Photographing the moon

Thanks. I'll take that advice on board for next time. As for the pink cast I'm not sure of it's origin TBH. Any ideas? Could it be locally sourced, say,light pollution? I tried to go for a higher aperture number to get more DOF but not 100% certain it will be effective at such a long distance. A long shot really (no pun intended Honest!)

Eye of the beholder.
Cheers
Dave

The big thing about the moon is you can compare your efforts directly with everyone else as it's the same subject for all of us
If you're one of those to poopoo it, perhaps you're not getting the results you would like

I think the trick is to get the moon into the middle of your lens and set the aperture to the lens' sweet spot usually closed down a stop or two from wide open. In my case f5.6 is the best resolution. Then experiment with the shutter speed starting with 100th. You need to meter for those white spots and get as much tonal variation as poss.

Couldn't help notice that remark. That's a bit like telling someone the reason they don't like sprouts is becuase they're not cooking them properly without ever considering that they simply might not like sprouts.

I have to agree with Fatbiker and Smeggy on this one, I can't think of too many things less appealing than taking photos of the moon as far as photography goes! Each to their own, we all like different things thank God!

BTW, I'm not poopooing it, just don't understand the appeal. I'm not sure if I would be any good at it as I've never tried!

Regards
David

I'm just teasing guys.
I enjoy all sorts of photography and the moon is the most challenging.
Clearly not much of a composition though

Well it is if you want landscapes of the sea of tranquillity. Not many of us have the budget of NASA and then there's problem of protecting oneself against the radiation.

I love sprouts ....jeff...

The moon is made of cheese, not sprouts


.

This is why i like photographying the stars, when you look closer and deeper there is a lot more going on than first meets the eye:




Not the best examples of their type admittedly but may give an idea there is more to image than just stars and star trails.

And while you have the mount and scope out you may as well grab a shot of the moon too :





I'm biased though, i love astronomy, so this is bringing my two hobbies together.

Now that's a great example of what's good about it. It's the pictures of black with just randomly placed white dots that don't do anything for me

I know the type of images you have in mind. I took i a load of them when i first started with astrophotography and thought i was doing so well. Then realised things got a lot harder if you wanted to shoot deeper into space, not just dots on black. Oh and a whole lot more expensive too. Really give photography a run for its money when it comes to expense. The above images are as far as i could go really, they cost me the best part of £1000. To go further i needed to ditch the DSLR and invest in a dedicated astro camera. The cost of that didn't bare thinking about. Plus the mount needed upgrading, probably the main scope too. All in an additional investment of £4-5K. And that's still doing it on the cheap.

There's a hubble going cheap soon I think

I'll keep an eye on the classifieds.