Special Edition MPC? - You better get up butt early next Saturday 12/10!!!

**SchralphMacchio** · 12-04-2011, 04:36 PM

Full eclipse peaks at 6 AM and it's going to be about 13 degrees altitude, and 18 degrees north of due west (roughly for most of us who live in the western midlatitudes)

http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astron...s/lunar-ecl-us
http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astron...ices/alt-az-us

Not super low altitude, but should be just low enough to compose against city skylines, mountains, trees you name it. Supposed to be clear out west too, at least by the latest forecast.

Anyone want to make it a special edition MPC????? Moderated by whoever wins the Stress contest? We can still have our normal MPC and just make this a little bonus round?

**Mathematics** · 12-05-2011, 02:07 PM

I'd be down for this...if the weather here wasn't supposed to be super cloudy all weekend.

**powdork** · 12-05-2011, 05:14 PM

this is so not fair. shralph was already planning on getting up early Saturday morning anyway.

**OverTurn** · 12-05-2011, 06:05 PM

Went hiking today to find a spot to shoot this from. Really looking forward to this and I hope it pans out the way I see it in my head.

I've been using The Photographer's Ephemeris to calculate the angles and the altitude of the moon for this and for the location at which I took the attached picture below, the angles and times look like this.

The lighter blue line is the where the moon will set behind the mountains at roughly 7:11 PM. Judging by the times for the eclipse from the site that Schralph posted above,

Moon's
Azimuth Altitude
h m o o
Moonrise 2011 Dec 09 16:05 57.0 ----
Moon enters penumbra 2011 Dec 10 04:31.8 269.5 32.1
Moon enters umbra 2011 Dec 10 05:45.4 281.7 19.7
Moon enters totality 2011 Dec 10 07:05.7 294.6 7.0
Middle of eclipse 2011 Dec 10 07:31.8 298.9 3.1
Moonset 2011 Dec 10 07:58 303.3 ----

The moon will set after 7 minutes of being in totality and over an hour of being eclipsed in some way and should set behind the mountains somewhere around the middle of the image attached below.

**SchralphMacchio** · 12-05-2011, 08:04 PM

oh come on powdork, getting up at 5 to go shoot something from 5:45 to 6:30 is not that early.

Unless you have a long hike to get to where you want to get to. But I've gotten up at 4:30 to take pictures before. You should be able to shoot some awesome photos from Pope pr Kiva Beach even! Just have to do a little trigonometry - compare the elevation of Jakes to the altitude of the moon. I did some basic trig and 100 feet tall turns into 435 away at -7- *edit: 13 degrees. So at 2000 feet above you, you need to be about 9000 feet away to frame the moon right above the peak - or just under 2 miles. Hmm, 1 mile for every 1000 feet of vert is an easier metric for those bigger peaks.

OverTurn, that looks awesome, good luck! I'd recommend you bring the longest lens you own though, so that the moon will be relatively large compared to the subject.

**powdork** · 12-05-2011, 08:16 PM

don't i have to be at nevada beach. i was liking it better when it was in the east. emerald bay would have been perfect. still might be though

**OverTurn** · 12-05-2011, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

OverTurn, that looks awesome, good luck! I'd recommend you bring the longest lens you own though, so that the moon will be relatively large compared to the subject.

I'm gonna...200mm on APS-C...300mm gonna be enough from 5-6 miles away? We'll see. I'm unsure if I want to try the location planned above or something farther up the ridge. Might have to go exploring again on Wednesday to see if anywhere along this ridge is clear for shots.

The moon setting right behind Ross Peak would be kickass.

**bfree** · 12-05-2011, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

I did some basic trig and 100 feet tall turns into 435 away at 7 degrees. So at 2000 feet above you, you need to be about 9000 feet away to frame the moon right above the peak - or just under 2 miles. Hmm, 1 mile for every 1000 feet of vert is an easier metric for those bigger peaks.

Basic trig has failed you.

I'm game to try it out, though I don't really have any idea of where to shoot from around here. Northwest is a pretty boring view from the U-district. Guess I'll have to attempt getting up early and drive/hike somewhere.

**single** · 12-05-2011, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by OverTurn

Went hiking today to find a spot to shoot this from. Really looking forward to this and I hope it pans out the way I see it in my head.

Bring a chainsaw and take out some of those foreground trees. Otherwise, cool view!

**OverTurn** · 12-05-2011, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by single

Bring a chainsaw and take out some of those foreground trees. Otherwise, cool view!

I've thought about it...there was one spot that would have been perfect but it had this honkin huge pine right in the middle of the frame. Dead, and I bet if I'd kicked it just a little bit it might have toppled over. Tempting...

**SchralphMacchio** · 12-06-2011, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio

I did some basic trig and 100 feet tall turns into 435 away at 7 degrees

Originally Posted by bfree

Basic trig has failed you.

No, just my memory. I don't remember where I got 7 degrees from - I think I was looking at the angle of the Golden Gate Bridge from a spot I was scoping out. I'm looking at my drawings now and my trig says 100 feet tall turns into 435 feet away at 13 degrees, which is the middle of the eclipse for where we are.

I *really, really* wanted to be able to shoot the GG bridge but I figured that unless I could rent a yacht or a barge I was not going to be able to get to the spot I needed to compose the shot I had in mind. Either the moon would not be over the middle of the bridge, or it would be way high up above the bridge and not as impressive. Plus I'm driving to Tahoe on Saturday morning and I don't live in SF ... so I just scoped a spot at the Oakland skyline just around the corner from my house. Much less exciting than a blood red moon over a red GG bridge, but much less effort. I'm still reconsidering the GG bridge idea - maybe another spot won't have as bad an angle as I think.

I think it's most important to have the subject right above the ridgeline / skyline so that you can zoom in with a long lens and the moon will look huge compared to what you are shooting.
The trick is finding a location where you get both angles dialed!!!

**powdork** · 12-06-2011, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by single

Bring a chainsaw and take out some of those foreground trees. Otherwise, cool view!

no way man. think how cool the eclipse would be if the ridge was on fire!

**SchralphMacchio** · 12-06-2011, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by OverTurn

300mm gonna be enough from 5-6 miles away?

Maybe, just not sure how much of the frame the moon will take up. I have a 200mm lens on APS-C and I think you really need to go up to 300mm or more shooting that far away. I just did some more basic trig (check my math!) and at 320mm (full frame) you have a 6.4 degree horizontal field of view, which at 6 miles out gives you a horizontal frame size of about 3500 feet. So you'll get the peak but I'm just not sure how much of the moon.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

6 miles * tan(3.2 degrees) * 2 (halves of the isosceles triangle I set up) * 5280 feet/mile is about 3500 feet. You'll get the entire mountain but not sure how big the moon will be.

Dan Mingori shot this with 300mm on an APS-C (the only reason I am sharing that is because he posted that on TGR in 2010 and you can still google it). I have no idea how far away, but you get the picture - longer the lens, the more it fills the frame with the moon. Imagine this shot with a blood red moon!

http://www.danmingoriphotography.com...4f43a#hdc4f43a

**OverTurn** · 12-06-2011, 11:47 AM

I also have a 4/3rds camera that will make the 200mm an effective 400mm...thinking that might be a better choice despite the difficulty in focusing (shouldn't be a problem since i'll be focusing on something 6 miles away) and the lower image quality/MP

**SchralphMacchio** · 12-06-2011, 12:06 PM

well if weight isn't an issue, bring them both!

Can you manually focus through the LCD on the 4/3 camera? If there is not enough light in the sky to focus on the mountain, then the moon should still be pretty easy to focus via the LCD. But then the mountain will be in front of the focus plane so maybe focus on the moon and back off a hair. I'm not sure what time civil twilight starts, but you might have some color in the sky at that time of morning.

**OverTurn** · 12-06-2011, 12:11 PM

Yup, can focus via live view. I'm gonna bring them both and maybe see about renting a longer lens just for the day? This lens is MF only so that will be my only option, really. Civil twilight will be around 7:19 for this location, according to TPE.

**Gregger** · 12-06-2011, 03:54 PM

I'll be up and out shooting the eclipse on my way to another shoot. Who has the best moon shooting tips?

**systemoverblow'd** · 12-06-2011, 05:14 PM

I'm not science savvy. Will this be able to be seen from the East coast?

**bfree** · 12-06-2011, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by systemoverblow'd

I'm not science savvy. Will this be able to be seen from the East coast?

Not really. The moon will have set before much has happened on the east coast. Check the link in the OP's post for your city.

**OverTurn** · 12-06-2011, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Gregger

I'll be up and out shooting the eclipse on my way to another shoot. Who has the best moon shooting tips?

Went out for some test shots tonight. No experience on this either so any tips anyone can come up with would be helpful.

100% crops SOOC.

1. ISO400

2. ISO800

3. ISO1600

4. ISO100

5. ISO 800

6. ISO 1600

**bfree** · 12-06-2011, 08:00 PM

I'm not that great at this either, but my general strategy is:

manual focus to infinity
tripod with remote shutter release or self-timer
ISO 100
f/8 or 11, something in the middle of your range for sharpness
let the exposure dictate your SS (don't blow out the moon like I did on the bottom!) but try to keep this under a second or two, since the moon obviously moves. bump the ISO up if you have to.

results (cropped a bit at 200mm on a 1.6x sensor):

Now I need to find an interesting foreground element.

**mtcham** · 12-06-2011, 08:56 PM

Dave-bfree's advice is good. I generally get better results using auto focus but my eyes aren't good through the viewfinder.

Just messed around for a few minutes, tough shooting almost vertical. At least the eclipse will be almost on the horizon.

500mm-iso500-f8-1/400sec

Moon2-7879 by jrmorris-mt, on Flickr

**kidwoo** · 12-07-2011, 11:24 AM

^ Nice!

654654

**Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer** · 12-07-2011, 12:07 PM

That is sweet!

Here is another link discussing moon photography:

http://www.michaelfrye.com/landscape...this-saturday/

One other point - you may want to change from AWB to "daylight" setting on WB (which is really a mis-nomer as it is really "neutral" white balance). I believe that to be better for low-light photos with a lot of color so it does not get balanced out. So for full eclipse in red, a neutral/daylight WB may be better.

**OverTurn** · 12-07-2011, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

One other point - you may want to change from AWB to "daylight" setting on WB (which is really a mis-nomer as it is really "neutral" white balance). I believe that to be better for low-light photos with a lot of color so it does not get balanced out. So for full eclipse in red, a neutral/daylight WB may be better.

That's a good point about the WB...but I'm planning on shooting RAW so adjust in post? I'm pretty psyched about this.