Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/09/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Moon rocks are gray, sort of like the parking lot at Walmart. Not very romantic! It is said that the Chinese poet Li Bai drowned when trying to embrace the reflection of the moon in the water, having had a bit too much to drink. Had the moon looked like a parking lot, it seems likely that he would have lived longer. Of course that story is probably a bit doubtful, but really, who would find a gray moon exciting? Using the "sunny 16" or Basic Daylight rule with no modification would produce an accurate exposure of the moon and render the surface of the moon as gray, as it is. Whether it would be the same gray as the 18% reflectance gray card that meters are calibrated to assume as a standard, I couldn't say. You would have to compare a moon rock with the card. Talk to NASA, if you feel the need to check. I suspect that most people would prefer the moon to be white, with full detail. That is the way we interpret it when we see it, isn't it? If you use the basic daylight rule with say fp4 or plus x rated at 125 iso, your exposure for a gray moon would be 1/125 second at f/16. If you shoot it that way, you can, of course, print it to look white, but it will look rather lifeless, because it would be right at two full stops underexposed for that white-with-detail value. Since it is pretty far away, depth of field certainly isn't an issue, so I would keep the shutter speed (sometimes my students spell it "shudder speed" which is sort of amusing) high, because camera movement is not helpful. So you could use 1/125 at f/8 or any equivalent speed/aperture combination to render the moon as detailed white. The "error" in underexposing by two stops is far more significant than differing atmospheric conditions when the moon is visible. When the moon is full, it is rising when the sun is setting. If you want more than just the moon, say a moon as a part of a landscape, it is pretty easy to do if you make the exposure right for the moon; in the example above, 1/125 at f/8. Then "bracket" the terrestrial part by simply making exposures at intervals, say every 5 minutes or less. Probably it would not be as interesting if the moon and the earth were the same brightness; the earth ought to be darker. From a series of negatives made this way, it is possible to simply choose the one that has the desired balance. Kind of lengthy but this is one of my favorite topics. If you would find further discussion of this interesting, look for Ansel Adams' discussion of his "Moonrise over Hernandez" image. He used his light meter for the earth and his understanding of the brightness of the moon to calculate both the exposure and the development time needed to produce the image. > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:18:12 -0700 > From: Bob Shaw <rsphotoimages@comcast.net> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Full Harvest Moon > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Message-ID: <0d646426e4ceb3563f0b4d048c54469b@comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Thanks, guys. > > Say; wouldn't that be the Moonie 16 rule? > > And yes, I'll ry it! > > Cheers, > > Bob > > > > On Sep 26, 2007, at 13:25, Sonny Carter wrote: > > On 9/26/07, Bob Shaw <rsphotoimages@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> I've never had a lot of luck photographing the moon. Always had good >> bodies and lenses. Never learned how to do it right. >> > > > Just use the sunny 16 rule. Put that camera on a tripod, zoom in and > focus. Set it at f16 and the speed correspoding to your ISO. You > might > try bracketing the shutter speed some, especially if the air is > exceptionally clear. > > >