phillip
Member
around 10pm, very foggy night
wide open, handheld at waist, 1 second
wide open, handheld at waist, 1 second
CV25/4 night shot
- Thread starter phillip
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 20
- Views 2K
VinceC
Veteran
Wonderfully moody.
dostacos
Dan
and wonderfully sharp too
cbass
Nutmegger
Curious..was the camera's meter able to take a reading in that light or did you use the trusty "Moony 4" rule?
Nice photo. You have hands of stone!
Nice photo. You have hands of stone!
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Great shot. I would like to see that duplicated with an SLR. Another good reason to have a RF.
Nikon Bob
Nikon Bob
Steve B
Established
Moony 4?
Moony 4?
Moony 4?
cbass said:
cbass
Nutmegger
Steve B said:
Steve, it was my poor attempt at being silly. 😱 There is no "moony 4" rule, I made it up. But if "moony 4" did exist it would work almost as you describe:
"Moony 4" -- full moonlight at the lens's minimum aperture (in this case f/4), exposure time 1 second. Must be hand-held.
Wait a second...is it possible that I may have inadvertently added a new piece of jargon to the pantheon of RF lexicon? Moony 4 could be right up there with bokeh, SBOOI and GAS! 😉
Steve B
Established
cbass said:
Maybe it'll catch on if we start using it in an authoritative way, like everybody really should know what we're talking about. Hell, it worked on me.
T
tedwhite
Guest
Yes. Of course. I taught Moony 4 for several years. Nice sound to it, I must say.
Steve B
Established
Hand held?
Hand held?
I think we should delete the "hand held" requirement as this, like "sunny 16" is basically an exposure guideline. "1 second, f4, full moon". I'll try some exposures and see if I can't back up your extensive teaching.
Hand held?
I think we should delete the "hand held" requirement as this, like "sunny 16" is basically an exposure guideline. "1 second, f4, full moon". I'll try some exposures and see if I can't back up your extensive teaching.
pvdhaar
Peter
The nice thing about night photography and very long exposures is that you almost can't get bad results w.r.t. exposure. No doubt a combination of low light and film reciprocity failure. If the sky is somewhat dark, it won't register no matter how long the exposure, while lamps and street lights will basically wash out for anything over 1 sec. The rest falls somewhere in between and won't wash out if you keep your exposure under 30secs or so.. It's exactly as the eye perceives it, in contrast to daylight photography where exposure is so critical..
"Moony 4" as defined doesn't factor in the film speed; should the shutter speed be, say 100 times the reciprocal of the ISO?
cbass
Nutmegger
Doug said:
Sure, sounds good to me. Deleteing the hand-held requirement sounds good, too. But like most photographic rules of thumb, Moony 4 should be subject to more than one interpretation so that we can all "discuss" it later on.
Moony 4 takes into account each lesn's full-open aperture, so there could be a Moony 1.5, Moony 2, etc. I'm going to stick calling it Moony 4, though. 😉
I'm now motivated to try some Moony 4 exposures while I'm in Paris at the end of the month. I'll post the acceptable results in my gallery.
There seems to be a lot of "discussable" judgement of the effect on Moony 4 by a less than full moon in a clear sky... Does a touch of haze, fog, or high clouds simply serve to soften the light without effect on exposure, and what happens with a 3/4 moon? 🙂cbass said:
Steve B
Established
Sunny 16 is full direct sunlight so I think Moony 4 should be full direct moonlight. A half moon could be adjusted by a factor to be determined? As in sunny 16 I think it should be based on clear skies with no fog or haze. That could also be factored in as in sunny 16. The full moon is tomorrow night (14th) so someone with a clear sky should go out with a meter, and maybe a camera, and see what they get.
Don't I remember a story about Ansel making a photograph and basing the exposure on the known luminence value of the moon?
Don't I remember a story about Ansel making a photograph and basing the exposure on the known luminence value of the moon?
Sparrow
Veteran
If it’s any help as the moon itself is lit by sunlight, no cloud or haze so its correct exposure has to be f16 at 1/ISO, like anything else in daylight.
And yes I do feel bad about spoiling the fun
And yes I do feel bad about spoiling the fun
Stewart, photography ON the Moon must be box-camera heaven due to lack of atmospheric effects, except that the shadows are dark dark dark. Then when the Earth looms huge in its night sky, illuminating the moonscape, I suppose the exposure rule of thumb should be "Earthy 4".... 😀
Sparrow
Veteran
They only allow blads on the moon I think, I’ve always wondered how they got the detail in those shadow, notice the terra..bal recession 😀
Steve B
Established
photography of/by moonlight.
photography of/by moonlight.
I think that's a good rule for photographing the moon itself but I'm not sure it would apply to photographing some thing else that is illuminated by moonlight. Surely not all of the sunlight will be reflected by the moon. I think you would stop down considerably from f16 when photographing the sun itself for instance as oppossed to something illuminated by sunlight.
I'm sure this info is out there somewhere but I just don't know where it is. I hope someone has clear skies tonight, its cloudy here.
photography of/by moonlight.
Sparrow said:
I think that's a good rule for photographing the moon itself but I'm not sure it would apply to photographing some thing else that is illuminated by moonlight. Surely not all of the sunlight will be reflected by the moon. I think you would stop down considerably from f16 when photographing the sun itself for instance as oppossed to something illuminated by sunlight.
I'm sure this info is out there somewhere but I just don't know where it is. I hope someone has clear skies tonight, its cloudy here.
