Old-shaker-hand, no objections to your edit of my pic. I find it interesting as that brings out more crater detail. I have already messed around with the levels to get what I posted. It was even "flatter" before. But I guess I didn't explore the range as aggressively.
Well the details of the craters also depend on how much shadow the angle of the sun light creates. In a full moon shot like mine it is not possible to get many beautiful craters. On the other hand when the moon is full it also gets such small dynamic range that it’s possible to expand it in a quite rude way (like I did). If you try the same wild expansion on a non-full moon shot then most of the craters should disappear.
As for the contrast comment, maybe contrast wasn't the best word I could have used but essentially I was saying the difference between light and dark was relatively high.
Well it can’t pay off to start a debate on who say what, when and why. I also find that it can be hard to give an easy description of what a curve tool did even if it easy to see that the difference is big.
There seems to be a lot of cloud moving in at the moment, so not optimistic on having another go tonight. But I do notice it's setting relatively late in the morning so maybe I'll get one tomorrow.
Some days ago I look out of my window and saw a beautiful moon just waiting to be captured. But when I came out of my door it was raining … newer tried this before … newer the less in that situation I could not help thinking: TYPICAL! Anyway I just took a sharp shot of the moon, clicking on it gives the 100% crop:
I even think the 100% crop looks good (didn’t use the OS this time). I essentially don’t know the optical quality of your telescope. But since you got a nearly twice as big a FL you should be able to get a similarly sharp image with the double amount of details.