Printable View
Can someone help me with moon landscape techniques? What is the best way to expose the landscape while keeping the overexposure of the moon in check at the same time? Is this even possible?
You can see my failed attempt(s) below.
Thank you in advance.
The general approach is shoot the moon with a 200mm lens at 1/125 sec. approx. at f. 5.6 with ISO 100.
Then in the second shot shoot the scene and if you are shooting toward a brighter sky use a graduated neutral density filter. Tripod will be necessary and a higher ISO.
Then using Photoshop add the moon from shot 1 into your second shot. Selection/Copy/Paste as new selection.
Tegan
thanks teagan
:)
I'm thinking about doing a podcast on HDR (high dynamic range) which would also solve this problem.
The idea is similar to tegan's (merging elements of different tonal ranges) except that you take 3 identical shots.
One normal - one 2 stops over - one 2 stops under.
Then bring all 3 into photoshop and merge them into one shot that has a high dynamic range.
details and experimentation to follow.
Thx!
marko
That will not work. The difference in exposure is too great between the moon and the foreground. Any shot that would expose the moon properly would have no visual sign of a foreground at all. Any shot that exposes the foreground properly would totally wash out the moon.Quote:
Originally Posted by marko
HDR only works properly for exposures that are close together and this is not the case here.
Tegan
Hey Tegan, Is not three exposures in HDR just a number? Does Photomatix not process as many files as you tell it to? If so, one should be able to bracket really wide and get a working solution no?
Correct me if I am wrong since I don't do HDR, but my understanding is that in all your exposures there should be some detail in all areas of your photo even if it is under or overexposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelaw
I am not sure how merging a moon shot with 1/125 sec at f. 5.6 and a completely black foreground with another photo with detail in the foreground and a completely washed out moon with no detail at 10 seconds and f. 2.8 is going to create a pleasing result. The difference is certainly more than a couple of stops.
It also seems much easier to take 2 different shots and insert the moon from one into the other.
Tegan
I don't do much HDR myself and I assumed, when you said Markos idea would not work, that you were well up on the technique so I was kind of asking you:)
I see now that you were just saying that two stops difference would not resolve the issue using HDR and you're probably on track here. I have seen some poorly lit rooms matched up with blown out ambient light streaming through windows equalized using HDR with pleasing results not too sure about the moon shot though. the whole idea has gone into my experimentation to-do list as I'd like to figure a way to get a decent moon shot such as the OP's using the HDR method.
I am familiar with the HDR technique but I have only rarely seen it well-used, as in where it really fits the subject of the photo. The look is often "illustration" rather than "photo" that you might see in a story book.
It also works well in shooting interiors with windows since the outside scene can be balanced with the indoor scene lighting-wise. I have seen a few scenics where the tonal range has been assisted by HDR as well.
I find however that by using a few classic filters, postprocessing, and plug-ins that a more natural less artificial looking result can be achieved than what is often the case with HDR.
I see no point in merging shots with drastically different settings. Select/copy/insert the moon is much faster and easier.
Beside merging a 200mm telephoto of the moon with a 50 mm shot of a foreground at very different settings seems a lot more and unnecessarily complex.
Tegan
I sometimes use HDR as an assist method to help bring out detail in a shot but I tent to use it sparingly. Whether HDR is acceptable is a matter of personal taste, some seem to love the story book look more than others. I, like you, have seen only a handful of worthy HDR shots and from experimentation I have learned that yes, you can get a much more believable look using classic filters. Adjusting levels and selective color adjustment work well for me in most images. I am tending to steer away from HDR of late as It feels like a fib when I post but that's just me:) I think HDR is a useful tool in one's kit, the trick is knowing when and how much to employ.
................
Well here is a very quick, non HDR job of a moon shot with a foreground.
The moon was shot with an equivalent 35mm format of 135mm which looks realistic in size.
Tegan
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/b...falls_lune.jpg
I too have seen plenty of bad HDRs - but I have seen some amazing HDRs as well.
In terms of whether it would work with the moon shot, I was thinking about that yesterday evening before I read tegan's 'no it would not work' post. I too was thinking that maybe the range is too great. Maybe.
But tegan's sweeping statement (especially since he doesn't do HDR), for me is a challenge...and so I will try it. He may be right but I'm not convinced he's right. And if it does work there will be more detail throughout the photo.
More details and an HDR podcast to follow...:)
Thx
Marko
My sweeping statements are somewhat "tongue firmly planted in cheek" :) so I am glad you did take up the challenge. The range however is so great that you are really only doing my collage approach in a slightly different manner. There is no real tonal benefit to the HDR approach for this type of shot, so why take that approach?Quote:
Originally Posted by marko
Tegan
I totally agree with everything you have said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelaw
Tegan
So, Marko, when can I expect to see your HDR moon shot experiment?
I provided my quick rendition.
Tegan