3 Super Moons this year???

[kgreen]

Someone may know better than me... But isn't there normally only one Super Moon a year? We've had one every month for the past 3 months. Here's my shot for tonight's Super Moon. I'd really enjoy getting to see your shots! I haven't successfully got any moon pictures with other things in the background, or during the daylight. Just the up-close shots of the moon, have any suggestions?

F/8 1/160 second ISO 100 300mm Nikon D700, Tamron 70-300mm lens
I cropped in quite a bit, so I lost the sharpness. But the original shot was way to far away to see any detail.

 

[zackiedawg]

The best way to get something in the shot with the moon, but still a closeup, is to catch the moon at rise or set, somewhere that you have a long view to the horizon. The coolest effect is being able to use full big zoom lenses or telephotos and get the moon big and filling the frame, but with a horizon line or object silhouetted within the moon - it's best to find something at infinity focus too for it to be sharp. This depends of course on where you live - for me it's a near-impossibility since Florida is not only flat, but few places where I live actually have a view to the horizon, due to all the trees, houses, etc that block the view - I can't see the moon from my home until it gets at least 40 degrees up from the horizon!

 

[kofslinky]

The "Super Moon" designation seems to be going to the full moon that is at perigee, or closest to the earth. Because of how close to the earth it is, the moon appears bigger in the sky at that time (approximately 15% bigger). The term came in to vogue when the May full moon happened, as it was at it's closest approach in quite a few years. The full moon right now is happening during perigee again, but even when it was "super" close in May you will have a hard time spotting the size difference.

But hey, as a teacher of science I'll take anything I can get to get people out and looking at the sky!

 

[zackiedawg]

I agree the term seems to be used more liberally lately. There was usually 1 per year mentioned - I've shot a few past 'supermoons' - including one in 2009, 2011, and 2012...didn't photograph any this year. Indeed as Kof mentioned, the difference between a 'supermoon' and a regular full moon is pretty much unnoticeable...there's very little difference between a standard full moon photo and a 'supermoon' photo from the same spot. Though the moon can appear larger with respect to the earth when it is low on the horizon, due mostly to the Ponzo illusion, though lots of other theories have been thrown about for hundreds of years.

A few past supermoons...March 2011:

May 5, 2012:

One of the rare times I caught a full moon rise near a horizon - this was in northern Quebec - unfortunately there wasn't anything on the nearby hill other than trees and a radio tower to give it more perspective - I wish there had been a house or something up there!:

 

[kgreen]

The best way to get something in the shot with the moon, but still a closeup, is to catch the moon at rise or set, somewhere that you have a long view to the horizon. The coolest effect is being able to use full big zoom lenses or telephotos and get the moon big and filling the frame, but with a horizon line or object silhouetted within the moon - it's best to find something at infinity focus too for it to be sharp. This depends of course on where you live - for me it's a near-impossibility since Florida is not only flat, but few places where I live actually have a view to the horizon, due to all the trees, houses, etc that block the view - I can't see the moon from my home until it gets at least 40 degrees up from the horizon!

Great suggestion! The first glimpse I see of the moon rising here where I live, is it coming up over a bridge with a lake in the foreground. I'm pretty far away, so all I see is the water, then the bridge beyond that acts as the horizon I suppose with the moon towering over. I will have to try this out! and since I'm shooting when the moon first begins to rise I can capture the moon in a blue sky with some daylight to illuminate the water/bridge. Maybe catching some reflection off the water.

A few more questions, should I put my focus on the moon itself or maybe where the sky meets the top of the bridge. Should I meter with spot or matrix??

The reason I ask, I attempted to get a picture the other night, every thing was nice bright & clear, however the moon was just a bright featureless blob. You really couldn't tell if it was the sun or the moon. Might be a neat effect, but not the one I was trying to get. lol

 

[kgreen]

The "Super Moon" designation seems to be going to the full moon that is at perigee, or closest to the earth. Because of how close to the earth it is, the moon appears bigger in the sky at that time (approximately 15% bigger). The term came in to vogue when the May full moon happened, as it was at it's closest approach in quite a few years. The full moon right now is happening during perigee again, but even when it was "super" close in May you will have a hard time spotting the size difference.

But hey, as a teacher of science I'll take anything I can get to get people out and looking at the sky!

Great explanation! Here recently I've been finding any excuse I can to get out & enjoy the sky.

 

[kgreen]

I agree the term seems to be used more liberally lately. There was usually 1 per year mentioned - I've shot a few past 'supermoons' - including one in 2009, 2011, and 2012...didn't photograph any this year. Indeed as Kof mentioned, the difference between a 'supermoon' and a regular full moon is pretty much unnoticeable...there's very little difference between a standard full moon photo and a 'supermoon' photo from the same spot. Though the moon can appear larger with respect to the earth when it is low on the horizon, due mostly to the Ponzo illusion, though lots of other theories have been thrown about for hundreds of years.

A few past supermoons...March 2011:

May 5, 2012:

One of the rare times I caught a full moon rise near a horizon - this was in northern Quebec - unfortunately there wasn't anything on the nearby hill other than trees and a radio tower to give it more perspective - I wish there had been a house or something up there!:

Great shots!!! The first one is so crisp & the detail is great. And your shot in Northern Quebec is exactly what I'm shooting for!! Fantastic! Same scenario as I was talking about in my post above, with the lake/bridge. And this is what I'm hoping to accomplish.

 

[zackiedawg]

As a default, always meter off the moon itself...it may cause the landscape in front to become a silhouette, but the moon will retain detail and not be a blown out blob. It's easier to get both nicely metered when there's some daylight left, as the contrast between moon and sky is not so drastic. Once it's nighttime, there's simply no way to expose both the landscape AND the moon, because the landscape is nighttime, and the moon is essentially a disc of perfect daylight (it's daytime on the moon's surface you're seeing, so a camera exposes the moon just like it would a nice sunny afternoon...if you try to expose or meter for the surrounding nighttime landscape, the camera will choose a slower shutter, bigger aperture, or higher ISO, which will result in the moon becoming a big white blob of light.

As for focus, the distant bridge should still be at the infinity level of your focus, assuming it's far enough away. The bridge will need to be quite far though - a mile or more. If the bridge you're referring to is only 200 feet away, and you have a big zoom, then you probably won't catch both the moon and bridge in focus. But if the bridge is on the distant horizon, and the moon rises just behind it, then zoom all the way in, the moon will fill the frame, and the perspective between the bridge and moon will be amazing. In that case, focusing on the moon or the bridge shouldn't matter much - it should be the same focal distance for the camera.

 

[kgreen]

As a default, always meter off the moon itself...it may cause the landscape in front to become a silhouette, but the moon will retain detail and not be a blown out blob. It's easier to get both nicely metered when there's some daylight left, as the contrast between moon and sky is not so drastic. Once it's nighttime, there's simply no way to expose both the landscape AND the moon, because the landscape is nighttime, and the moon is essentially a disc of perfect daylight (it's daytime on the moon's surface you're seeing, so a camera exposes the moon just like it would a nice sunny afternoon...if you try to expose or meter for the surrounding nighttime landscape, the camera will choose a slower shutter, bigger aperture, or higher ISO, which will result in the moon becoming a big white blob of light.

As for focus, the distant bridge should still be at the infinity level of your focus, assuming it's far enough away. The bridge will need to be quite far though - a mile or more. If the bridge you're referring to is only 200 feet away, and you have a big zoom, then you probably won't catch both the moon and bridge in focus. But if the bridge is on the distant horizon, and the moon rises just behind it, then zoom all the way in, the moon will fill the frame, and the perspective between the bridge and moon will be amazing. In that case, focusing on the moon or the bridge shouldn't matter much - it should be the same focal distance for the camera.

Okay! Great advice, taking notes. And I'll post some shots here soon. Thank you