What makes the difference on partially and fully visible moon?
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
While I'm satisfied (despite the fringe) with shoots from a partially visible moon with a cheap 500 mm lens:
1/100 ISO 100 f/?
I cannot understand why the image quality is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon:
1/80 ISO 100 f/?
I suppose that fully visible is much brighter and when I try to compensate the situation by changing the aperture these effect show up.
Is there an obvious explanation or do I just mess up the focus every time?
EDIT:
I repeated the process with an APS-C instead of full-format camera, now one of the images looks better (showing more details):
1/250 ISO 100 (APS-C)
I'm not sure whether the crop factor allows me to focus more accurate or this is due to the 50% magnification. At least it shows more details.
aperture astrophotography manual-focus sharpness moon
edited Nov 23 at 21:17
MichaelK
1624
asked Nov 22 at 20:03
stacker
2187
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
While I'm satisfied (despite the fringe) with shoots from a partially visible moon with a cheap 500 mm lens:
1/100 ISO 100 f/?
I cannot understand why the image quality is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon:
1/80 ISO 100 f/?
I suppose that fully visible is much brighter and when I try to compensate the situation by changing the aperture these effect show up.
Is there an obvious explanation or do I just mess up the focus every time?
EDIT:
I repeated the process with an APS-C instead of full-format camera, now one of the images looks better (showing more details):
1/250 ISO 100 (APS-C)
I'm not sure whether the crop factor allows me to focus more accurate or this is due to the 50% magnification. At least it shows more details.
aperture astrophotography manual-focus sharpness moon
edited Nov 23 at 21:17
MichaelK
1624
asked Nov 22 at 20:03
stacker
2187
1
Does photo.stackexchange.com/a/83792/47295 answer your question?
– Peter Taylor
Nov 22 at 20:14
@PeterTaylor not completly I already tried bracketing, and 5 ago minutes repeated the process changing from full-format to aps-c which looks bit better. I will add one of these images later to refine the question, thank you for pointing me to this post.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 20:45
Upper photos look slightly out of focus. Or is this the difference between 1/80 and 1/250 shutter speed? Unlikely.
– IMil
Nov 23 at 1:39
IMO the second image is sharper than the first, even if it has poorer contrast.
– Darren Ringer
Nov 23 at 14:24
2
Next time you are out experimenting, take at least ten exposures for every different setting and variable you are comparing. You'll see that with the moon, and many other astronomical subjects, there can be significant shot-to-shot differences from one frame to the next using the same exact settings. This is due to the effect of the Earth's atmosphere.
– Michael Clark
Nov 24 at 11:51
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
While I'm satisfied (despite the fringe) with shoots from a partially visible moon with a cheap 500 mm lens:
1/100 ISO 100 f/?
I cannot understand why the image quality is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon:
1/80 ISO 100 f/?
I suppose that fully visible is much brighter and when I try to compensate the situation by changing the aperture these effect show up.
Is there an obvious explanation or do I just mess up the focus every time?
EDIT:
I repeated the process with an APS-C instead of full-format camera, now one of the images looks better (showing more details):
1/250 ISO 100 (APS-C)
I'm not sure whether the crop factor allows me to focus more accurate or this is due to the 50% magnification. At least it shows more details.
aperture astrophotography manual-focus sharpness moon
edited Nov 23 at 21:17
MichaelK
1624
asked Nov 22 at 20:03
stacker
2187
While I'm satisfied (despite the fringe) with shoots from a partially visible moon with a cheap 500 mm lens:
1/100 ISO 100 f/?
I cannot understand why the image quality is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon:
1/80 ISO 100 f/?
I suppose that fully visible is much brighter and when I try to compensate the situation by changing the aperture these effect show up.
Is there an obvious explanation or do I just mess up the focus every time?
EDIT:
I repeated the process with an APS-C instead of full-format camera, now one of the images looks better (showing more details):
1/250 ISO 100 (APS-C)
I'm not sure whether the crop factor allows me to focus more accurate or this is due to the 50% magnification. At least it shows more details.
aperture astrophotography manual-focus sharpness moon
aperture astrophotography manual-focus sharpness moon
edited Nov 23 at 21:17
MichaelK
1624
asked Nov 22 at 20:03
stacker
2187
edited Nov 23 at 21:17
MichaelK
1624
asked Nov 22 at 20:03
stacker
2187
edited Nov 23 at 21:17
MichaelK
1624
edited Nov 23 at 21:17
MichaelK
1624
edited Nov 23 at 21:17
MichaelK
1624
1624
asked Nov 22 at 20:03
stacker
2187
asked Nov 22 at 20:03
stacker
2187
asked Nov 22 at 20:03
stacker
2187
2187
1
Does photo.stackexchange.com/a/83792/47295 answer your question?
– Peter Taylor
Nov 22 at 20:14
@PeterTaylor not completly I already tried bracketing, and 5 ago minutes repeated the process changing from full-format to aps-c which looks bit better. I will add one of these images later to refine the question, thank you for pointing me to this post.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 20:45
Upper photos look slightly out of focus. Or is this the difference between 1/80 and 1/250 shutter speed? Unlikely.
– IMil
Nov 23 at 1:39
IMO the second image is sharper than the first, even if it has poorer contrast.
– Darren Ringer
Nov 23 at 14:24
2
Next time you are out experimenting, take at least ten exposures for every different setting and variable you are comparing. You'll see that with the moon, and many other astronomical subjects, there can be significant shot-to-shot differences from one frame to the next using the same exact settings. This is due to the effect of the Earth's atmosphere.
– Michael Clark
Nov 24 at 11:51
add a comment |
1
Does photo.stackexchange.com/a/83792/47295 answer your question?
– Peter Taylor
Nov 22 at 20:14
@PeterTaylor not completly I already tried bracketing, and 5 ago minutes repeated the process changing from full-format to aps-c which looks bit better. I will add one of these images later to refine the question, thank you for pointing me to this post.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 20:45
Upper photos look slightly out of focus. Or is this the difference between 1/80 and 1/250 shutter speed? Unlikely.
– IMil
Nov 23 at 1:39
IMO the second image is sharper than the first, even if it has poorer contrast.
– Darren Ringer
Nov 23 at 14:24
2
Next time you are out experimenting, take at least ten exposures for every different setting and variable you are comparing. You'll see that with the moon, and many other astronomical subjects, there can be significant shot-to-shot differences from one frame to the next using the same exact settings. This is due to the effect of the Earth's atmosphere.
– Michael Clark
Nov 24 at 11:51
1
1
Does photo.stackexchange.com/a/83792/47295 answer your question?
– Peter Taylor
Nov 22 at 20:14
Does photo.stackexchange.com/a/83792/47295 answer your question?
– Peter Taylor
Nov 22 at 20:14
@PeterTaylor not completly I already tried bracketing, and 5 ago minutes repeated the process changing from full-format to aps-c which looks bit better. I will add one of these images later to refine the question, thank you for pointing me to this post.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 20:45
@PeterTaylor not completly I already tried bracketing, and 5 ago minutes repeated the process changing from full-format to aps-c which looks bit better. I will add one of these images later to refine the question, thank you for pointing me to this post.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 20:45
Upper photos look slightly out of focus. Or is this the difference between 1/80 and 1/250 shutter speed? Unlikely.
– IMil
Nov 23 at 1:39
Upper photos look slightly out of focus. Or is this the difference between 1/80 and 1/250 shutter speed? Unlikely.
– IMil
Nov 23 at 1:39
IMO the second image is sharper than the first, even if it has poorer contrast.
– Darren Ringer
Nov 23 at 14:24
IMO the second image is sharper than the first, even if it has poorer contrast.
– Darren Ringer
Nov 23 at 14:24
2
2
Next time you are out experimenting, take at least ten exposures for every different setting and variable you are comparing. You'll see that with the moon, and many other astronomical subjects, there can be significant shot-to-shot differences from one frame to the next using the same exact settings. This is due to the effect of the Earth's atmosphere.
– Michael Clark
Nov 24 at 11:51
Next time you are out experimenting, take at least ten exposures for every different setting and variable you are comparing. You'll see that with the moon, and many other astronomical subjects, there can be significant shot-to-shot differences from one frame to the next using the same exact settings. This is due to the effect of the Earth's atmosphere.
– Michael Clark
Nov 24 at 11:51
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
34
down vote
accepted
What makes the difference on partially and fully visible moon?
In a word: shadows.
I cannot understand why the IQ is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon.
The second image does appear to suffer from lower sharpness and overall quality. However, even if the technical image quality factors were equal, most importantly, a full moon will appear flat and uninteresting, as compared to a gibbous (i.e., 3/4-ish) moon.
We see a full moon that is lit directly "overhead". The mountain and crater rims do not cast any shadows that give texture and depth to the moon's surface. Thus, we only get tonal information from the albedo (reflectivity) of the local regolith in parts of the image.
However, with a partial moon, the surface is more side-lit, thus casting shadows. These shadows provide vital depth clues to our eyes, and greater tonal variations. Even if the technical image quality is the same (i.e., same accurate focusing, correct exposure, no motion blur, etc.), a partial moon's greater tonal and texture variations will make for a more apparently higher-quality moon image.
Your images provide for excellent comparison. Looking at Tycho Crater (the large impact crater in the south-southeast view, with large whitish ejecta streaks emanating from it): Notice in the gibbous phase image, Tycho crater has a distinct rim and bowl, and is surrounded by lots of smaller impact craters. Whereas, in the full moon image, the shape of Tycho crater is apparent, but it has no depth, no sense of being an obvious bowl. The smaller impact craters immediately surrounding it are nearly invisible, and the general area surrounding Tycho is just a smudge of middle gray.
The third image has substantially higher quality than the second image. However, even with its increased clarity and dynamic range, notice that the area immediately surrounding Tycho crater still doesn't exhibit much depth. The crater rim has more definition than the second image, but to my eye, doesn't exhibit nearly the same dimensionality and character as the first image does.
answered Nov 22 at 20:48
scottbb
18.9k75591
Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 21:16
3
@stacker Looks like a combo of factors. The second image is not focused as well as the third and the third image also appears to have been captured with a different tone curve and has more contrast. The latter is a function of the camera's rendering settings.
– doug
Nov 22 at 21:52
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
The full moon is illuminated by the sun which is directly overhead, i.e. noon. Mountains on the moon's surface, at noon local time, cast no shadows. When the moon appears to be partially illuminated, gibbous, 1st.or last quarter, 1/2 moon, crescent etc. This local time is such that the sun casts shadows. A view of the moon from earth is enhanced by shadows as they heighten the illusion of depth.
answered Nov 22 at 21:57
Alan Marcus
24.3k12858
[Solar] noon is when the sun is at its highest point of the day, not necessarily directly overhead. Indeed it's very rarely directly overhead any given point.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 18:05
@LightnessRacesinOrbit Indeed. As a matter of fact, the sun can only possibly be directly overhead in latitudes between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. This is called Lāhainā noon. For the two tropics, Lāhainā noon occurs exactly once per year. For latitudes strictly between the two tropics, it occurs twice per year.
– scottbb
Nov 23 at 21:06
@scottbb That's right.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 21:26
1
For all intent and purpose - A full moon is seen with reduced contrast because mountains on the moon cast little or no shadow when the moon is seen from the earth as a full moon.
– Alan Marcus
Nov 24 at 1:01
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
34
down vote
accepted
What makes the difference on partially and fully visible moon?
In a word: shadows.
I cannot understand why the IQ is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon.
The second image does appear to suffer from lower sharpness and overall quality. However, even if the technical image quality factors were equal, most importantly, a full moon will appear flat and uninteresting, as compared to a gibbous (i.e., 3/4-ish) moon.
We see a full moon that is lit directly "overhead". The mountain and crater rims do not cast any shadows that give texture and depth to the moon's surface. Thus, we only get tonal information from the albedo (reflectivity) of the local regolith in parts of the image.
However, with a partial moon, the surface is more side-lit, thus casting shadows. These shadows provide vital depth clues to our eyes, and greater tonal variations. Even if the technical image quality is the same (i.e., same accurate focusing, correct exposure, no motion blur, etc.), a partial moon's greater tonal and texture variations will make for a more apparently higher-quality moon image.
Your images provide for excellent comparison. Looking at Tycho Crater (the large impact crater in the south-southeast view, with large whitish ejecta streaks emanating from it): Notice in the gibbous phase image, Tycho crater has a distinct rim and bowl, and is surrounded by lots of smaller impact craters. Whereas, in the full moon image, the shape of Tycho crater is apparent, but it has no depth, no sense of being an obvious bowl. The smaller impact craters immediately surrounding it are nearly invisible, and the general area surrounding Tycho is just a smudge of middle gray.
The third image has substantially higher quality than the second image. However, even with its increased clarity and dynamic range, notice that the area immediately surrounding Tycho crater still doesn't exhibit much depth. The crater rim has more definition than the second image, but to my eye, doesn't exhibit nearly the same dimensionality and character as the first image does.
answered Nov 22 at 20:48
scottbb
18.9k75591
Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 21:16
3
@stacker Looks like a combo of factors. The second image is not focused as well as the third and the third image also appears to have been captured with a different tone curve and has more contrast. The latter is a function of the camera's rendering settings.
– doug
Nov 22 at 21:52
add a comment |
up vote
34
down vote
accepted
What makes the difference on partially and fully visible moon?
In a word: shadows.
I cannot understand why the IQ is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon.
The second image does appear to suffer from lower sharpness and overall quality. However, even if the technical image quality factors were equal, most importantly, a full moon will appear flat and uninteresting, as compared to a gibbous (i.e., 3/4-ish) moon.
We see a full moon that is lit directly "overhead". The mountain and crater rims do not cast any shadows that give texture and depth to the moon's surface. Thus, we only get tonal information from the albedo (reflectivity) of the local regolith in parts of the image.
However, with a partial moon, the surface is more side-lit, thus casting shadows. These shadows provide vital depth clues to our eyes, and greater tonal variations. Even if the technical image quality is the same (i.e., same accurate focusing, correct exposure, no motion blur, etc.), a partial moon's greater tonal and texture variations will make for a more apparently higher-quality moon image.
Your images provide for excellent comparison. Looking at Tycho Crater (the large impact crater in the south-southeast view, with large whitish ejecta streaks emanating from it): Notice in the gibbous phase image, Tycho crater has a distinct rim and bowl, and is surrounded by lots of smaller impact craters. Whereas, in the full moon image, the shape of Tycho crater is apparent, but it has no depth, no sense of being an obvious bowl. The smaller impact craters immediately surrounding it are nearly invisible, and the general area surrounding Tycho is just a smudge of middle gray.
The third image has substantially higher quality than the second image. However, even with its increased clarity and dynamic range, notice that the area immediately surrounding Tycho crater still doesn't exhibit much depth. The crater rim has more definition than the second image, but to my eye, doesn't exhibit nearly the same dimensionality and character as the first image does.
answered Nov 22 at 20:48
scottbb
18.9k75591
Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 21:16
3
@stacker Looks like a combo of factors. The second image is not focused as well as the third and the third image also appears to have been captured with a different tone curve and has more contrast. The latter is a function of the camera's rendering settings.
– doug
Nov 22 at 21:52
add a comment |
up vote
34
down vote
accepted
up vote
34
down vote
accepted
What makes the difference on partially and fully visible moon?
In a word: shadows.
I cannot understand why the IQ is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon.
The second image does appear to suffer from lower sharpness and overall quality. However, even if the technical image quality factors were equal, most importantly, a full moon will appear flat and uninteresting, as compared to a gibbous (i.e., 3/4-ish) moon.
We see a full moon that is lit directly "overhead". The mountain and crater rims do not cast any shadows that give texture and depth to the moon's surface. Thus, we only get tonal information from the albedo (reflectivity) of the local regolith in parts of the image.
However, with a partial moon, the surface is more side-lit, thus casting shadows. These shadows provide vital depth clues to our eyes, and greater tonal variations. Even if the technical image quality is the same (i.e., same accurate focusing, correct exposure, no motion blur, etc.), a partial moon's greater tonal and texture variations will make for a more apparently higher-quality moon image.
Your images provide for excellent comparison. Looking at Tycho Crater (the large impact crater in the south-southeast view, with large whitish ejecta streaks emanating from it): Notice in the gibbous phase image, Tycho crater has a distinct rim and bowl, and is surrounded by lots of smaller impact craters. Whereas, in the full moon image, the shape of Tycho crater is apparent, but it has no depth, no sense of being an obvious bowl. The smaller impact craters immediately surrounding it are nearly invisible, and the general area surrounding Tycho is just a smudge of middle gray.
The third image has substantially higher quality than the second image. However, even with its increased clarity and dynamic range, notice that the area immediately surrounding Tycho crater still doesn't exhibit much depth. The crater rim has more definition than the second image, but to my eye, doesn't exhibit nearly the same dimensionality and character as the first image does.
answered Nov 22 at 20:48
scottbb
18.9k75591
What makes the difference on partially and fully visible moon?
In a word: shadows.
I cannot understand why the IQ is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon.
The second image does appear to suffer from lower sharpness and overall quality. However, even if the technical image quality factors were equal, most importantly, a full moon will appear flat and uninteresting, as compared to a gibbous (i.e., 3/4-ish) moon.
We see a full moon that is lit directly "overhead". The mountain and crater rims do not cast any shadows that give texture and depth to the moon's surface. Thus, we only get tonal information from the albedo (reflectivity) of the local regolith in parts of the image.
However, with a partial moon, the surface is more side-lit, thus casting shadows. These shadows provide vital depth clues to our eyes, and greater tonal variations. Even if the technical image quality is the same (i.e., same accurate focusing, correct exposure, no motion blur, etc.), a partial moon's greater tonal and texture variations will make for a more apparently higher-quality moon image.
Your images provide for excellent comparison. Looking at Tycho Crater (the large impact crater in the south-southeast view, with large whitish ejecta streaks emanating from it): Notice in the gibbous phase image, Tycho crater has a distinct rim and bowl, and is surrounded by lots of smaller impact craters. Whereas, in the full moon image, the shape of Tycho crater is apparent, but it has no depth, no sense of being an obvious bowl. The smaller impact craters immediately surrounding it are nearly invisible, and the general area surrounding Tycho is just a smudge of middle gray.
The third image has substantially higher quality than the second image. However, even with its increased clarity and dynamic range, notice that the area immediately surrounding Tycho crater still doesn't exhibit much depth. The crater rim has more definition than the second image, but to my eye, doesn't exhibit nearly the same dimensionality and character as the first image does.
answered Nov 22 at 20:48
scottbb
18.9k75591
edited Nov 23 at 20:13
answered Nov 22 at 20:48
scottbb
18.9k75591
answered Nov 22 at 20:48
scottbb
18.9k75591
answered Nov 22 at 20:48
scottbb
18.9k75591
18.9k75591
Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 21:16
3
@stacker Looks like a combo of factors. The second image is not focused as well as the third and the third image also appears to have been captured with a different tone curve and has more contrast. The latter is a function of the camera's rendering settings.
– doug
Nov 22 at 21:52
add a comment |
Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 21:16
3
@stacker Looks like a combo of factors. The second image is not focused as well as the third and the third image also appears to have been captured with a different tone curve and has more contrast. The latter is a function of the camera's rendering settings.
– doug
Nov 22 at 21:52
Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 21:16
Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 21:16
3
3
@stacker Looks like a combo of factors. The second image is not focused as well as the third and the third image also appears to have been captured with a different tone curve and has more contrast. The latter is a function of the camera's rendering settings.
– doug
Nov 22 at 21:52
@stacker Looks like a combo of factors. The second image is not focused as well as the third and the third image also appears to have been captured with a different tone curve and has more contrast. The latter is a function of the camera's rendering settings.
– doug
Nov 22 at 21:52
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
The full moon is illuminated by the sun which is directly overhead, i.e. noon. Mountains on the moon's surface, at noon local time, cast no shadows. When the moon appears to be partially illuminated, gibbous, 1st.or last quarter, 1/2 moon, crescent etc. This local time is such that the sun casts shadows. A view of the moon from earth is enhanced by shadows as they heighten the illusion of depth.
answered Nov 22 at 21:57
Alan Marcus
24.3k12858
[Solar] noon is when the sun is at its highest point of the day, not necessarily directly overhead. Indeed it's very rarely directly overhead any given point.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 18:05
@LightnessRacesinOrbit Indeed. As a matter of fact, the sun can only possibly be directly overhead in latitudes between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. This is called Lāhainā noon. For the two tropics, Lāhainā noon occurs exactly once per year. For latitudes strictly between the two tropics, it occurs twice per year.
– scottbb
Nov 23 at 21:06
@scottbb That's right.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 21:26
1
For all intent and purpose - A full moon is seen with reduced contrast because mountains on the moon cast little or no shadow when the moon is seen from the earth as a full moon.
– Alan Marcus
Nov 24 at 1:01
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
The full moon is illuminated by the sun which is directly overhead, i.e. noon. Mountains on the moon's surface, at noon local time, cast no shadows. When the moon appears to be partially illuminated, gibbous, 1st.or last quarter, 1/2 moon, crescent etc. This local time is such that the sun casts shadows. A view of the moon from earth is enhanced by shadows as they heighten the illusion of depth.
answered Nov 22 at 21:57
Alan Marcus
24.3k12858
[Solar] noon is when the sun is at its highest point of the day, not necessarily directly overhead. Indeed it's very rarely directly overhead any given point.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 18:05
@LightnessRacesinOrbit Indeed. As a matter of fact, the sun can only possibly be directly overhead in latitudes between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. This is called Lāhainā noon. For the two tropics, Lāhainā noon occurs exactly once per year. For latitudes strictly between the two tropics, it occurs twice per year.
– scottbb
Nov 23 at 21:06
@scottbb That's right.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 21:26
1
For all intent and purpose - A full moon is seen with reduced contrast because mountains on the moon cast little or no shadow when the moon is seen from the earth as a full moon.
– Alan Marcus
Nov 24 at 1:01
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
The full moon is illuminated by the sun which is directly overhead, i.e. noon. Mountains on the moon's surface, at noon local time, cast no shadows. When the moon appears to be partially illuminated, gibbous, 1st.or last quarter, 1/2 moon, crescent etc. This local time is such that the sun casts shadows. A view of the moon from earth is enhanced by shadows as they heighten the illusion of depth.
answered Nov 22 at 21:57
Alan Marcus
24.3k12858
The full moon is illuminated by the sun which is directly overhead, i.e. noon. Mountains on the moon's surface, at noon local time, cast no shadows. When the moon appears to be partially illuminated, gibbous, 1st.or last quarter, 1/2 moon, crescent etc. This local time is such that the sun casts shadows. A view of the moon from earth is enhanced by shadows as they heighten the illusion of depth.
answered Nov 22 at 21:57
Alan Marcus
24.3k12858
answered Nov 22 at 21:57
Alan Marcus
24.3k12858
answered Nov 22 at 21:57
Alan Marcus
24.3k12858
answered Nov 22 at 21:57
Alan Marcus
24.3k12858
24.3k12858
[Solar] noon is when the sun is at its highest point of the day, not necessarily directly overhead. Indeed it's very rarely directly overhead any given point.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 18:05
@LightnessRacesinOrbit Indeed. As a matter of fact, the sun can only possibly be directly overhead in latitudes between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. This is called Lāhainā noon. For the two tropics, Lāhainā noon occurs exactly once per year. For latitudes strictly between the two tropics, it occurs twice per year.
– scottbb
Nov 23 at 21:06
@scottbb That's right.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 21:26
1
For all intent and purpose - A full moon is seen with reduced contrast because mountains on the moon cast little or no shadow when the moon is seen from the earth as a full moon.
– Alan Marcus
Nov 24 at 1:01
add a comment |
[Solar] noon is when the sun is at its highest point of the day, not necessarily directly overhead. Indeed it's very rarely directly overhead any given point.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 18:05
@LightnessRacesinOrbit Indeed. As a matter of fact, the sun can only possibly be directly overhead in latitudes between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. This is called Lāhainā noon. For the two tropics, Lāhainā noon occurs exactly once per year. For latitudes strictly between the two tropics, it occurs twice per year.
– scottbb
Nov 23 at 21:06
@scottbb That's right.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 21:26
1
For all intent and purpose - A full moon is seen with reduced contrast because mountains on the moon cast little or no shadow when the moon is seen from the earth as a full moon.
– Alan Marcus
Nov 24 at 1:01
[Solar] noon is when the sun is at its highest point of the day, not necessarily directly overhead. Indeed it's very rarely directly overhead any given point.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 18:05
[Solar] noon is when the sun is at its highest point of the day, not necessarily directly overhead. Indeed it's very rarely directly overhead any given point.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 18:05
@LightnessRacesinOrbit Indeed. As a matter of fact, the sun can only possibly be directly overhead in latitudes between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. This is called Lāhainā noon. For the two tropics, Lāhainā noon occurs exactly once per year. For latitudes strictly between the two tropics, it occurs twice per year.
– scottbb
Nov 23 at 21:06
@LightnessRacesinOrbit Indeed. As a matter of fact, the sun can only possibly be directly overhead in latitudes between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. This is called Lāhainā noon. For the two tropics, Lāhainā noon occurs exactly once per year. For latitudes strictly between the two tropics, it occurs twice per year.
– scottbb
Nov 23 at 21:06
@scottbb That's right.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 21:26
@scottbb That's right.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Nov 23 at 21:26
1
1
For all intent and purpose - A full moon is seen with reduced contrast because mountains on the moon cast little or no shadow when the moon is seen from the earth as a full moon.
– Alan Marcus
Nov 24 at 1:01
For all intent and purpose - A full moon is seen with reduced contrast because mountains on the moon cast little or no shadow when the moon is seen from the earth as a full moon.
– Alan Marcus
Nov 24 at 1:01
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103024%2fwhat-makes-the-difference-on-partially-and-fully-visible-moon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Does photo.stackexchange.com/a/83792/47295 answer your question?
– Peter Taylor
Nov 22 at 20:14
@PeterTaylor not completly I already tried bracketing, and 5 ago minutes repeated the process changing from full-format to aps-c which looks bit better. I will add one of these images later to refine the question, thank you for pointing me to this post.
– stacker
Nov 22 at 20:45
Upper photos look slightly out of focus. Or is this the difference between 1/80 and 1/250 shutter speed? Unlikely.
– IMil
Nov 23 at 1:39
IMO the second image is sharper than the first, even if it has poorer contrast.
– Darren Ringer
Nov 23 at 14:24
2
Next time you are out experimenting, take at least ten exposures for every different setting and variable you are comparing. You'll see that with the moon, and many other astronomical subjects, there can be significant shot-to-shot differences from one frame to the next using the same exact settings. This is due to the effect of the Earth's atmosphere.
– Michael Clark
Nov 24 at 11:51