Astronomy, Photography and Weather

I shot several more Moonlight assisted images the other night, not really happy with the results. It could be my 10 megapixel camera just isn't up to the task. I don't have live view, focused on the Moon, which of course was very bright, but focus just seems a bit soft. I used noise reduction and such, 100-200 ISO and exposures to 2-3 minutes, but just not happy with them. I'm also taking in to consideration of how these look processed by TinyPics for the internet and being sized for email. I'll just keep trying and posting from time to time.


(http://i51.tinypic.com/ixujqv.jpg)

(http://i56.tinypic.com/4ptef7.jpg)

(http://i55.tinypic.com/14sz0bd.jpg)

Good effort,Richard.The last two look ok. The first a bit overexposed maybe. See what the others say on the technical side. and it's the trying that counts,so they say-the rest comes along soon afterwards.. . I see the car lights in number 2.

They look good to me :)

Hi Richard, I would shorten the exposure time to around 30 seconds, so try using f/2.8 – f/4 and ISO 800 – 1600 this should help reduce the noise. Your off to a good start though there very creative images.

What settings did you use for these.

Thanks for the comments. #1 was at about 90 degrees to the Moon so I think I was picking up a lot more light than the others that were almost to my back. Those lights coming down the hill were actually a large flatbed semi using his jake brake all the way down, very noisey! Anton, I think I was at 2-3 minutes, f/5-6.3 in that area, ISO 100-200. I tought the lower ISO would negate some of the noise along with noise reduction, but maybe that length of exposure just gets everything too hot! These look more like the 30 second exposures I take at 1600. I have heard and read in reviews that my Canon 400D is very noisey and agree fully. Maybe an upgrade in the future!! Thanks everyone.

Well, I think long exposures like this will show noise, infact photos of some dark gray  clouds when taken to 50% even show noise-maybe something like Ninja or Nik's Define2 is worth considering,Richard.

Hmmm ... setting "long exposure noise reduction" can make a significant difference ... but the fact remains that you've got to capture lots & lots of photons to reduce thermal noise. Noise reduction software can tidy things up but at the expense of fine detail in areas of flat tone, and some artifacts in high contrast areas of the image.

They look good to me too Richard, I have tried this before at the coast using rocks, beaches and buildings and wondered why everything looked so flat or something and I came to the conclusion that bright moonlight kills beach photo opps because the scene looks like daytime after an exposure and with the moonlit sky so bright only a small number of stars can be seen to indicate that it was a night shot. I tried this with Dunluce Castle with Conor last year and we were very unhappy with the result. So, in my opinion, from my own experience, it would be best to re-shoot the scene again with weak moonlight or else on a very dark night and push out the exposure and see what results you get. On a dark night you could try 'painting' the rock with a torch to bring it out. These images remind me of a place on the Co. Antrim coast which looks incredibly like your location, I was planning on going there soon but really wanted a semi-dark or full dark sky for it. Would love to see night time showers with moonbows over the rocks in your images...that would look awesome. Autumn is not far away now so those times will be upon is soon...best of luck with it Richard, and the images still looks great to me anyway, I like the first lot and could imagine that being a great location to image a bright comet!

They look pretty nice to me, i have also taken some moonlit beach images and would echo what the other guys have
said about it looking like day time . What i done to eliminate this was use a graduated neutral density filter to keep the sky dark
and the foreground the same. It works wonders and only cost 30 euro.