Moon shot help

[Travis]

thanks teagan

[Marko]

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

[tegan]

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.

HDR only works properly for exposures that are close together and this is not the case here.

Tegan

[Michaelaw]

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?

[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.

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

[Michaelaw]

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.

[tegan]

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