I posted this image elsewhere and folks raved about it. I was surprised as I simply went outside, set up my gear, exposed the full moon with a variety of settings, loaded them all into my computer, selected the best one, did the usual post-processing etc.
Indeed, compared to many other full-moon images, this one is at least above average, if not superior. As I thought about it further I began to suspect the fact that the moon was 10-15 degrees above the horizon, no longer orange hued but not super intense in brightness as it is when more overhead in its arc, may have made a significant difference. In effect, I was shooting through more atmosphere with the moon relatively low on the horizon. Anybody know about this?
NOTE: Image is approx 650X632 and 125K - click the thumbnail and it will open in a separate window. I use dial-up and the time to load this image is not a problem for me. If it's too large for others I apologize and that's why I inserted it as a thumbnail - so the viewer can choose to or choose not to open it.
Canon 1D MKII, EF 500 f4.0 L 'IS' with hood (IS turned off), 1.4 telextender = 910mm
ISO 100, RAW capture, F11, 1/4 sec (approx.), exposure comp minus 3, mirror lock-up, 2 sec delay, evaluative metering, auto WB, single shot mode, Gitzo carbon tripod with Arca Swiss ball head, Wimberley Sidekick and P40 quick release plate. Photoshop CS, lots of sharpening (any of you with the 1D MKII know what I mean by 'lots'), curves to taste, 5% black added, used some blue photo filter (the original had a slight sepia tone) - think that's about it.