Moonlight Serenade: multiexposure day & night

It is a long while since I've tried this, so I'll present it for discussion.
On 15th October (in the southern hemisphere) is a full moon. I have a subject of two large rocks, between which is a gap (or chasm). Past visits have established that a full moon rises right between these rocks. Given that a full moon is only very small in the frame, I am considering a multi-exposure with 2 different lenses covering 2 very different lighting scenarios, v.i.z.:

Exposure 1 shot with a 40mm lens in golden evening light showing ;
Exposure 2 shot with a 200mm lens at antetwilight (that's the pink layer upon blue in the sky opposite sunset) to give a slightly more pronounced size of the moon only.

The question is: which exposure should come first: the moon (much darker sky) or the image shot in evening light? The layout of the exposures has been plotted on computer using a drawing of my viewfinder's grid-screen so I know where to place the moon.

I am not troubled by exposure of the moon (done with 1° spotmeter) or the straightforward exposure of the main subject, the rocks, the only caveat being that the image needs to be timed so that the shadow of a large tree is not cast over both rocks (shadow over one is acceptable, as shown in the image below) as the sun sinks.



Above Image RVP 50 (at EI40) image from 2005.

Fuji RVP 400iso at EI800 will be employed for this month's shoot.

Hey - the full moon here in the Nothern Hemisphere is October 15th as well!

Anyway, It really doesn't matter which exposure your make first. The film does not care. So do what is easiest for your setup.

By the way, I think the proper name for what you call "antetwilight" is call the "Belt of Venus" - it's a term that refers to the band of pink that is above the earth shadow seen when the sun rises or sets.

Have fun with the photo.

Poisson Du Jour said:

I am considering a multi-exposure .

Click to expand...

So .... if they all turn out OK you could well end up with a String of Pearls!

The full moon doesn't always rise at the same compass bearing (azimuth). There is software available to predict this, both free and commercial. One example is at: http://www.ummah.net/ildl/mooncalc.html

The full moon is 1/2 degree in diameter, so your 1 degree spotmeter is not going to measure only the moon. For the full moon use sunny f:11 rule, one stop more than sunny f:16 because the moon has a low albedo (reflectivity) relative to earth and you'll want it to look bright, but not blown out.

Lee

With double exposure the order does make a difference.
If you shoot the daylight scene first then the film will have received a lot of light. When you do the second exposure the moon might come out a bit weak as it is being exposed on a part of the film that has already received a big hit of light.
If you do the night shot first you can get a strong moon exposure but most of the film area will be as good as unexposed as the rest of the scene is black sky. Therefore when you make the second shot in the daytime you should get a good exposure for the rest of the scene but the moon will still stand out.

The response of the film in this scenario is to cumulative exposure, not order of exposure.

If the sky gets too much exposure either before or after the moon exposure, it will decrease contrast in the moon exposure and make the moon shadows blue rather than black (assuming a blue sky).

Lee

goldie said:

If you do the night shot first you can get a strong moon exposure but most of the film area will be as good as unexposed as the rest of the scene is black sky. Therefore when you make the second shot in the daytime you should get a good exposure for the rest of the scene but the moon will still stand out.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is wrong...

You will get a tint from the sky on the moon from the daylight exposure, but then if the moon was there in the sky at that time, it would be tinted anyway.

My only issue is that it's near impossible to make these types of exposures look real. It's really hard to do it convincingly.

Goldie's response (#5) sounded most promising, but then along came Kirk Keyes in #7. So there is a bit of a quandary. I am thinking of relying on ambient light and a long exposure to capture both the rocks and the moon, but it can't be too long or the moon (and stars) will record as a streak (I am less troubled by star trails than I am a blurred moon). My worst fear is that the shoot will be wasted by overcast conditions, so I'm ready and at the location for 3 days before, on and for 2 days after the full moon.

My understanding is that in a desert environment, for example, a tinted moon is more likely from atmospheric particulate matter, but true, blue sky will also tint in multi-exposure. See the image below (unknown photographer: location is Mungo National Park in outback New South Wales). Of this image I suspect the moon has either been digitally superimposed "just so" or in a vaguely possible event, this is how the scene actually presented (the location being so far north, so far away from any artiificial lighting and also renowned for atmospheric landscape scenes like this). Other photos I have seen at this location feature the sought-after 'Belt of Venus' (I tend to call it antitwilight after astronomers) but with a very tiny, distant, insignificant moon.


As beautiful as the scene can be this is a horridly hot, stark,
very lonely, remote and spooky place to be; especially so when
a sudden wandering breeze scurries over the sand then vanishes
to stillness again! The subject is an an eroded clay mound on a
lunette (that is, a 75km long arc of sand and sediment blown
up like this over 40,000 years or so, then eroded into deep
fissures like this through rain.

Some reading for thought:

• Moonrise/set times + position (Australia)
GeoScience Australia Moonrise & Moonset Times portal,
http://www.ga.gov.au/geodesy/astro/moonrise.jsp

• Photographing the Moon, Jeff Conrad (2002)
Makes the comment under Balance Moon and Landscape p.7 of doing a digital composite (euch!)
bringing me back to my suspicions re the full moon landscape image above...

• Astrophotography Basics Kodak Guide P-150 (2002)
Detail, detail... with some points at odds with Conrad's assertions.

PDJ

Poisson, the photo you just posted is most certainly faked. As you suspect, the moon looks unusually large relative to the foreground. But what really should tip you off is that the dark limb on the top edge of the moon in the photo, should be opposite the position of the sun. So looking at the moon, you see the dark edge on the top and the bright edge at the bottom. That means the sun was inline a line drawn from the top of the moon to the bottom, so it's straight below the moon. If you look at the landscape in the foreground, the sun is off to the right side of the photo. So you see the light source (the sun) in the two parts of the image do not match. I'm sure that most people never notice these things, but it always grates on me...

Obviously, the easy way to get a fake big moon is to shoot the moon exposure with a long focal length and the landscape with something much wider....

Mmm-hmm. I've always suspected that image to be fake. There isn't a lens I can think of that would pump up the moon to that size. Trouble is there are a heap of people who take that fake photo and assume the moon will look just like that when they turn up in what is essentially Hell's Kitchen, it being so damned hot and oppressive!

AND... I will not be making a fake image, digital or otherwise: I'm not into fakes, son. I've allowed for some generous contingencies and changes of plans, and would be happy with a twilight image, with some emphasis now on exposing for detail on the moon — however bedevilled the process is. The discussion here has been most educational and helpful, as has the growing compendium of additional references on the subject (alas, references of moonlight exposure by Uncle Ansel haven't been tracked down yet...).