Using the moon as a light source

[BMWJNKY]

I want to try some long night exposures using the moon as my light source and was wondering where I could find some info about doing this. I'll be using my 20D on my new tripod and a remote shutter release. I'll probably be using my 50mm 1.8 but not shooting wide open. The full moon isn't till the middle of next week so I have some time to do some research and reading. Are there any good books out there for low light or night landscape photography?

[Jimmy B]

The reviews of this book are not that good but it gives you some good ideas. It was an impulse buy with a xmas gift card
http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Night-...e=UTF8&s=books
Jimmy B

[readingr]

What sort of pictures do you intend to take.

Landscapes for instance you can set the lense to F22 and leave it open for between 1 - 30secs or longer depending on the reflections from the scene and its a case of experimenting to see what works.

If you want the moon in the scene then take a separate pic of the moon and paste in during PP.

If there is secondary lights then you need to allow for these.

Roger

[another view]

I've done some of this, but it was with film and been a few years... I think I started at 8 minutes, f5.6 at ISO200. I'm assuming that you're not going to include the moon in the frame because it will just be a big white blur that arcs across the frame - the moon is just a light source. You'll get really different looking results, kind of eerie. Make sure the tripod is really sturdy - you might want to tie a weight onto it or push it down a bit into the ground if it's soft**. It takes a long time to get a shot, especially if you bracket which is highly recommended (+1 = 16 minutes, etc). I didn't take into account reciprocity failure but at the time I was using Kodak Elite Chrome 200 and I'm fairly sure of the settings. This assumes a clear sky and no ambient light. I tried it up in the north woods, many miles from anywhere.

**Before you push the tripod down, close the legs a couple of degrees. This will save the center of the tripod from a lot of stress at that point.

[BMWJNKY]

I've done some of this, but it was with film and been a few years... I think I started at 8 minutes, f5.6 at ISO200. I'm assuming that you're not going to include the moon in the frame because it will just be a big white blur that arcs across the frame - the moon is just a light source. You'll get really different looking results, kind of eerie. Make sure the tripod is really sturdy - you might want to tie a weight onto it or push it down a bit into the ground if it's soft**. It takes a long time to get a shot, especially if you bracket which is highly recommended (+1 = 16 minutes, etc). I didn't take into account reciprocity failure but at the time I was using Kodak Elite Chrome 200 and I'm fairly sure of the settings. This assumes a clear sky and no ambient light. I tried it up in the north woods, many miles from anywhere.

**Before you push the tripod down, close the legs a couple of degrees. This will save the center of the tripod from a lot of stress at that point.

Thanks for the tips. I plan on just doing landscapes out in the country a mile or two from my house. Weather looks to be clear all next week with the moon starting to go full on Monday and peaking Wednesday. I was planing on shooting a low ISO and turning the in camera noise reduction off to save battery life.

If anyone wants to go experiment on this with me you are more than welcome to go. I'll probably go Wednesday and Thursday and maybe again over the weekend since the moon will still be somewhat full.

[another view]

I was planing on shooting a low ISO and turning the in camera noise reduction off to save battery life.

I think I'd try ISO 400 or 800 and probably leave NR on - but a spare battery would be a good idea. Long exposures kill battery life on digital cameras... Two nice things about digital - no reciprocity failure to worry about and also you've got the histogram to see if your exposure is right. Any amount of cloud cover can affect your exposure - even a little bit might cost you a stop or two. Good luck, post the results!

[BMWJNKY]

I think I'd try ISO 400 or 800 and probably leave NR on - but a spare battery would be a good idea. Long exposures kill battery life on digital cameras... Two nice things about digital - no reciprocity failure to worry about and also you've got the histogram to see if your exposure is right. Any amount of cloud cover can affect your exposure - even a little bit might cost you a stop or two. Good luck, post the results!

I'll try and borrow my friends battery grip since I don't have an extra battery yet. The normal daytime use with the 20D has had awesome battery life so I haven't needed an extra battery.

The reason I was thinking of turning the noise reduction off is because if I take an 8min exposure I have to wait another 8min for the noise reduction to do its thing. That would only works out to about 3 images in a hour if you include the time to review the image then frame and setup for the next one. This is why I was thinking of going with ISO 100 or 200 with no noise reduction.

[another view]

I started at 8 min, ISO200 - but remember that was slide film so there is some reciprocity failure involved. Some films are better at this; some worse. Basically, once you have an exposure that's maybe 1/4 sec to 1 sec or longer (depends on film), you need to take this into account by adding more exposure. The reciprocal relationship between shutter speed and aperture isn't there anymore (IOW, it has failed) meaning that adding one stop by going from one sec to two sec won't exactly give you one stop more exposure.

Since digital doesn't have this problem, my 8 min at ISO200 may be overexposed on digital. I don't know - I've actually never tried - but once again the cloud cover will make a difference too. So my suggestion is really just a rough guess but I'll bet I'm fairly close based on prior experience.

ISO100 will give you longer exposure times - twice as long, of course. It's this exposure time that kills the batteries, and of course NR will hit them twice as hard. That's why I'd use 400 or 800; to help with the batteries. If you're not happy with the noise you get at those speeds then don't use them, but for me they're OK.

Two other things to think about - one is condensation and the other is the sensor heating up. If you're outside at night, the front lens element can get condensation on it if the camera is warmer than the air temperature. Try to let it cool down before you start shooting and will probably help. Also, digital sensors can heat up and cause digital artifacts in your shot; usually along one of the edges. With a long exposure - especially a double exposure if NR is on - the sensor is charged for a long time. Keep an eye out for it, and if it happens let the camera cool down for awhile before trying it again. I don't think this will hurt the camera.

[BMWJNKY]

I started at 8 min, ISO200 - but remember that was slide film so there is some reciprocity failure involved. Some films are better at this; some worse. Basically, once you have an exposure that's maybe 1/4 sec to 1 sec or longer (depends on film), you need to take this into account by adding more exposure. The reciprocal relationship between shutter speed and aperture isn't there anymore (IOW, it has failed) meaning that adding one stop by going from one sec to two sec won't exactly give you one stop more exposure.

Since digital doesn't have this problem, my 8 min at ISO200 may be overexposed on digital. I don't know - I've actually never tried - but once again the cloud cover will make a difference too. So my suggestion is really just a rough guess but I'll bet I'm fairly close based on prior experience.

ISO100 will give you longer exposure times - twice as long, of course. It's this exposure time that kills the batteries, and of course NR will hit them twice as hard. That's why I'd use 400 or 800; to help with the batteries. If you're not happy with the noise you get at those speeds then don't use them, but for me they're OK.

Two other things to think about - one is condensation and the other is the sensor heating up. If you're outside at night, the front lens element can get condensation on it if the camera is warmer than the air temperature. Try to let it cool down before you start shooting and will probably help. Also, digital sensors can heat up and cause digital artifacts in your shot; usually along one of the edges. With a long exposure - especially a double exposure if NR is on - the sensor is charged for a long time. Keep an eye out for it, and if it happens let the camera cool down for awhile before trying it again. I don't think this will hurt the camera.

Ok, thanks for the info. At night its been in the low 30's lately with zero to very thin clouds. I'll probably start early in the night take a few images then go home and see how they turn out. If I get decent results I maybe go out again that night and try some more. I might try some this week on my cheep tripod just to get a feel of what I need to do to get the image I want.

[another view]

Sounds like a good plan. Actually when it's cold, the sky will be clearer so that might be even better. But wait, 30 is cold? Good luck - it will take some experimenting so use the opportunity if you can.

[BMWJNKY]

Sounds like a good plan. Actually when it's cold, the sky will be clearer so that might be even better. But wait, 30 is cold? Good luck - it will take some experimenting so use the opportunity if you can.

I'm used to our summers where it is 100+ on a regular basis and "cools off" to the low 90's at night. Plus being about 6' 1" tall and only 155 pounds on a heavy day doesn't leave me with much insulation