I put the frames into a little time-lapse video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk2QTj4LBfw

Keep this in mind for next time... I heard that the best way to get a clear photo of the moon is to get a special attachment for your camera- a space shuttle.

bigbrother

That is so cool. I was watching it here in Chicago last night, in the freezing cold thinking if you were taking pictures of it. Awesome!

This is super cool!! I didn’t bother going out in the cold to see it for myself so thank you for giving me the experience from the warmth and comfort of my basement.

Dawn & Nathaniel

Awesome photo Dave. Very clear in my opinion for such a close up shot. I’ve tried this myself and didn’t get any shots this good. Curious what your shutter/aperture settings were.

Super pics, Dave. I am jealous that I didn’t have a room I could use to photograph the eclipse. I started with a tripod outside but gave that up shortly because of the extreme cold. It was easier (and more comfortable) to run outside every ten minutes and snap a picture rather than trying to realign the tripod in the dark.

cubs1944

This is great. I also was not willing to stand out in the cold to see it. Thanks for giving us a taste of nature.

I wouldn’t have even tried to do this if I didn’t have a nice cozy room. But I had to open the window to get a clear shot at it, and my room got cold quick! Dang.

Camera settings were about like this, give or take a few numbers here and there:

* 300mm zoom lens, fully zoomed, with manual focus (set just shy of infinity)

* ISO of 200 I think

* Shutter speed about 1/2 second

* F-stop of about 8 or 10

* Long-exposure noise reduction was enabled in camera settings

That covers it I think. I did a bunch of tests with different settings later, and I needed a longer shutter speed to get the “eclipsed” moon shot (the orange one). The settings above were for the sequence.

To minimize blur due to possible motion of camera or lens I would open the aperture as wide as possible as a first step. This will allow you to close the shutter sooner. I’m not sure how the ISO setting might degrade the image although a higher ISO setting will make the digital back more sensitive and will have the same effect(The ISO harkens back to the days of film and I understand to refer to the “speed” of film). The other suggestion I would have for sharpness applies to any photography and that would be wherever possible to use a prime lens rather than a zoom which tends to have more lens elements. The more elements you have the more little pieces of glass the light has to travel through and the less crisp the image. Of course these are far less convenient than having a full range of focal lengths but its a trade-off between how much you want a lens that does it all and one that gives a great crisp image. Fast (wide apertures) prime lenses get expensive and the more expensive ones will have better quality glass that is machined and polished to greater degrees and tolerances.

The one big thing to bear in mind with the moon though is that it is not a stationary object and even though it moves so slowly you can hardly notice it, even a few seconds will give it enough time to move enough for it to show as a little blur in a picture....of course the longer the focal length, the more this will be apparent.

George the Bloody Redcoat

Oh and you’ll want to set the focus ON infinity because the moon is so far away that it is close enough to infinity that any movement away from infinity on the focusing ring could bring the depth of focus in front of the moon. Notice how on the focus ring of any lens the distance is greater at the shorter end of the scale? That means that the further the object is away from the lens the greater the depth of field and the less sensitive the focusing is. The half second shutter speed is probably actually ok but the F8 or 10 sounds unnecessarily small for something so far away. I’d open the aperture as wide as possible and use a shorter shutter speed.

George the Bloody Redcoat

Thanks George, all good information. I do have a prime lens, but it’s only 50mm, so it doesn’t get too close. Infinity focus is correct in theory, but my lens gets a little blurry when it’s turned all the way to infinity. I have to back it off a little to make far-away objects clear, and I think this just has to do with the lens being less than professional.

My thought with the aperture was that the smaller it was, the wider the depth-of-field would be, but you’re right - the extra exposure time only meant that the moon would track across the sky that much more, most likely offsetting any gain I’d have in focus with the small aperture.

I did a 30-second exposure of the fully-eclipsed moon, and dang, that thing moves a LOT in 30 seconds! It’s crazy.

that picture is so awesome, i set it as the background for my desktop.. is that ok dave?.. if not, i’ll switch it back to the asian porno i had on there.

JimtheEnglishman

Another common approach is to use “stacking” software (AstroStack, Registax) and combine dozens of images into one. The advantage of this type of software is that it can track an object as it moves in the frame and handle aligning them as well as filtering out noise. The results are pretty stunning.

I used Registax a couple years ago to create quite a few shots of planets (http://gallery.ejinnovations.com/main.php/v/ViaTelescope/Satu...) with my telescope and a cheap digital camera. It should work just as well on the moon. Just take dozens of short exposure shots and run it through the software.

EJ

That is correct. The smaller the aperture (larger numbers) the greater the depth of field. However, at such great distances, even at wide apertures the depth of field gets enormous.....so much so that picking a small aperture for depth of field considerations is futile.

George the Bloody Redcoat

Dave,

That is the coolest thing ever. I think it’s funny that you were the first person that came to mind when I thought, “hmmm... how the hell could i get this on camera!”

Carrie