A couple of good ten x magnifying mirror with light pictures I located:

Moon revisited
10 x magnifying mirror with light
Image by Mr J[]e
Had an additional crack at taking a half decent pic of the moon and am pleased to say I far more or significantly less got it.

As with the final time, to illustrate my approach so other individuals can adhere to and keep away from the blunders I produced or point out exactly where my thinking could be wrong, I’ll give an account of how I went about taking the shot.

1st off, the moon was near full but waning (obtaining smaller with the darkness extending from the correct). To be a lot more right its phase was waning gibbous. It was a superbly clear night and warm sufficient so I wasn’t freezing like last time I took a significant shot of the moon.

Of course I utilised a tripod and decent ball head, which have been all locked tight and steady. I noticed however that my setup still suffered with some wobble so took further steps to check that each just before I went to take the shot and out in the field.

I took off the battery grip and ended up taking the neck strap off too. The battery grip had as well much play in it (I used a inexpensive Chinese equivalent as an alternative of usual Canon one particular even though think they’d behave far more or much less the identical considering that I have the Canon grips for my 40D and 350D and they wobble a bit as well). Even the remote shutter release I was careful to hold above, enabling the cord to bend and so eliminating any interference from cord pull/movement at time of button press. This made a surprising difference to shot stability as did removing the weighty and unwieldy strap.

The lens collar on my 400mm prime lens (f/5.6) had been loose from the last time so I fitted some plastic packing material (like white cloth but much more spongy) and cut it to size to get a actually tight grip. All these measures to minimise vibration and so on as essential when utilizing slow shutter speeds combined with long focal length. Hand holding it’s advised to use at least equivalent shutter speed to focal length (so 1/400th second) but ideally 1 and a half times the focal length so 1/600th second as movement is exaggerated with the significantly smaller sized angle of view of a telephoto lens. Anything in the distance will be off even a lot more than with something wider, like a common lens or wide angle. Even mounting your camera on a good high quality tripod will not necessarily eliminate all vibration and this is of course more essential for evening time photography when you are shooting the moon at comparatively slow shutter speeds like 1/60th second or whatnot.

So, it becoming summer season and warmer and the night much more inviting, I took off – by foot – to the downsland nearby and set up the tripod in the shadow of a hawthorn because the moonlight was extremely intense and lit up the landscape fairly drastically on this ultra clear evening and I wanted to actually shade myself from any extraneous light coming in from the side like streetlights and so on. There was nonetheless plenty of light pollution from the nearby town of some 40,000 residents but I’d accomplished my ideal to get away from it (getting car-less, lazy and a small scared of the dark or rather, what nutter with a hammer might be out there since men and women are the only real monsters left in the globe).

Reviewing the pictures, and soon after manually adjusting exposure, they still looked quite soft. I ought to say at this point that along with the 400mm f/five.6 lens I used I also had attached a teleconverter with a 2x magnification (a Kenko Pro 300 Mk1 in this case). This doubles not only focal length but also halves, then halves once more, the quantity of light coming in so decreasing the maximum aperture from f/5.6 to f/11, which is quite slow and possibly just outdoors a regular lens’ sweetspot of use, that is in this case from f/5.six to probably f/9 or f/10 max so no picture taken would truly take complete benefit of the primary glass and strength of the 400mm lens. Although, making use of the teleconverter and obtaining double the reach is the trade off and worth it! Diffraction is also a point in fact with high (or modest) apertures but that’s another (and far more academic) matter.

So, back to the photos I’d taken and their basic softness. I wasn’t very best pleased considering that I’d truly worked difficult to eliminate any variables I could consider of that may possibly be the lead to of any achievable wobble or shake. Utilizing mirror up or live view on the camera’s rear monitor must have helped as well so what was wrong, I wondered.

I’d been cautious to set the concentrate point manually as is essential employing the teleconverter (which with a reasonably slow f/five.6 lens is unavoidable considering that you shed AF as yet another trade off). This was by way of the lens (TTL) making use of the viewfinder. This meant I was viewing the moon with my naked eye with dioptric correction to correct brief sightedness but with the low viewfinder magnification of the Canon 5DM2 most likely not assisting considerably either. What looked sharp wasn’t very as sharp as it could’ve been as I discovered.

Focusing at infinity is not an choice when taking photographs of the moon given that most usually, the focal point has gone shooting past the subject. As all lenses define infinity differently it genuinely pays to experiment and not just crank the lens focal ring all the way over. You shouldn’t just trust blindly that as the moon is a fair way off (some 380,000 km depending on orbit) you’d need to have to use infinity as the focal point considering that even subtle differences in how you have turned the concentrate ring can make a large distinction in how sharp the captured image will be as we’ll see.

In spite of obtaining dioptric adjustment for quick or long-sightedness on the camera’s viewfinder and picking carefully a point where maximum focus looked optimum I had truly misfocused. And this, as I discovered out, was the lead to of not only the existing ‘soft’ shots but also my prior attempt of capturing a nice vibrant and sharp image of the moon.

So, what did ya do Mr Joe? Well, I utilized the live view monitor on the back of the camera to make considerably finer adjustment when I remembered that I could digitally magnify the image by up to 10 occasions. This was a real revelation to seeing just how sensitive the concentrate ring was and how precisely – down to the millimeter – it was needed to fine tune, considering that I was just out of focus. It really was a case of getting fractionally out and the reside view monitor really helped enormously (way beyond what I could see by way of the viewfinder).

Previously I’d been tracking the moon with the live view monitor on because it is remarkable just how quick the moon is moving relative to the Earth. At the point I was shooting the moon it was in its ascension, moving up and to the correct of frame and it didn’t take lengthy at all to see it move out of shot necessitating re-composition and fiddling with the tripod once more.

Really, I attempted to take some video footage of the moon moving considering that it was wonderful to watch on the live view monitor, zoomed in digitally 10 instances closer as I was, watching all these tiny craters whizz by. Gorgeous! You nearly had the feeling of seeking down on yet another planet and seeing individuals going about their enterprise. Um, no. That would just be me obtaining carried away. It was sweet nonetheless! And sadly anything I failed to capture since despite picking manual settings for video capture, the camera chose to override them and auto more than-exposed horrendously, giving me small much more than a glowing white blob.

So, what did I understand? Properly, that probably you do not need to have such a high shutter speed as I proposed final time given that even though the moon is moving rapidly any shutter speed that is a good fraction of a second will be enough to capture it with no blur. I went down to 1/40th of a second and that seemed all appropriate. This meant I could select lower ISOs and hopefully capture significantly less noise. I even tried higher apertures and various exposures overall, favouring shooting towards the proper, which means towards capturing a brighter more exposed image rather than what you may possibly initially consider by way of attempting to capture far more shadow (and hence crater) detail.

So, did I succeed? In most respects, yes, because I discovered some much more even though once again my shots had been far from matching significantly of the good quality of shots you usually see on the net. Against our favour perhaps, if you live in a city, is light pollution and if you are not loaded you will not be in a position to afford the really greatest of telephoto lenses (500mm f/4 and so forth) that enable far far more light in so I reckon I did all right within the confines of these factors under my handle.

As an exciting asides (properly for me), was Jupiter was visible (this was probably my Planet X of before rather than Mars). I took some shots but they’re naff truly considering that even though the generally visible (increasing from the east) large white blob clearly had coloured bands you had to go down to the pixel level (and I mean four or five pixels) to make it out. At least I knew a little far more on how Gallilleo felt, maybe. Hmm… Possibly not. He have to have had some seriously great equipment back then to make out what he did.

Post processing was accomplished with Capture 1 four.5.three (final update I could get). Files shot RAW and JPEG (interestingly the in-camera processed JPEGs on examination were extremely soft to be worthless, even the well focused ones). I discovered that adding saturation as effectively as really modest changes to the usual brightness, contrast and exposure yielded far much more impressive detail than employing sharpening tools ever could alone. Also, the levels and curves tools seemed to be worth exploring – I’m no Photoshopper so this is possibly another point I need to try out.

Thank you and goodnight.

Addendum: Just been reading a tiny about the moon from Kim Long’s &quotThe moon book: fascinating details about the magnificent, mysterious moon&quot (on the internet version) and it explains the moon’s orbit around the earth is actually elliptical so inside the lunar cycle, the moon will be at a distance farthest from the earth (apogee) as nicely as closest (perigee). The moon will appear some 10% larger when it really is closer and acquire a small quantity of extra reflectivity from the sun in this position, so obtaining enhanced visibility for viewers of different latitudes (North/South) and longitudes (East/West) at certain points of the year. So you can get a closer shot each now and then, then! Fascinating…

The lunar perigee has hit the news and is imminent – June 23rd 2013. Much better information:

www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/super-complete-moon.html
www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?obj=moon&ampam…
www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/moonset-moonrise-photograp…

What the the so named super-moon impact means in reality:
www.slate.com/blogs/undesirable_astronomy/2013/06/20/supermoon_bi…
blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/06/why-the-super-moon-isnt-tha…
London, UK
Moonrise 9:09pm
Moon sets four:53am
Moon distance to Earth 221, 997 miles with 99.5% illumination (if it’s not cloudy of course, which it really is gonna be tomorrow night)

Moon revisited
Tagged on: