The only way to learn is to try things you have never tried before. I see you have posted a photoshopped version -- I'll leave a comment on that one for you as well.
Thanks for the comments, Phil. To be honest, I wasn't sure what I wanted to do with this shot, other than experiment and stay away from a purely descriptive image. I did want something soft and kind of blurry - maybe if the moon had been crisp and defined it would have been more successful.(Now I know what not to do, right?)
Actually, Carolyn's moon was not a double exposure. She shot two images -- the moon, and then the clouds, using two different pictures and two different exposures and then copied and pasted in photoshop. She used a long one second exposure for the dark clouds, which means that she used a tripod. Anytime you make a picture slower than 1/4 of second (using an image stabilized lens) you must use a tripod to avoid blur due to camera shake.
A good concept, Jenene, but you must have spot metered on the wrong spot, because the moon is over exposed, and the shutter speed is too long (a half second) to hand hold without camera shake. The fact that you are using ISO 1600 does not help either -- it contributes to the washed out moon. To shoot detail in a moon, you must spot meter on the moon itself. Look at this shot of the moon, (albeit a double exposure) by Carolyn B:http://www.pbase.com/image/41282765 . She is using ISO 100 -- a full four stops slower than your ISO 1600. She uses a shutter speed of 1/320th of a second, about seven stops faster than your half a second. She uses a f stop that is nearly the same as you use, and she meters on the moon itself.
There is also lot of distracting stuff in the lower right hand corner of your shot that pulls the eye away from the good idea.
Practice shooting the moon by metering on it, and using faster shutter speeds and slower ISO ratings to keep the moon from blowing out. You want to capture significant detail that differentiates the moon from a light, as Carolyn did. Good luck, Phil
