What makes the difference on partially and fully visible moon?











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












While I'm satisfied (despite the fringe) with shoots from a partially visible moon with a cheap 500mm lens:



enter image description here



1/100 iso 100 f/?



I cannot understand why the IQ is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon:



enter image description here



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 everytime?



EDIT:
I repeated the process with an aps-c instead of full-format camera, now one of the images looks better (showing more details):



enter image description here
1/250 iso 100 (APS-C)



I'm not sure whether the crop factor allows me to focus more acurate or this is due to the 50% magnification. At least it shows more details.










share|improve this question
























  • Does photo.stackexchange.com/a/83792/47295 answer your question?
    – Peter Taylor
    7 hours ago










  • @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
    6 hours ago










  • Upper photos look slightly out of focus. Or is this the difference between 1/80 and 1/250 shutter speed? Unlikely.
    – IMil
    1 hour ago















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












While I'm satisfied (despite the fringe) with shoots from a partially visible moon with a cheap 500mm lens:



enter image description here



1/100 iso 100 f/?



I cannot understand why the IQ is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon:



enter image description here



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 everytime?



EDIT:
I repeated the process with an aps-c instead of full-format camera, now one of the images looks better (showing more details):



enter image description here
1/250 iso 100 (APS-C)



I'm not sure whether the crop factor allows me to focus more acurate or this is due to the 50% magnification. At least it shows more details.










share|improve this question
























  • Does photo.stackexchange.com/a/83792/47295 answer your question?
    – Peter Taylor
    7 hours ago










  • @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
    6 hours ago










  • Upper photos look slightly out of focus. Or is this the difference between 1/80 and 1/250 shutter speed? Unlikely.
    – IMil
    1 hour ago













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











While I'm satisfied (despite the fringe) with shoots from a partially visible moon with a cheap 500mm lens:



enter image description here



1/100 iso 100 f/?



I cannot understand why the IQ is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon:



enter image description here



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 everytime?



EDIT:
I repeated the process with an aps-c instead of full-format camera, now one of the images looks better (showing more details):



enter image description here
1/250 iso 100 (APS-C)



I'm not sure whether the crop factor allows me to focus more acurate or this is due to the 50% magnification. At least it shows more details.










share|improve this question















While I'm satisfied (despite the fringe) with shoots from a partially visible moon with a cheap 500mm lens:



enter image description here



1/100 iso 100 f/?



I cannot understand why the IQ is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon:



enter image description here



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 everytime?



EDIT:
I repeated the process with an aps-c instead of full-format camera, now one of the images looks better (showing more details):



enter image description here
1/250 iso 100 (APS-C)



I'm not sure whether the crop factor allows me to focus more acurate or this is due to the 50% magnification. At least it shows more details.







aperture astrophotography manual-focus sharpness moon






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago

























asked 7 hours ago









stacker

1836




1836












  • Does photo.stackexchange.com/a/83792/47295 answer your question?
    – Peter Taylor
    7 hours ago










  • @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
    6 hours ago










  • Upper photos look slightly out of focus. Or is this the difference between 1/80 and 1/250 shutter speed? Unlikely.
    – IMil
    1 hour ago


















  • Does photo.stackexchange.com/a/83792/47295 answer your question?
    – Peter Taylor
    7 hours ago










  • @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
    6 hours ago










  • Upper photos look slightly out of focus. Or is this the difference between 1/80 and 1/250 shutter speed? Unlikely.
    – IMil
    1 hour ago
















Does photo.stackexchange.com/a/83792/47295 answer your question?
– Peter Taylor
7 hours ago




Does photo.stackexchange.com/a/83792/47295 answer your question?
– Peter Taylor
7 hours ago












@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
6 hours ago




@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
6 hours ago












Upper photos look slightly out of focus. Or is this the difference between 1/80 and 1/250 shutter speed? Unlikely.
– IMil
1 hour ago




Upper photos look slightly out of focus. Or is this the difference between 1/80 and 1/250 shutter speed? Unlikely.
– IMil
1 hour ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
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 two 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.






share|improve this answer























  • Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
    – stacker
    6 hours ago






  • 2




    @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
    5 hours ago




















up vote
1
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.






share|improve this answer





















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "61"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    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

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    6
    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 two 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.






    share|improve this answer























    • Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
      – stacker
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      @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
      5 hours ago

















    up vote
    6
    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 two 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.






    share|improve this answer























    • Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
      – stacker
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      @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
      5 hours ago















    up vote
    6
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    6
    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 two 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.






    share|improve this answer















    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 two 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.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 6 hours ago

























    answered 6 hours ago









    scottbb

    18.6k75390




    18.6k75390












    • Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
      – stacker
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      @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
      5 hours ago




















    • Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
      – stacker
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      @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
      5 hours ago


















    Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
    – stacker
    6 hours ago




    Thank you for this detailed answer +1, could you include the 3rd image (aps-c which is more pronounced ) in your answer.
    – stacker
    6 hours ago




    2




    2




    @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
    5 hours ago






    @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
    5 hours ago














    up vote
    1
    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.






    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      1
      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.






      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        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.






        share|improve this answer












        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.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 5 hours ago









        Alan Marcus

        24.2k12858




        24.2k12858






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

            Calculate evaluation metrics using cross_val_predict sklearn

            Insert data from modal to MySQL (multiple modal on website)