Anyone else thought the Moon last night was cool?

[HankDorsett]

TL;DR Summary

Last night's View of the Moon from Northern Illinois

Summary: Last night's View of the Moon from Northern Illinois

Even with a few day-old waxing moon I was able to easily see all of the moon's outline. As the moon set last night it lined up with the street I was on making it appear vastly larger than normal. I was in awe as it drop down.

 

[davenn]

Summary: Last night's View of the Moon from Northern Illinois

Even with a few day-old waxing moon I was able to easily see all of the moon's outline.

That's called Earth'shine ( reflected light from the Earth onto the moon) when the darkened part glows faintly

 

[sophiecentaur]

The Moon is constantly grabbing my attention with its many different faces. It can be stunning.

 

[HankDorsett]

Back again with with another awe-inspiring event. For as far as I could see tonight the sky was clear with one exception. Just above me was a strip of cloud that was about a mile long, pointed on each end and fat in the middle. The structure, formation or whatever it's called resembled the trail that planes leave behind. A more crude and rude way of saying this, it looked like a cloud poop.

 

[davenn]

The structure, formation or whatever it's called resembled the trail that planes leave behind.

It's called a contrail

 

[sophiecentaur]

It's called a contrail

Short lengths of contrail can survive for long periods if they were laid down in a less turbulent region when the rest of the trail has been stirred up and dispersed.
@HankDorsett it's an atmospheric phenomenon and not a 'space' phenomenon. Clouds and contrails should really be appreciated for their beauty at times. Astrophotographers can regard clouds as just a nuisance but there are some brilliant photos, obtainable from atmospheric stuff. This is a bit artificial but pretty.

 

[HankDorsett]

it's an atmospheric phenomenon and not a 'space' phenomenon.

My apologies, I didn't realize my initial post was moved out of the general form.

I tried to get a photo of it but my crappy phone only saw darkness.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I tried to get a photo of it but my crappy phone only saw darkness.

The Moon will only come out small with a standard phone camera lens (quite wide angle, compared with the standard dslr lenses) but it should show up ok. The problem with an ordinary phone camera is that the sky is dark andso the camera will give a long exposure the bright Moon will usually come out very over cooked. The sort of exposure that the Moon requires is that of an object in bright daylight (which it is!). If you have manual control of the camera, you need around 1/100s or faster and that can show some actual structure if you blow the picture up a bit.

 

[newbiegirl]

Harvest Moon spooky

 

[sophiecentaur]

I tried to get a photo of it but my crappy phone only saw darkness.

There is a good market for second hand DSLR cameras and, if you get a well known make, there are also old (manual focus etc) lenses that will fit. For less than 100GBP you can get something that will not only show you the Moon but the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy which is very visible, even in the presence of moderate light pollution. All that's needed in addition is a cheap second hand tripod. Astrophotography need not cost an arm and a leg and the results can impress your friends.
Also, a very ordinary DSLR will give you pictures that the smart phone just can't take. It doesn't take a genius to get to know what those controls do as you have the possibility of trial and error with digital imaging that you never had with film.

 

[hutchphd]

Summary: Last night's View of the Moon from Northern Illinois

As the moon set last night it lined up with the street I was on making it appear vastly larger than normal

You got to love the great Midwest at equinox time...Jefferson's townships live on.

 

[HankDorsett]

There is a good market for second hand DSLR cameras and, if you get a well known make, there are also old (manual focus etc) lenses that will fit. For less than 100GBP you can get something that will not only show you the Moon but the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy which is very visible, even in the presence of moderate light pollution. All that's needed in addition is a cheap second hand tripod. Astrophotography need not cost an arm and a leg and the results can impress your friends.
Also, a very ordinary DSLR will give you pictures that the smart phone just can't take. It doesn't take a genius to get to know what those controls do as you have the possibility of trial and error with digital imaging that you never had with film.

I spent the night at a farm this weekend and the near full moon rising above a distant tree line was awesome. We brought out a less expensive SLR but unfortunately couldn't figure out what settings to use to take a proper picture. the automatic settings just blurred out the Moon.

I would really love to get a setup that could take detailed pictures of the moon. Anyone have an idea what that would take?

 

[HankDorsett]

You got to love the great Midwest at equinox time...Jefferson's townships live on.

North Central Illinois here

 

[sophiecentaur]

unfortunately couldn't figure out what settings

Not at all surprising. Fumbling around outside in the dark is not the way to find out how to do astrophotography. We have all been there in one way or another. Last night, for instance, I was trying to align a new GoTo telescope mount and discovered the problems and partial solutions to the dreaded Cone Error. This morning, in the Sun, I sorted it out and now I have understood what Cone Error is all about. Not completely of course but 100% better than I did last night.

An appropriate exposure for the Moon is to consider it as an object in full sunlight. Round about 1/125s at f8 could be a place to start (with a normal ISO number, like 400). There is a massive range of brightness in a moonlit nighttime scene with a foreground and it is not possible to deal with that range without some clever photoshopping. A reasonable long lens (200mm+) should resolve some lunar features if you 'underexpose'. The blurring you saw was probably due to flare and the sensor elements going into saturation (limiting).

 

[HankDorsett]

Not at all surprising. Fumbling around outside in the dark is not the way to find out how to do astrophotography. We have all been there in one way or another. Last night, for instance, I was trying to align a new GoTo telescope mount and discovered the problems and partial solutions to the dreaded Cone Error. This morning, in the Sun, I sorted it out and now I have understood what Cone Error is all about. Not completely of course but 100% better than I did last night.

An appropriate exposure for the Moon is to consider it as an object in full sunlight. Round about 1/125s at f8 could be a place to start (with a normal ISO number, like 400). There is a massive range of brightness in a moonlit nighttime scene with a foreground and it is not possible to deal with that range without some clever photoshopping. A reasonable long lens (200mm+) should resolve some lunar features if you 'underexpose'. The blurring you saw was probably due to flare and the sensor elements going into saturation (limiting).

I'll give this a try next full moon. Thanks

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'll give this a try next full moon. Thanks

Actually, the Moon is worth a picture or two in all phases. The oblique lighting on the terminator brings out shadows of the larger features even with a moderate length of lens.
Take plenty of images each session.

 

[Klystron]

The Moon remains my favorite objects to paint. I photographed a partial eclipse framed by hedges and trees and faithfully reproduced the colors on black gessoed canvases. Red-orange moon, green-black leaves; complementary colors accentuated by backlit clouds. Total flops. No one believes the reality. "It's so Big and ... red."

Went back to imaginary moon in sea- and landscapes. Total raves. "We love the Moon! It is so realistic!".

 

[sophiecentaur]

"It's so Big and ... red."

I have a nascent theory about the apparent size of the Moon when it's near the horizon. What if it's not just the Moon that looks bigger than it 'should' but all distant objects? That implies a failure of perspective - and why not? So the trees on the horizon look bigger and, in comparison, so does the Moon. OF course, it's all psychological and could be a phenomenon linked to the way distant large aircraft often look the wrong size and their perceived speeds can be unbelievable.
I look forward to someone disagreeing with all that; it could be the beginning of a good argument. Bring it on.

 

[gmax137]

An appropriate exposure for the Moon is to consider it as an object in full sunlight. Round about 1/125s at f8 could be a place to start (with a normal ISO number, like 400).

Yes, I was going to suggest the Sunny 16 rule. I went to look in Wiki to make sure the write up there would make sense. I discovered something new (to me) there, the Looney 11:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looney_11_rule
"For astronomical photos of the Moon's surface, set aperture to f/11 and shutter speed to the [reciprocal of the] ISO film speed [or ISO setting]...

The albedo of the Moon's surface material is lower (darker) than that of the Earth's surface, and the Looney 11 rule increases exposure by one stop versus the Sunny 16 rule. Many photographers simply use the f/16-based Sunny 16 rule, unmodified, for lunar photographs.

 

[newbiegirl]

No one believes the reality. "It's so Big and ... red."

Went back to imaginary moon in sea- and landscapes. Total raves. "We love the Moon! It is so realistic!".

I do Klystron, sounds interesting as well as the red-orange hue depiction.