Tips on Night Sky Photography using Aug 30, 2023 Super Blue Moon

[gdlewen]

I recently decided to try using my Nikon Z6 for night sky photography. I took this picture during testing and know it can be better--I've done some reading on-line and would change the ISO setting to something lower, for instance. Given the range of interests and experience on the ST Forum, I am pretty sure I can get some help. This picture was taken with the following settings:

• ISO 51200 AUTO (...heavy sigh...big mistake)
• 200mm f13 lens (NIKKOR Z 24-200 f4-6.3 VR)
• 1/2500s exposure time.

Comparison photos to this kind of view using similar exposure parameters will be helpful. (Yes, please make me feel inadequate--it's the only way I will learn. I'm sure I can do better.)

 

[Rick Schmidt]

I would go with ISO 200, or 400. Maybe a 500th @ f/11, then go from there.

 

[gdlewen]

I would go with ISO 200, or 400. Maybe a 500th @ f/11, then go from there.

I will definitely drop the ISO as you suggest. This one was pretty noisy. Thank you!

 

[James K]

Looks good to me. Better than what I got.

In this case, camera is a nothing special lower-end Panasonic camcorder.
I just put it on a tripod & left it in 'intelligent auto' mode, zoomed in & after it focused, snapped a few pic's
(I think you can manually set ISO's & stuff on it, but I don't know about that)

 

[Randy Jennings]

Your shot isn't that bad. It is always hard to tell what you are getting on such as small screen when shooting. My reco is to bracket - take a lot of shots at different shutter speeds and apertures (using a lower ISO for sure) and then compare once you download off the camera. The moon is tricky because of the contrast. It can be hard to pull the detail out in the dark without washing out the light parts.

 

[gdlewen]

Looks good to me. Better than what I got.

In this case, camera is a nothing special lower-end Panasonic camcorder.
I just put it on a tripod & left it in 'intelligent auto' mode, zoomed in & after it focused, snapped a few pic's
(I think you can manually set ISO's & stuff on it, but I don't know about that)

Looking at some of the fine detail it's not so far off what I got--just much lower contrast. It's better than I thought a camcorder would do.

 

[gdlewen]

Your shot isn't that bad. It is always hard to tell what you are getting on such as small screen when shooting. My reco is to bracket - take a lot of shots at different shutter speeds and apertures (using a lower ISO for sure) and then compare once you download off the camera. The moon is tricky because of the contrast. It can be hard to pull the detail out in the dark without washing out the light parts.

I missed out on some of the nice moonrise color early on trying to get focus optimized. With moonrises well after midnight lately, I am looking forward to trying again. At least until "2nd Season" starts up. Thanks for your comments!

 

[James K]

Looking at some of the fine detail it's not so far off what I got--just much lower contrast. It's better than I thought a camcorder would do.

Yeah, didn't do too bad for a lower-end camera & auto-everything. Seeing it full res on my computer its kinda grainy looking close, but overall I'm satisfied with that was done as a quick sit the tripod/camera on the roof & snap off a little series of shots, then go back inside (fairly soon after moonrise, so it was low in the sky, had to get above trees/houses).

 

[James K]

I out of curiosity looked at some of the manual settings on my camcorder..
There's nothing labeled ISO but...
Under 'Shutter' it has stuff like 1/60 1/100 in various increments up to 1/4000 (without looking for the manual I'm guessing that means its open for 1/60th etc of a second)

Under 'Iris' it has a range of dB settings & then a range of 'F' settings

(also ofcourse has manual-focus & white-balance options)

I remember in a Jr. High art class I took there was a photography segment where they taught about ISO's & F's ... but that was a really long time ago (and with 35mm film cameras), I don't remember what any of it means now, simply been way too long ago.


Maybe next time, I'll try playing around with some of the settings out of curiosity to see if I can get any better contrast/etc

 

[gdlewen]

Your shot isn't that bad. It is always hard to tell what you are getting on such as small screen when shooting. My reco is to bracket - take a lot of shots at different..

I will take that as a positive as in “lots of room for improvement.”

Thank you!

 

[gdlewen]

I out of curiosity looked at some of the manual settings on my camcorder..
There's nothing labeled ISO but...
Under 'Shutter' it has stuff like 1/60 1/100 in various increments up to 1/4000 (without looking for the manual I'm guessing that means its open for 1/60th etc of a second)

Under 'Iris' it has a range of dB settings & then a range of 'F' settings

(also ofcourse has manual-focus & white-balance options)

I remember in a Jr. High art class I took there was a photography segment where they taught about ISO's & F's ... but that was a really long time ago (and with 35mm film cameras), I don't remember what any of it means now, simply been way too long ago.


Maybe next time, I'll try playing around with some of the settings out of curiosity to see if I can get any better contrast/etc

I think we have nothing to lose. Skies over Tulsa are clearing tonight—might catch the nearly-new moon. Good luck!

 

[James K]

I think we have nothing to lose. Skies over Tulsa are clearing tonight—might catch the nearly-new moon. Good luck!

Nearly new moon could make for a cool shot!
I looked out a window for the moon at some point last night but didn't see it (maybe it wasn't up yet at that point, or maybe was behind one of the few small clouds around)

I took this last weekend on a camping trip. (same camera as before & auto mode)
Love the way it turned out because of the way craters show on the top right.
I've never had craters show like that before ... but then again I've only ever tried taking moon photos when its full.

 

[gdlewen]

Nearly new moon could make for a cool shot!
I looked out a window for the moon at some point last night but didn't see it (maybe it wasn't up yet at that point, or maybe was behind one of the few small clouds around)

I took this last weekend on a camping trip. (same camera as before & auto mode)
Love the way it turned out because of the way craters show on the top right.
I've never had craters show like that before ... but then again I've only ever tried taking moon photos when its full.

I think you fiddle with the contrast a bit--it looks like there are details made less apparent by the low contrast. And I agree--craters on the limb of the moon with their shadows make for a nice view. So far in Tulsa the moon has been hidden behind clouds or setting ahead of the sun--therefore no visibility. I will keep trying.

 

[James K]

Yep.. I'll have to play around with the contrast on the computer with that one a bit.

I haven't looked out for the moon the past couple nights If I remember (and its not cloudy) I might try when its around a quarter & a half just to see how either of those would turn out...

 

[gdlewen]

I

Yep.. I'll have to play around with the contrast on the computer with that one a bit.

I haven't looked out for the moon the past couple nights If I remember (and its not cloudy) I might try when its around a quarter & a half just to see how either of those would turn out...

I tried tonight but had trouble with focus. Or there might have been thin cirrostratus—by the time the sky darkened enough the moon was getting pretty low so the optical depth of the atmosphere was noticeably scattering the light. It’s hard to to say without examining the raw images. There were definitely thermal density fluctuations visible during focusing. Everything suboptimal….

 

[gdlewen]

This is one try--maybe not the best but it takes time to poke through the files and I'm not sure these are worth it: there's a lot that's going wrong, I think. The contrast just could not be improved. Unlike storm chasing, however, "There's always next month."

Two-Day Old Moon
Settings: ISO6400, 1/100s shutter, 200mm, f/6.3.

​

 

[Rick Schmidt]

You really need a faster shutter speed to stop any camera movement, and I don't see why you need such a high ISO. Try some at ISO 800. There is nothing wrong with your image, except I bet you can't enlarge it very much before it falls apart, grain wise.

 

[gdlewen]

You really need a faster shutter speed to stop any camera movement, and I don't see why you need such a high ISO. Try some at ISO 800. There is nothing wrong with your image, except I bet you can't enlarge it very much before it falls apart, grain wise.

Thanks for the tips. I did try ISO800 with 1/320s shutter speed, but those were even less clear--pretty sure thin cirrostratus was the culprit. Not as noisy, of course, as the higher ISO images, but no better detail.

I feel fairly certain a shutter speed in the range 1/100s to 1/500s is OK--the Z6 has a 5-axis IBIS (In-Body-Image-Stabilization) VR feature which should make hand-held moon shots possible. This is what I'd like to reproduce, a hand-held Z6 image of the moon (link below); the OP did not give his settings, so it's a bit of trial and error to get it similar....

https://external-preview.redd.it/FH-NNNUtk4FwkrZ3VczW8ixdI9Jby0TqXVwSNd6DZVg.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=26e0d5ea4627b0daf299bc29ebbb2b0946ebd62a

www.reddit.com

But not tonight. Too much cloud cover.

 

[James K]

I do like the 2-day moon image.

I tried last night, but there was thin high cloud (wasn't that noticeable til you really looked & saw yeah there is something there).. basically made all images look out of focus (when viewed on the computer..looked fine on the little camera screen). ... Sounds like maybe same as you had Sunday/cirrostratus

Went out & did some experimenting tonight...Even though these appear like it was dark, I actually did it at that point after sunset where its still partially light out.

Main trial here was to do alittle playing with the camera's manual settings, these were:
f4.2, f5.6, f6.8 .. shutter is the default of 1/60 (you cant set both a manual f-setting & shutter setting simultaneously)
in some ways, I like the 5.6 best - seems to bring out a bit more detail, but the 4.6 color-wize is a little better (especially along the edge of the lighted side - with the higher f's it gets a bit of a greenish line there - pretty obvious in the 6.8).
I shoulda done one with full-auto as a comparison

I tried looking at the reddit link, but the photo wont show there...

 

[gdlewen]

Went out & did some experimenting tonight...Even though these appear like it was dark, I actually did it at that point after sunset where its still partially light out.

Main trial here was to do alittle playing with the camera's manual settings, these were:
f4.2, f5.6, f6.8 .. shutter is the default of 1/60 (you cant set both a manual f-setting & shutter setting simultaneously)
in some ways, I like the 5.6 best - ....

Yes--what you are getting is more what I am expecting to see, weather permitting. Not just cloudy skies but tomorrow in KS there is potential for severe weather...ENH risk posted on the Day 2 Convective Outlook. That gets priority. (We will see.)

The reddit image was--admittedly by the poster--heavily processed to sharpen the image, so we should consider that. By the way--just for the benefit of those who could not get to the reddit image, I re-post it here and note that the photographer credit is in the reddit link in my post above. It looks nice--especially for hand-held, no tripod--and I think your photos will sharpen up well if you decide to try it.

 

[James K]

Yep.. I saw the SPC outlooks .. like probably everyone here, check those regularly.

That reddit image is pretty impressive. Deff would be cool to some degree duplicate it.
Shocked they didn't use a tripod. I pretty much have to. .lol.
Looks like around 3/4 moon, wonder is something in that range is ideal size?

 

[gdlewen]

Yep.. I saw the SPC outlooks .. like probably everyone here, check those regularly.

That reddit image is pretty impressive. Deff would be cool to some degree duplicate it.
Shocked they didn't use a tripod. I pretty much have to. .lol.
Looks like around 3/4 moon, wonder is something in that range is ideal size?

The reddit OP started off with the statement (words to the effect) that he wanted to see if he could get a good hand-held moon shot with the Z6. The Z6 body has a five-axis accelerometer vibration reduction system (pitch, roll, yaw, ±z) that so far I have had a hard time defeating. I still use a tripod, though. Can't help myself.

And yes--I am trying to get one as good, or better, as the reddit image. I tend to agree with you that something 1/2-3/4 phase is probably the best phase to shoot, to get those shadows of craters, but I am obsessed with the getting the youngest moon possible.