for the moon watchers…

A few days ago or was it weeks, 10 Cents did some moon images with, I presume, his new camera. Finally I had a clear night and attempted to do the same. But not really ever getting into my camera to understand settings, I just let it fly. So here you are 10 Cents;

The first is no zoom…

This next one is at 24x zoom.

 

This final one is at 48x zoom. (2x digital zoom engaged)

Technically the last was at f/7 1/320 sec. I used a tripod, but did not use the remote via my cellphone, still trying to get that to work reliably. That app may not have all that I want and I must set it up every time I try to use it as it forgets.

8+
avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

10 thoughts on “for the moon watchers…”

  1. Gerard:
    This final one is at 48x zoom. (2x digital zoom engaged).

    Moonshots can often benefit from a little image processing.  Here is the second image from the main post with some twiddling.

    Image processed Moon photo.

    This is the result of taking the original image, converting to monochrome (since the Moon is almost completely colourless, so any colour in a photo is an artefact), then adjusting the brightness transfer function to increase the contrast between the maria and highlands.  Then I moderately sharpened with the unsharp mask technique, cropped, and scaled to fit in a comment here.  All of this was done with GIMP using only standard features.

    Pictures of a near-full Moon tend to be washed out due to a phenomenon where sunlight impinging close to vertical suppresses contrast in terrain.  This is the same reason the Moon brightens dramatically the day or two around the full phase (much more than can be explained by the fraction of illumination).  Full Moon pictures almost always benefit from a contrast stretch.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  2. John Walker:

    Gerard:
    This final one is at 48x zoom. (2x digital zoom engaged).

    Moonshots can often benefit from a little image processing.  Here is the second image from the main post with some twiddling.

    This is the result of taking the original image, converting to monochrome (since the Moon is almost completely colourless, so any colour in a photo is an artefact), then adjusting the brightness transfer function to increase the contrast between the maria and highlands.  Then I moderately sharpened with the unsharp mask technique, cropped, and scaled to fit in a comment here.  All of this was done with GIMP using only standard features.

    Pictures of a near-full Moon tend to be washed out due to a phenomenon where sunlight impinging close to vertical suppresses contrast in terrain.  This is the same reason the Moon brightens dramatically the day or two around the full phase (much more than can be explained by the fraction of illumination).  Full Moon pictures almost always benefit from a contrast stretch.

    I posted the pictures as from the camera w/o any “twiddling” or resizing to show what exactly the camera saw. But thank you for elaborating!

    (even though it was posted twice, I get the impression that was for us to “get the picture”, pun intended.)

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  3. Gerard:
    (even though it was posted twice, I get the impression that was for us to “get the picture”, pun intended.)

    Nope—it must have been a keyboard bounce when I posted it.  I didn’t even notice it was a double post.  I’ve deleted the duplicate.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  4. John Walker

    “Pictures of a near-full Moon tend to be washed out due to a phenomenon where sunlight impinging close to vertical suppresses contrast in terrain. “

    I’s worse than that. The moon is blanketed in glass spherules from meteor and asteroid strikes lofting rock vapor that then condenses and precipitates (no Stokes law in vacuum!). Viewed full on, they act as lossy retroreflectors, washing out contrast by directed light scattering.

    And, of course, the moon is moving through the sky.  Short exposure at large aperture, stacked exposures at small aperture, or mounted on a tracker.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  5. I don’t think I’ll be seeing the Moon today (it’s totally overcast with drizzle), but here’s a unique picture of the Sun from November 2013.

    Naked eye sunspots: 2013-10-24

    This is a picture of the Sun taken with my Canon S100 pocket camera (1/1000 second, f/5.9, ISO 80, focal length 26 mm [equivalent to 120 mm on a 24×36 mm film camera]) through heavy fog, which allowed viewing the disc of the Sun with no filter.  The visual appearance was pretty much as shown in the image above, which was cropped from a larger frame, showing the original pixels at a 1:1 reproduction ratio.

    What makes this picture unusual is not its bland appearance, but the fact that you can see three prominent sunspots: two near the centre of the Sun in the 3 o’clock direction and one further away in the 7 o’clock direction.  These were (just) visible to the unaided eye, and the camera caught them.

    Naked-eye sunspots—those sufficiently prominent they can be seen with no optical magnification—are pretty rare, and almost always can be seen only through a solar filter.  This is the only time in my life I have actually glimpsed sunspots with no optical assistance whatever except the absorption of fog.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar

Leave a Reply