Moon shot

I shot these 2 images last night. This is the first time, in a long time, that I have a slightly sharp image of the moon although clearly this is not proper sharp. The image has been cropped very significantly although the colour hasn't been change. Can someone give me advice why I can't get a sharp image?
Thanks.

Some of my own observations; I'm no expert!

First, the closer the moon is to the horizon, the harder it seems to be to get a sharp shot. Why? No idea; light probably. You need higher ISO to capture it just after moon rise than you do when it's high up in the sky. Low cloud, even if very thin, pollution etc ;all get in the way. If this is the original color, assuming WB is correct, then I'd assume this was shot not long after moon rise or not long before moon set, not when it was say at peak.
Second, full moon. I find it tricky and much easier to get good sharpness from other phases.

What lens do you shoot with?
If it's a zoom do you know which focal length and aperture range combination it performs best at (is the sharpest at). For starters, go back a little from max.
For example, my 55-300 is best at 260-270, f8, lowest ISO possible. If handheld, not more than 400, if on a tripod always at 100 gives me minimum noise allowing for a bit more sharpening in post, than an image shot at say ISO 1600. Least on my camera. May be different on a K1 I suppose
I also tend to purposely underexpose my night moon shots. Properly or overexposed, from my experience, are always less sharp somehow. This is by no means a fact, just my own 'feeling'.

Manual live view focus or exact infinity if you know it on your lens. Than there is PP.... in lightroom all I do is choose a color/lens profile; then off to Photoshop for contrast adjustment before turning it into a Smart Object and applying Smart Sharpening.

One of mine with the only tele I have, 55-300, at 270mm, f8, iso 100, manual live view focus, tripod - link
Some would possibly sharpen it a bit more but I'm not a fan of 'overcooking'.

I really like the second image.

No, it's due to shooting through more atmosphere.
Near the horizon light from the moon has to pass through about 10 times as much air, getting distorted by any turbulence. Even when the moon is directly overhead turbulence will frequently have a significant effect on image sharpness.

Ah, there we go. A proper explanation. Cheers

It can be surprising how much movement can occur of the moon as you take shots, so I'd say that some subject movement can cause sharpness issues. However, camera shake is also an obvious issue unless everything is kept very stable I did some on holiday recently with the Tamron 70-300mm plus my 2x teleconverter, and I used my big Manfrotto Pro 055 tripod with mirror up and remote control. I haven't processed any yet, but I'll try one or two and see how they are .... I guess if they're really sharp then that particular technique could be good to follow. I'll let you know here, and post an example later.

Does anyone know what would be a minimum shutter speed for getting the moon sharp ?

Thanks for your comments guys.
I used DA* 60-250 at 250mm on a tripod.ISO 1600, f8, 1/500 sec. Processed in Lightroom.
I plan to use my A*300 with a 1.7x teleconverter.
Meg, your moon shot is awesome and thanks for liking the second shot. This was shot at the side of quite a busy A road so it took a good few tries before I got this one with just one car going away.

Might be the tripod is not keeping the camera/lens still enough.

For this one I used a large concrete mixer with a bean bag, very solid! Of course I used the self timer as well.
I think it was with the DA300 on a K10. The exif says it was iso400, F5 at 1/400.

Well Bob, I don't have ready access to a cement mixer 😞 but my tripod is quite sturdy so should be able to do the job. I have taken on board the advice above so will give it another go soon.
Thanks for showing us your photograph - this also is awesome.

It looks sharp, thats for sure

Here's one I took recently in Swanage, with the setup I mentionied earlier ... Tamron AF70-300 Di LD plus Asahi Takumar A-2x Teleconverter.... and having said earlier that movement of the moon can be a factor, I was surprised to see what a relatively long exposure time I had for this .... 1/6th Second, F13, ISO 200





I wonder what is the most important factor really ..... a short exposure, or smaller apertures plus lower ISO. I woudn't want to shoot this at a high ISO on the K7, and I figured that with such magnification I needed to stop well down .... but the price to pay is that longer exposure..... :

Naim, getting back to your pics! I think the opening shot has a lovely colour to it. I like the idea of the 2nd image with the car lights. I wasn't there and it may not of been possible but there is a lot of wasted space so if you took a few steps to the right then the moon would of been closer to where the car lights end up, allowing them to be a nice lead in line to the moon, and of course you could then zoom in / crop the image so it was more focused on the subjects. I see the moon looks blown out also due to the long exposure for the car trails so taking another image on the tripod but metered for the moon would of worked so then you could merge the two together

PS, A longer focal length will make distant objects appear closer so they'll be larger in the frame where as a wide angle will push distant objects i.e. the moon further away making them smaller in the frame. I'm saying this as if you composed the image at a longer focal length then the moon would be bigger above the car trails

Lack of sharpness in moon shots isn't always to do with the optics or camera stability. The atmospheric haze plays its part too, that's why they put the Hubble telescope into space, albeit originally with dodgy out of focus optics!

The other two examples were posted, I think, as examples of results from different settings. Naim asked what he could do to get sharper results. I think a key thing is going to be that absolute stability plus great optics. (edit ...I see your point there John, fair enough about haze too ...)

I think my example may be slightly soft due to two things ... The relatively long exposure (1/6th sec) plus the combination of a zoom and teleconverter. I couldn't have made it more stable than it did.

What I think its important is to know which settings are most critical ... Ie, is it better to go for a fast shutter speed with wider aperture plus high ISO, or like me, a low ISO, smaller aperture but longer exposure ... ? Maybe this depends on the individual camera capabilities?

I'm not sure whether using a teleconverer is a good idea or not, It introduces more glass for the light to travel through. Some believe just adding a single haze filter ruins their results!
This is a moon shot I took recently for Dromit's Harvest Moon comp that I didn't use.


This is a cropped image taken with the DA300mm, 1/320" @ f5, ISO 400. So practically the same exposure used by doingthebobs


Re Gareth's comment about moving to the right to get the car lights leading to the moon a couple of posts back, I'd say you'd have to move to the left! I suspect the real answer is to take a shot of the moon and combine it with the lights, though a smaller aperture may have stopped the moon burning out but hopefully leave the car lights OK. You can't really know till afterwards though by which time it is too late.

Thanks so much for your comments and advice. I was restricted in my position where I was stood - in a layby. The busy A road was to my right while on the left stretched a moor - pitch black so I didn't know where I was stepping. To be honest I didn't think of combining 2 images - should have thought of it but I was concentrating too much on getting the trails right and forgot all about the moon! Maybe I'll try again next month.
I have another question, specifically about the image merging in Pentax camera and will ask it in a new post in the Pentax photography forum. I'll be grateful if you guys can help me there as well.
Cheers.

I'm late but I think you have some good answers, the moon does move a lot (we're moving too) and it will seem to move in faster when low in the sky since it is closer. And you do have the atmosphere to shoots through which can distort it a little, but also gives those great orange colors. I really like your second shot. Sometimes you cannot help but capture a haze, I think it comes from moisture in the air but I'm not certain, and also it can come from overexposure. On that pic you might try lowering the exposure and then boosting fill light. It probably won't get rid of the haze around the moon, but it might lower the amount.

I try to shoot the full moon each month at moonrise, but usually the clouds obscure it. Usually the full moon rises within an hour of sunset (at least where I live in Ohio) so there is still some light, and it sometimes makes it a little easier to get better exposure since there is not as much light difference when everything is black, still you have just a short window to work in. The shot below had a little more light to work in, so it's 3.2 seconds, f8. ISO 100, you still have a halo, it was a little hazy but the moon had to be overexposed to catch the barn. And the second with even more light shows a pretty clear moon at 1/20 second,

Serene Moon by Tom Ramsey, on Flickr


Red Barn by Tom Ramsey, on Flickr