OK, you are getting there. The exposure is better and the grain is improved. However detail is weak, pixelated. I notice that your second image at full view is 3872 pixels X 2592 pixels. Remember that you want the dimensions of your posted image to be no greater than 850 pixels on the long side for primary images, and for appended images like this one it should be no greater than 750 pixels on the long side. I think the usefilm computer may be further compressing your appended file, resulting in loss of detail. You are allowed file size of 360 kilobytes for appended files and 400 kb for primary images. However if you also have too many pixels, the usefilm computer may further compress the image so that it can be seen properly on the screen. Your final file is only 77 kb, less than you are allowed.
I am not familiar with your software. However for photoshop you want to first reduce the pixel dimensions, then sharpen a little, THEN reduce the file size to fit usefilm guidelines. Another slight sharpen after that might help. When you post, usefilm will offer you the option of another sharpen, say 'none', as you want what you created, not what usefilm computers will do automatically.
I used a few photo manipulation programs before finally graduating to photoshop. The move to photoshop elements suddenly made things understandable, especially the above issues. You definitely need a program that can allow you to reduce pixel dimensions, since anything less will deliver a poor result on websites like this. Most experts on these kind of sites use the full photoshop CS2 program, but photoshop elements 5 is an economical second choice.
I followed your advice and I got better results last night at f/8 1/400s ISO 200 ( if I remember corectly. I will post a new one later. I use Nikon Capture for processing image lighly, and Photphop 5.0 (???) for air brush and retouch on other pictures. I do not retouch the picd that I display up here. It is just for fun :)
You've got good equipment and therefore the grain is either a problem with exposure or perhaps something in post-processing. Since f8 gives twice the light of f11, you need half the shutter speed as for f11. At ISO 400 your shutter speed would be 1/400s at f11, and 1/800s at f8. Your bracketing is therefore way too hot, explaining why your shots were overexposed. Remember that the moon is effectively in brilliant sunlight, lit up by the sun. Your light meter is fooled by the surrounding black sky, trying to make the black turn to grey and therefore blowing out the moon. So, don't trust those light meter readings.
I don't think the grain would be from compression, at least if it was done correctly. What program are you using for image processing?
Dave, I tried manue, f/8, f8 1s, 2s 4s o, tripod and nothing would work. I would get no details at all, just over exposed light bulb. I just could not understand it. I never took a picture of the moon before. I ususally do nature, and birds, and lancape. I will try these settings tonight. Thanks BTW ISO was 400. The image looks graining becasu it used to be a 6MB pic reduce to 300KB to accomodate upload restrictions.
Hey, welcome to Usefilm, Gilbert. Great magnification, but there seems to be a lot of grain here. Perhaps exposure was a little short and grain was therefore amplified. Most of those who do this kind of shot use an 'f11' rule for lunar exposure. Kinda like the f16 rule for daylight exposure. Shoot in MANUAL exposure mode. Set aperture at f11, and trip shutter speed to roughly equal the set ISO of your camera or film. So, if you are shooting at ISO 800, shutter speed is 1/800, approximately. If you are shooting at higher ISO, be ready for distracting grain. You'll be amazed when you use mirror lockup and a tripod at how much better your image will be.
0 
{K:102911} 12/6/2006
