Constructive criticism is welcome? OK...why a shutter speed of 1/2000, thus necessitating the very high ISO (gain) and all that resultant noise? The only reason I can think of is the lack of a tripod on the particular occasion. The image would have been much cleaner at a shutter speed of, say, 1/200 and lower ISO (with tripod). The moon doesn't move THAT fast!
i agree with tony, it is not the speed of the moon that is a problem, rather that we cannot hold a long lens steady at any thing below a 120th of a second. 1/200 would be plenty of safety factor.
thanks for your feedback Tony!
actually, I shot it at every speed from 1/250 - 1/2000. I used shutter priority and used a tripod. btw, I don't know why the exif doesn't show it but the iso is 200 so any noise is just plain digital noise. the slower speeds with a smaller aperature looked worse so I chose the one that looked the best on-screen.
next time I will shoot manually but please, please any suggestions to improve (besides shooting a partial moon - waited most of the month for a clear sky so this was my only choice this month)
Brian - the original was a raw photo and I did process it to darken it.... i deliberately didn't run the noise remover because it blurred the ridges on the bottom of the moon - the only relief visible. I'll see if I kept the original - I deleted most of that folder today because I wasn't satisfied with the results
what aperature are you using at 1/400th? I found the best combo for me is 1/500 at f11. at 400 anything below f8 - f11 is just too bright in the past ones I have shot.
I have found that the camera does a better job processing than I do.... when I shoot in jpeg they come out great
Brian - checkout the original - that's why it looks so noisy..... all the gain from raising the lighting! In Picasa (which I use 100% of the time to organize and locate fotos), this looked as bright as the other speeds......
something for me to keep in mind! :))
201,373 members
3,172,105 photos
8,180,837 comments
Upload
Explore
Make Friends
