :-)

Try half moon or less, then you get shadow play at the edge of the moon where the sun is rising or setting. Much more interesting image IMHO.

[Bill Cowan]

Lunatics have always been a part of the photographic community.
If this is amazing, imagine a daguerreotype in 1851.
https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/the-moon-as-photographed-in-1851/

[Glenn Allenspach]

I was excited and certain I saw that little bit of cloud detail in the dark sky and then realized it was only thumb grease on the touch screen surface of my IPad.

Another reason to make prints.

[Jim Henry]

Mike, try this again when the moon is less than half full. You will see lots of craters, especially near the waxing edge, because the sun is just rising at that edge (the terminator) and the shadows make the craters easily and dramatically visible - and photograph-able.

No one likes to look at the moon (thru a telescope) when it is full. Just light and dark blotches, as you have shown. We can see a couple of large bright craters (e.g. Tycho at 7 o'clock) but it would be much better with side-light as well.

[Dori]

This is my best shot of the moon:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/liroi/5463395339/

Taken with a Canon 40D and 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L lens, at 400mm (600mm-e), f/8.0, 1/80s, ISO200, IS off but on a tripod, mirror lockup.

I rather like that it wasn't full as I'm getting better details of the craters.

Here's another Fuji X-H1 100-400mm moon shot that I found:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60997934?image=0

Pretty amazing what you can do handheld.

[Andreas Weber]

Wednesday, Panasonic G9 + Leica f:4.0-6.3 100-400 mm at 400 mm, handheld as well: It that isn't magic ...

[Andreas Weber]

But if the moon isn't far enough, how about this? June 16th, same Panasonic G9 + 400 mm lens combo: Jupiter at actual pixels size at the end of the arrow pointing to the speck that's left of it in the downsized full frame.

[Mike Potter]

So, what were the aperture/shutter speed/ISO settings for your moon photo? And, even though I'm a bit younger than you, I agree with your assessment - it's a good time to be a photographer.

[ƒ/5.6, 1/320th sec., ISO 800. --Mike]

[David Evans]

Andreas Weber, that's very nice. Better than I get with the same lens. Maybe the atmosphere is clearer where you are.

[hugh crawford]

Well the moon is in direct sunlight, so sunny sixteen right?

[Moose]

Welcome to the Longfellows Club!

"That's probably not the best picture you ever saw of the surface of the moon,"

Those who shoot celestial objects know post processing is required. This is one way your shot looks after some post.

". . . otherwise this might not amaze me so much. And I'm grateful to be amazed. Just blows me away, as we used to say back in the 20th."

OK, you are new to the long world, so being blown away makes sense. But it may also have temporarliy blinded you to the further possibilities.

I've illustrated one above. Another is to take two exposures, one for the moon, and one for the sky, then combine them. that's the easy way to balance exposures.

". . . but once again, that's at 600mm-e, handheld."

As a long time Longfellow, it's no surprise to me. I was looking for subjects lit by dusk light, when I looked up, saw the moon, and grabbed a shot. Oly E-M5 II, PLeica 100-400, 800mm-e, handheld.

At 100%

(Click on any of the above eensy images to see larger.)

[Dave Stewart]

After a wee check, I appear to have quite a few more Moon photos than I'd thought. Have taken to trying to catch it closer to the horizon, with some foreground interest, and whilst there's still some light in the sky. As in here, with part of the local large bridge, and a thin veil of cloud forming.

[ƒ/8, 1/60", 420mm (on APS-C), ISO400]

[Mark Kinsman]

SuperMoon from 2016;

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mbkinsman/22813047538/in/photolist-248hjEB-9rJJu3-9rJJu7-4QGt35-AKUQeQ-Kirs1B-K9cCjm-K8RRJh-K7gV9C-JHittw-p98NZE-pA7C5k-pxBBoC-pg8fDm-peiDsi-diD465-dgnXAx-67r89F

[c.d.embrey]

Is equivalency a quantifiable unchanging thing—or is it relative 8-)

A Fujinon 400mm T (Telephoto) f/8 EBC is (112-e) when mounted on My Toyo 4X5 (4X5 Crop Factor is 0.28x). While Mike's Fujinon 100-400mm zoom is (600-e), when mounted on his sub-miniature Fujifilm X-H1 (miniature is what they called Full Frame 35mm film cameras, when I was in my twenties).

So I'd really be a lunatic if I tried shooting the moon (card game reference) with my Fujinon 400mm T (112-e).

[DavidB]

As others have already noted, the full Moon may not be as interesting as a partial Moon. I've recently been shooting the 1- or 2-day old Moon when it is only 2-5% illuminated by the Sun; the remainder of the disk is softly lit by reflected Earthlight. With the right foreground these can be interesting photographs.

https://www.dblanchard.net/blog/2018/05/bright-objects-in-the-night-sky-may-2018/

Because the Moon is not very bright at this phase you can also get some stars in the image.

[Richard Parkin]

c.d. embrey commented “his sub-miniature Fujifilm X-H1 (miniature is what they called Full Frame 35mm film cameras, when I was in my twenties)”. Right about ‘full frame’ but surely wrong about ‘sub-min’ which was a term for those Minox ‘spy-cams’ and their like. Perhaps ‘half-frame’ would be appropriate comparison, though aren’t they the Kodak APS film size?