| Author |
Message |
Susan
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 6283
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 5:09 am
|  |
| mikenorton wrote: | | PaulCowan wrote: | | mikenorton wrote: | | Another super moon, what's that 2 in the last year? This is the last Super Moon attacking Dallas. (Must be because of global warming! ;) |
Hmmm... I think you might have cheated a bit to get that. |
Cheated? What are you talking about? |
This is a beautiful shot Mike, is it a cropped 4x5 image?
|
|
shaithis
Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 1868
Location: Queen City
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:24 am
| |
Cloudy in our neck of the woods. Love shooting the moon though. Did this through a ten inch Dobsonian. Full moon shot consisted of six photos stitched together.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
88.16 KB |
| Viewed: |
767 Time(s) |
|
|
|
angelawaye
Joined: 05 Oct 2008
Posts: 565
Location: http://www.facebook.com/Angela.Waye.Art
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:47 am
| |
You all have some very beautiful moon images. We all share the same moon (at different unique angles)
My werewolf side is coming out ...
Last edited by angelawaye on Mon May 07, 2012 12:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4181
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 11:25 am
| |
| mikenorton wrote: | | PaulCowan wrote: | | mikenorton wrote: | | Another super moon, what's that 2 in the last year? This is the last Super Moon attacking Dallas. (Must be because of global warming! ;) |
Hmmm... I think you might have cheated a bit to get that. |
Cheated? What are you talking about? |
Well, it seems a bit odd that there is a light source illuminating all the buildings from the left when the Sun was obviously directly behind you, probably just below the horizon, when you shot the Moon. That, and the ratio of the Moon's size to the buildings, which would require you to be a long way from them, makes me think it could just possibly be a composite :)
|
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17468
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 3:27 pm
| |
Paul, no-one "cheats" around here, simply changes reality
|
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4181
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 3:39 pm
| |
It's meant to be about the Moon, Jeff, not the Sun ;)
Since the subject was the "supermoon" it would seem a bit of a cheat to me if someone posted an image that was a composite, allowing the Moon's size to be increased.
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39245
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 3:50 pm
| |
Here ya go Paul. LOL
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
90.32 KB |
| Viewed: |
687 Time(s) |
|
|
|
geoffwnz
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 174
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 3:55 pm
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: | It's meant to be about the Moon, Jeff, not the Sun ;)
Since the subject was the "supermoon" it would seem a bit of a cheat to me if someone posted an image that was a composite, allowing the Moon's size to be increased. |
Yeah, but we don't want to go into the whole "how much is cheating" debate. Subject is "supermoon". How you want to display that moon is entirely up to the creator of the image.
|
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4181
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 4:06 pm
| |
| geoffwnz wrote: | | PaulCowan wrote: | It's meant to be about the Moon, Jeff, not the Sun ;)
Since the subject was the "supermoon" it would seem a bit of a cheat to me if someone posted an image that was a composite, allowing the Moon's size to be increased. |
Yeah, but we don't want to go into the whole "how much is cheating" debate. Subject is "supermoon". How you want to display that moon is entirely up to the creator of the image. |
Then it's meaningless. It might as well be any old Moon, and maybe it was.
|
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3800
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 4:25 pm
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: | | geoffwnz wrote: | | PaulCowan wrote: | It's meant to be about the Moon, Jeff, not the Sun ;)
Since the subject was the "supermoon" it would seem a bit of a cheat to me if someone posted an image that was a composite, allowing the Moon's size to be increased. |
Yeah, but we don't want to go into the whole "how much is cheating" debate. Subject is "supermoon". How you want to display that moon is entirely up to the creator of the image. |
Then it's meaningless. It might as well be any old Moon, and maybe it was. |
It pretty well was meaningless. Just alot of media hype. Really, the moon was something around 4% closer to Earth than average. The actual difference in apparent size is pretty small (negligible even).
When people observe that the moon looks really big it is usually when it is lower on the horizon. Relative to buildings and trees it looks pretty big. But it is the same size later on in the night when it has "risen" in the sky where it looks normal sized.
Supermoons are really much ado about nothing. Except that you get a few moon picture sales maybe.
|
|
digigandalf
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 5417
Location: Twinsburg, OH
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:26 pm
| |
Here's one, exactly as it was Sat. nite. No composite or anything. Just two exposures merged into one.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
35.62 KB |
| Viewed: |
634 Time(s) |
|
|
|
mikenorton
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 3486
Location: Guide Book http://www.lulu.com/shop/mike-norton/nortons-notes/paperback/product-5079819.html
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:59 pm
| |
Yeah, how is my image any different from landscapes that have clouds dropped in? I just dropped in the moon.
It's not a 4x5 crop it's two digital thing-a-ma-gigs put together. The moon came up way to the right, like 90 degrees to the right of the buildings. I photographed the buildings during the blue hour, went home and photographed the moon from inside my loft.
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26285
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:21 pm
| |
Who cares if it is composted anyhow?
For stock it's all about the sale.
Here's one from the one last year as it cleared the horizon of the Chesapeake Bay with some freighters working in the Bay as it was coming over the horizon through the clouds and of course the higher it gets the smaller it got.
I used a 70-200 f/4L and the freighters were probably about 12 miles out.
You could hardly see it when it first came up.
EDIT Removed image.
Last edited by ruxpriencdiam on Tue May 08, 2012 4:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Susan
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 6283
|
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17468
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 11:05 pm
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: | It's meant to be about the Moon, Jeff, not the Sun ;)
Since the subject was the "supermoon" it would seem a bit of a cheat to me if someone posted an image that was a composite, allowing the Moon's size to be increased. |
I was simply pointing out that I replaced the sun with another shot of the moon in my image
Not exactly what Ken did, as he married two different images of the same scene with different exposures, however, I see little difference of marrying two images whether they are two different exposures of the same scene, or different.
The real point being we all do it, so if Mike added two images, it is not abnormal, and as Susan pointed out, one needs a humungous lens to achieve the effect.
|
|
| |
|
Log in
