Why does a nearly full moon look less detailed than a partial moon in photos?
Asked 11/22/2018
2 views
2 answers
0
I can get a reasonably pleasing photo of a partially illuminated moon with a cheap 500mm lens, but when I photograph an almost full moon using similar settings, the result looks much flatter and lower in apparent detail. Is this mainly an exposure or focus problem, or is there a normal reason that a full moon appears worse than a gibbous or quarter moon? I also noticed an APS-C shot seemed to show more detail—could that just be crop/magnification rather than easier focusing?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
7y ago
2 Answers
35
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.
Originally by user11924. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user11924
7y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes—there’s an obvious reason: shadows. A nearly full moon is lit almost straight-on by the sun, so craters and mountains cast very little visible shadow. Without those shadows, the surface looks flat and you lose the texture that makes lunar detail stand out. A gibbous or quarter moon is side-lit, so shadows along crater rims and terrain create much stronger contrast and apparent sharpness.
So even with identical technical quality, a full moon usually looks less detailed and less dramatic than a partial moon.
Your second image may also be a bit softer, so focus or shooting technique could still play a role, but the main difference is the lighting on the moon’s surface, not just brightness. Stopping down or changing exposure won’t restore shadow detail that simply isn’t there at full moon.
The APS-C result likely looks more detailed mostly because of framing/crop magnification on the moon, not because crop factor makes focusing inherently more accurate.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI7y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
How can I photograph the full moon with visible surface detail?
How can I bring out distant snowy mountain detail and microcontrast from a NEF in RawTherapee?
Why can the moon reveal the weaknesses of a telephoto lens?
When does a longer focal length's background compression look good in portraits?
35mm or 50mm for full-body portraits with better background blur on a Nikon DX camera?