| Author |
Message |
mikenorton
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 3499
Location: Guide Book http://www.lulu.com/shop/mike-norton/nortons-notes/paperback/product-5079819.html
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 11:31 pm
|  |
| jeffbanke 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. |
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. |
In mine the moon was photographed with a 300, I don't remember what the lens was set on for the city shot.
|
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4182
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 11:44 pm
| |
What you guys are actually saying is that this thread is not about the "supermoon" it is - or became - about image pimping. That's fine. By why pretend it is an accurate record of a real event? We are photographers talking to each other in this thread, we're not (or I didn't think we were) trying to use it to impress buyers.
Maybe everybody spotted immediately that the perspective and the lighting in that shot were both wrong, which is a dead giveaway. But maybe some newbies were confused about why their Moon shots never turn out that spectacularly - well, now they know.
Hopefully, they also know that getting a camera with 15% more pixels will create a "supermoon" compared with their existing camera (as copidosoma points out, it is much ado about nothing), so they don't need to wait for the next one in order to produce a spectacular, they just need to ensure their editing skills are up to the mark (and know that off-axis light on the buildings is a giveaway). Perhaps there is even a nice NASA Moon available somewhere, if that is still allowed.
Maybe some have also learned something about focal lengths and the importance of distance from the foreground subject in shots like these. If digitalgandalf had stood twice as far away from the church to take his shot, the moon would have looked twice as big, but that still wouldn't be huge.
OK, carry on pimping.
|
|
angelawaye
Joined: 05 Oct 2008
Posts: 565
Location: http://www.facebook.com/Angela.Waye.Art
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:17 am
| |
Maybe there needs to be a "show us your newest moon" thread ...
|
|
mikenorton
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 3499
Location: Guide Book http://www.lulu.com/shop/mike-norton/nortons-notes/paperback/product-5079819.html
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 11:48 am
| |
I thought we were joking around.
|
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3806
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 11:51 am
| |
| mikenorton wrote: | | I thought we were joking around. |
This is stock dude. Deadly serious stuff.
|
|
digigandalf
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 5419
Location: Twinsburg, OH
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:38 pm
| |
Pimping?! At least no one's shown a moon with a fluffy white dog jumping over it.
I hope I don't come to regret putting the idea out there!
|
|
geoffwnz
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 174
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 3:45 pm
| |
I only posted my one because everyone else had their shots upside down. :-p
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26321
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 4:12 pm
| |
Oh well perhaps i will just go back and edit mine and delete them from the thread!
I wasn't pimping i was showing so everyone could see.
So forget trying to help anyone anymore i guess.
EDIT Removed all images.
|
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17469
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 4:28 pm
| |
| mikenorton wrote: | | I thought we were joking around. |
Me too!
Who takes any of this crap seriously?
Obviously not Geoff in NZ, he posted his moon sideways, this is what the moon looked like in NZ the other day, note the position of the sea of tranquility and sea of crisis :-)
Oh, BTW, Paul, not pimping this one as I don't think it would sell :-)
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
141.25 KB |
| Viewed: |
610 Time(s) |
|
|
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17469
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 5:18 pm
| |
BTW for anyone not familiar with the moons craters and seas, here is an explanation, (obviously taken from the Northern Hemisphere)
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
144.19 KB |
| Viewed: |
599 Time(s) |
|
|
|
Susan
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 6290
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 6:52 pm
| |
| jeffbanke wrote: | | mikenorton wrote: | | I thought we were joking around. |
Me too!
Who takes any of this crap seriously?
Obviously not Geoff in NZ, he posted his moon sideways, this is what the moon looked like in NZ the other day, note the position of the sea of tranquility and sea of crisis :-)
Oh, BTW, Paul, not pimping this one as I don't think it would sell :-) |
;) I agree Jeff life is too short to take the liberation's of these libelous moons seriously!
Last edited by Susan on Tue May 08, 2012 7:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17469
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 6:56 pm
| |
Terrific Susan!
|
|
Susan
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 6290
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 7:12 pm
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: | Maybe everybody spotted immediately that the perspective and the lighting in that shot were both wrong, which is a dead giveaway. But maybe some newbies were confused about why their Moon shots never turn out that spectacularly - well, now they know.
Hopefully, they also know that getting a camera with 15% more pixels will create a "supermoon" compared with their existing camera (as copidosoma points out, it is much ado about nothing), so they don't need to wait for the next one in order to produce a spectacular, they just need to ensure their editing skills are up to the mark (and know that off-axis light on the buildings is a giveaway). Perhaps there is even a nice NASA Moon available somewhere, if that is still allowed.
Maybe some have also learned something about focal lengths and the importance of distance from the foreground subject in shots like these. If digitalgandalf had stood twice as far away from the church to take his shot, the moon would have looked twice as big, but that still wouldn't be huge. |
Paul when I was first trying to sort the moon issues out, I would have appreciated the tips you detailed in this post. LOL Who knew we could not trust our eyes.
|
|
mikenorton
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 3499
Location: Guide Book http://www.lulu.com/shop/mike-norton/nortons-notes/paperback/product-5079819.html
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:15 pm
| |
Susan, the moon movie is mesmerizing.
|
|
geoffwnz
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 174
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:59 pm
| |
| jeffbanke wrote: | | mikenorton wrote: | | I thought we were joking around. |
Me too!
Who takes any of this crap seriously?
Obviously not Geoff in NZ, he posted his moon sideways, this is what the moon looked like in NZ the other day, note the position of the sea of tranquility and sea of crisis :-)
Oh, BTW, Paul, not pimping this one as I don't think it would sell :-) |
Hey.....yours is sideways. :-p
And from a couple of days later when it's missing a bit.
I'm just hoping for some clear sky on the weekend to get a half moon shot. :-)
|
|
| |
|
Log in
