For about three days, Miami Florida is said to be experiencing a “rare blue superman”. Despite my suspicions to the contrary, this does not imply the moon will appear even the slightest bit “blue”.
I woke up in the middle of the night to capture this photo. It’s probably no better than my previous photos of the moon. I need to beg or borrow a small telescope to which I can attach my camera I guess.
Explanation:
The world will see a rare blue supermoon this week, with stargazers getting a glimpse on Monday night into Tuesday morning. The moon will appear about a seventh bigger and brighter on Monday evening as a blue moon and super moon coincide.
What is a supermoon? The moon travels around Earth in an orbit that is not quite circular, so there is a single point in its orbit that is closest to Earth as well as a point that is furthest away. The moon normally sits about 384,000km from Earth but will be 23,000km closer on Monday night – almost double Earth’s diameter.
It was cloudy when the largest moon would have been visible here, but this morning I got this with a crop sensor and at 600mm (effective FL: 900mm). There was still quite a lot of empty real estate in the (uncropped)frame:
I accept that you will get better definition at night than I could get here, but I just wanted to guide your expectation in matter of size. You will need to crop quite a bit to get the filled amount in your specimen.
Cheers
MM
The problem was that I spent most of my time “looking”, and not “reading”.
From what you wrote, it was obvious.
I was trying to “understand” the photo, as in why was it so blue, and not sharp.
At my next opportunity, I want to try to do the same photo as what I posted, but shoot it in the daytime. Since everything would be lit by the sun, I’m only guessing what the image will look like.
As far as I can see from the image properties, I took the shot about 5 minutes after moon rise, and it would have been about 94% of its maximum size. I had the Sun well behind me, too, to help with getting the metering right.
You need to address that problem because the main thing about a forum like this is discussion, and discussion requires words. The pictures alone rarely tell the whole story.
I agree with you, but I also feel it’s important that pictures have to speak to for themselves.
I ought to have re-read what was posted, before replying.
I’m glad you feel that way. There’s usually lots of “supporting text”. I wondered how others felt about that I suspect most photos have “a story to tell”. For me, I love talking/writing about my photos, but worry about boring people.
I was more thinking of the need on a forum like this for words to convey technical data, which is what @Mike_Murphy_1948 did in his post, and what (some how ) you missed. The picture alone could not convey the fact is was taken with a crop sensor camera at a (35 mm equivalent) focal length of 900 mm and that it was the full frame image.
You raise an interesting point. When I “print” a frame from PL7 I always leave the EXIF data in the output file. On other forums I use (mainly DPReview.com) you can see that data when you examine a shot other users have uploaded. Is that not the case here?
I was motivated to make the technical stuff explicit because @mikemyers was proposing to use a shorter focal length on a full frame, and wanted to prevent any disappointment. OTOH, the technical stuff that definitely isn’t embodied in what we upload would be the -DOP file. Now that will always need to be included!
) you missed. The picture alone could not convey the fact is was taken with a crop sensor camera at a (35 mm equivalent) focal length of 900 mm and that it was the full frame image.