How to take good pictures of the moon?

[Mike521]

Hi all, I am new to photography and am trying to learn how to take good pictures in any situation. Last night was the 'supermoon' and I wanted to try out taking some pictures. I read a photography book (understanding exposure 3rd edition) that taught me a lot I didn't know, so I thought I would be able to get a few good pictures after some trial and error, but everything came out awful:

I used a tripod for all pictures. I think my main problem was that I couldn't get the camera to focus on the moon, even when focusing manually. I tried the following settings:

- ISO 200, F22, 30 second shutter time, 55mm focal length
---- my goal with this one was to keep the ISO low so there wouldn't be much graininess, which necessitated a long shutter time (although I didn't expect it to be THAT long, although the sky was dark, the moon was extremely bright):


- ISO 200, F36, 5 second shutter time, 55mm focal length
---- I thought the long shutter duration was leading to the glowing light come from the moon. I got rid of that problem but the picture is still bad anyway:


- ISO 6400, F36, 1/4 shutter time, 55mm focal length
---- I hoped that setting a really high ISO would allow an even shorter shutter time, which may allow the moon to focus better. No luck, it looked a lot like the previous one.

Can anyone give me some suggestions? I did some research last night after these failed attempts and it seems like I may need a 200mm lens. So is that it, there's no way to take a good picture of the moon with a 55mm lens?

Thanks in advance for any advice!

[Ads]

PhotoForum.com is a leading Photography Forum, Registered users do not see these ads. Register, it's free!

[PenguinPhotoWorks]

First, welcome to the forum!

Well first, you're falling victim to the "the moon is out at night, so I have to use a long shutter speed or really high ISO because it's dark" trap.

The moon is reflecting sunlight- and quite a bit of it. Successful shots of the moon start with the Sunny f/16 rule. So, at ISO 200 (a great ISO to be at), your shutter speed should be 1/200 or 1/250 @ f/16. Then, you bracket from there. Your pictures are very overexposed. Shooting at a high ISO is not necessary unless you get a cloudy/hazy night.

You're correct in using the tripod, the moon is a moving target. With your 18-55mm lens at 55mm, the moon is going to be a very small percentage of the picture, which is going to make it difficult for the autofocus sensor to latch on to. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. I think you need more of a telephoto lens to take the shot you were after.

One trick is to put the camera into Live View if that is an option (sorry, don't know Canon options)- focus manually on the LCD screen, then switch the lens into manual mode after it's been focused.

Also, use a remote cable, or at least put the camera into self-timer mode so that any/all vibrations stop before the shutter trips.

Hope that helps- moon pictures can be fun. But as large as it is, you still need a good telephoto lens to capture the moon and all of its detail. Yes, I think you need at least 200mm on a crop sensor camera (which puts you in the range of 320-340 mm compared to a regular full-sensor camera). Even with that, you'll be cropping in post processing to get the moon to be a significant size in the final image. And you'll most likely have to do some sharpening and add some contrast in post to bring the detail out.

Keep shooting! Disregard the "super moon" - it was only 14% larger than a normal full moon. You'll have another shot next month. Also, another good moon tip is to shoot the full moon the night before it is really full- it rises earlier and the sky will be lighter when it is overhead. This allows you to get some scenery in the picture with the "almost" full moon. If you're going to shoot with 55mm, adding other elements to the picture will allow you to make the moon a secondary element in the composition.

[Mike521]

Thanks! I forgot to mention I was using a remote to take the pictures, that did seem like a good idea since even pressing the button makes the camera wobble a tiny bit. I have a couple more questions if you don't mind

- I understand about sticking with a low ISO, but what about the F16? Shouldn't I go with as wide a depth of field as possible, since the moon is far away? Or does it not matter since there's no real foreground to worry about focusing on? And if that's the case, why not use F4 or F5.6 instead?

- howcome the camera couldn't focus on the moon? I was looking on the LCD screen and it just couldn't get it in focus (first I used auto focus which was terrible, then I used manual which was slightly better). Even though I couldn't zoom in as much as I wanted since I only had a 55mm lens, why couldn't it focus on the 'small' moon? I guess it doesn't matter, if it can't then it can't, I'm just wondering why

[PenguinPhotoWorks]

Correct- as far as depth of field, it doesn't really matter too much. The moon is at infinity, and there is no foreground or background to speak of (unless you do the day before thingy and shoot the moon earlier when it is still light out and have subjects in the foreground, like trees/buildings). So yes, exposure-wise, the wide aperture is fine, which of course will allow you to shoot at a much faster shutter speed. f/16 is merely a starting point for the Sunny f/16 rule to get your exposure. (Unless you're using a spot meter function, the camera's meter will often be fooled into the dark scene scenario and be useless- which is why most people screw up the moon shot.)

But think about it... ISO 200, f/16 @ 1/250. To shoot at f/4 you need to set your shutter to 1/4000. Some cameras don't go there, or it's at their limit which reduces bracketing possibilities. If you're shooting with a slower zoom anyway, you want to be stopped down a few stops from maximum to get your point of maximum sharpness with your particular lens. So if your lens has a maximum aperture of f/4, you probably want to be around f/8 anyway.

As far as autofocus goes, I can't speak to your camera. Mine did autofocus, although it took a couple of tries. Once it locked focus, I switched it to manual focus and left it there. Yes, bright moon dark background- that is the definition of high contrast. But I would think you would have to focus on the edge- between the moon and the sky. Most people stick the moon right in the center of their viewfinder and, as it turns out, the moon is a pretty low-contrast object from earth. Plus it is small unless you're in the 600mm and up range. The whole scene fools your exposure meter also- mine kicked on the focus assist beam. I'm not sure if that is a factor with some equipment if the camera is expecting to now see that beam on the subject.

[TCampbell]

In addition to Marlo's sound advice...

Anytime you're taking a photo in dark conditions, you should always be skeptical of what your camera's built-in light meter suggests. Most cameras will use an "evaluative" mode which samples either all or most of the frame when determining settings. This means it'll see a huge black frame with a small amount of light. It'll often recommend a setting that tries to show some detail in the blackness (at the expense of massively over-exposing the light areas... which were the only areas you really cared about.)

You can change the camera's metering mode to a spot metering and just get it to register the light on the only thing you care about, set the camera appropriately, then re-compose the frame and take the shot. If you are using an evaluative or center-weighted metering mode then you probably need to use the camera's exposure compensation and have it under-expose by maybe 2 stops (and bracket to find the optimum exposure.) When I shoot in darkness, I typically start at 2 stops below the recommended setting, bracket to find the best exposure, then just leave the camera in that mode (manual exposures) and ignore the meter.

Having a foreground subject helps add interest to photos of the moon or a starry sky. The moon usually looks best when the "foreground" object here on earth is really a quite a long distance away (I used 600mm and photographed the moon rising through trees that, although they looked close, were really about 400-500 yards away (there were 2 soccer fields, followed a large pond (bigger than the 2 soccer fields), and another huge field on the far side of that pond and THEN the trees I used as foreground objects). This makes my "foreground" object so small that the moon, by comparison, seems huge.

If the subject is a starry sky, you would likely use a wide-angle lens and a nearby foreground object. You can illuminate the foreground object -- which looks a lot better with detail as compared to just a black silhouette. Use a strong light (flashlight/torch, etc.) to "paint the tree with light" (take broad strokes with the light to make sure you've illuminated the entire foreground object while the camera shutter is open.) It can create quite a dramatic effect.

[Mike521]

I understand, thanks for all the helpful info! next time around I'll switch the camera to spot metering (forgot all about that) and go to F16 and see how that works out

I was actually planning on taking some shots with just the moon, and then some with something in the foreground to add perspective, like trees or the roof of my house. But when the moon-only shots came out like they did I gave up, I figured if I couldn't focus on just the moon, I wouldn't have much luck adding more objects

I'm also going to read about lenses, I did some quick checking and amazon has a bunch of xmm - 200mm lenses for $250 and going up to over $1,000, but my local camera shop has some for only $100 so I need to figure out if they're worth it for a beginner like me.

Anyway thanks again for all the info, hopefully next month I'll be better prepared : )