M 240, 35mm cron, and the Moon

[raid]

it was shot hand held @ iso 3200 F=4 1/15 sec.

I hope it helps. Of course experimenting is the key for the results, try it !
robert

Hi Robert,
Your beautiful image was most likely not exposed entirely for the (small) moon in the image. This is why your exposure is not following the "Moon Rule" 🙂

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Apologies for being pedantic, but what you are doing is under-exposing, not over-exposing, right? You want to treat the moon as a sun-lit white object and let less light hit the film/sensor so that the highlights don't get blown out. Black sky - small white sphere -- under-expose if using autoexposure to make things darker than the program would otherwise like them to be.

 

[randolph]

Apologies for being pedantic, but what you are doing is under-exposing, not over-exposing, right? You want to treat the moon as a sun-lit white object and let less light hit the film/sensor so that the highlights don't get blown out. Black sky - small white sphere -- under-expose if using autoexposure to make things darker than the program would otherwise like them to be.

that's what I understood as well. alas, the moon eludes me. it was cloudy once again last night and i'm sure it will be again with more rain in the forecast...

 

[retinax]

Apologies for being pedantic, but what you are doing is under-exposing, not over-exposing, right? You want to treat the moon as a sun-lit white object and let less light hit the film/sensor so that the highlights don't get blown out. Black sky - small white sphere -- under-expose if using autoexposure to make things darker than the program would otherwise like them to be.

Not sure to which post you're replying.. what you're saying is essentially right, but I think using "underexposing" this way leads to confusion. Using exposure compensation to avoid overexposure of the moon is not underexposing (it is correctly-exposing as it will result in correct exposure, not underexposure). Let's just call it "using exposure compensation" please.

 

[Richard G]

In Apollo 8 orbiting the moon, the earth rise photo was shot at 1/250s and f11 on 168 ASA colour film, which is close to just sunny 16. They must have been using an exposure table. For us the most complete is Fred Parker’s Ultimate Exposure Computer.

 

[Bike Tourist]

Expose as you would for daylight (sunny 16). Can't imagine that the rest of the scene would benefit much. I think that 35mm as a lens to image the moon's features is the wrong choice.

 

[Rob-F]

Ansel Adams wrote that "The moon is at daylight intensity." So you would think that Sunny 16 would apply. And yet, "Moon 4" apparently works for the moon (Raid, et. al.), while Richard G points out that Sunny 16 has worked, too. Well, I guess maybe this range must be due to the question of what constitutes a proper exposure for the moon. Or then again, the "Moon 4" shots posted are black and white, and the film could tolerate some extra exposure; whereas a color film might work best closer to Sunny 16.

How about "Moon 8, plus or minus?"

 

[Fraser]

16fbpicMarchmoons_022b by Fraser Bremner, on Flickr

Not with a Leica but the moon, always find when shooting the moon better to underexpose, but sometimes exposure checking on the lcd screen in the dark is quite tricky as everything looks bright!

 

[raid]

Ansel Adams wrote that "The moon is at daylight intensity." So you would think that Sunny 16 would apply. And yet, "Moon 4" apparently works for the moon (Raid, et. al.), while Richard G points out that Sunny 16 has worked, too. Well, I guess maybe this range must be due to the question of what constitutes a proper exposure for the moon. Or then again, the "Moon 4" shots posted are black and white, and the film could tolerate some extra exposure; whereas a color film might work best closer to Sunny 16.

How about "Moon 8, plus or minus?"

The sunny 16 rule will give us a "perfect grey" exposure across the image. Most moon shots show a large portion of black sky. Using the sunny 16 rule will not give you blacks.

 

[shawn]

Ansel Adams wrote that "The moon is at daylight intensity." So you would think that Sunny 16 would apply. And yet, "Moon 4" apparently works for the moon (Raid, et. al.), while Richard G points out that Sunny 16 has worked, too. Well, I guess maybe this range must be due to the question of what constitutes a proper exposure for the moon. Or then again, the "Moon 4" shots posted are black and white, and the film could tolerate some extra exposure; whereas a color film might work best closer to Sunny 16.

How about "Moon 8, plus or minus?"

My shot isn't in B&W. You can see a slight touch of chromatic aberration on the sides of the moon. Proper exposure maximizes the signal to noise ratio of the sensor without loosing a lot of highlights. Notice the chroma noise levels on all the shots. Part of the reason mine is lower is due to the exposure, it certainly isn't due to a more expensive camera. I took that with a Pentax QS-1.

Shawn

 

[shawn]

16fbpicMarchmoons_022b by Fraser Bremner, on Flickr

Not with a Leica but the moon, always find when shooting the moon better to underexpose, but sometimes exposure checking on the lcd screen in the dark is quite tricky as everything looks bright!

Use the blinkies on image review.

Shawn

 

[randolph]

Thanks for all the ideas guys. But really, ever since I posted my original question, there hasn't been a clear sky to shoot the moon!

Funny how that always seems to be the case...