2F/2F I think Michael refers to your suggestions of using two lenses of different focal length. If that is meant to have the moon appear bigger than natural in the scene, the final result might appear fake to somebody (me amongst them).
What is fake in photography is hard to tell. A lot of effort is devoted in trying to render a scene not how it was, but how our mind records it.
The light in open shade actually is bluish and this can be noticed by an attentive eye. We see the sides of a building actually converge in reality as we cannot escape laws of perspective, but sometimes the converging vertical looks unnatural and the parallel sides in picture look more natural at first glance.
The moon is only 1° in the sky, when we look at the moon, lost in the black sky, it seems much bigger. I tend to immediately notice the "unnatural" effect of a larger than natural moon, or of a building taken with a "perspective control" in which the sides have been made parallel, but for some other people a little moon, or converging verticals, might appear different from what they would expect.
I was referring more to the option of using different focal lengths. Sorry about that I should have been clearer. Perhaps "line in the sand" was too strong since I am considering the double exposure, which as you point out, clearly violates my "what's in front of me" position. I would say however that although I am considering doing two exposures, it is not something I'm keen on, because it does cross that line in the sand. So I agree there is not much difference between sandwiching images in enlarger and making multiple exposures on film. It bothers me. So the more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion I would simply have to use a faster film to try and keep the single exposure down to 3-4 seconds. As I said before the contrast range is not too big a deal, with the moon being exposed on zone X (average value). Not a problem to bring that down.
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
Go to the Interactive site of Paul Neave, at Neave.com; go to Planetarium.
Locate your position on the globe, (where you live, or where you will be taking pictures from). You are able to plug-in any date and time.
From this site you can easily see when the moon will rise and set each day, on any day, past, present, or future. Great tool for planning the perfect days and times for shooting the sky. You can also move the time, or day, or month, and watch how objects in the sky will move over a given amount of time. And, the price is right...Free!
Every time I see this thread title, somehow I think of the following:
"When the moon hits you eye like a big pizza pie
When the world seems to shine like you've had too much wine
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Here's a calculation I used for a recent moon shot:
The moon moves across the sky its own diameter in two minutes.
The moon's image diameter on film is 1/100 of the focal length of the lens.
The 300mm lens on my 8x10 camera delivers a 3mm moon image.
The maximum out of focus blur for depth of field calculations (300mm on 8x10) is 0.2mm so I'll make the maximum acceptable motion blur the same 0.2mm.
Question; how long does it take for the 3mm moon image to move 0.2 mm? Simple arithmetic says 1/15 of 2 minutes or 8 seconds near enough.
That's the longest shutter speed I can tolerate before the moon image gets blurry and slightly oval.
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
FWIW - I recall reading somewhere that 1/60 sec is the minimum exposure time to prevent motion blur.
Smudger: that is a rule-of-thumb for slow-moving people, at portrait kinds of magnification. Not applicable to anything else.
If you want to figure out motion blur, you need to know subject velocity and subject magnification. 1/60 is way too conservative for the moon (see all previous posts), but you won't get a flying bird frozen until at least 1/250, sometimes 1/1000.
Two furlongs per fortnight at any give ISO except for the blue moon when it's one half furlong.
Heavily sedated for your protection.
My recollection is that I needed 1/320 sec for a full frame shot taken on a 35mm camera. If I remember correctly, the focal length for that shot was something like 2000mm.
For a wider shot, you can get by with longer exposures. E.g. St. Ansel's famous Moonrise was much longer. But for a tight crop, you'll need 1/320 at least.
The usual astrophotography technique is to do a series of short exposures at high ISO and then use a stacking program e.g. registax to register them and thereby get better signal to noise.
The moon would be pretty small in my photograph, similar to Ansel's Moonrise. His exposure was about 1 second, but he was working with more light (the sun had still not gone below the horizon).