Big Moon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Digitall

Digitall

Messages
3,340
Name
Allan
Edit My Images
No
Big Moon 24 June

9133952944_b67e2d275b_c.jpg
 
that is fantastic! I love it!
 
Digitall said:
300f2.8 prime with a Kenko 2x T/C. Thanks

Thank you

Hi Sarah, no just one exposure 320th/sec @f11, the stars surprised me as well
Thanks
Click to expand...

This might be a stupid question but would the Kenko work with a Canon body and a Sigma 70-300mm?
 
Great shot!

How did you get so much shadow detail and contrast on the right limb? Full moon shots are usually quite flat. Off camera flash? ;-)

J
 
Grape7 said:
This might be a stupid question but would the Kenko work with a Canon body and a Sigma 70-300mm?
Click to expand...
I dont know, being a Nikon user I am not up on Canon ways, sorry. Thanks
Jimi-the-fish said:
Great shot!

How did you get so much shadow detail and contrast on the right limb? Full moon shots are usually quite flat. Off camera flash? ;-)

J
Click to expand...
Combination of equipment and processing I guess :shrug:
 
I smell a rat.

1/320th @ f11 would NOT reveal so many stars in one exposure with something as bright as a full moon in the same frame. .... in fact, even if the moon wasn't there, 1/320th @ F11... even at a very high ISO wouldn't reveal so many low magnitude stars. Anything less than Mag -0.4 to -0.5 would be totally invisible at such an exposure.
 
Last edited:
Digitall said:
No sharpening at all in this Paul, thanks
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's something to do with the way it's been resized? There's very definitely oversharpening being introduced somewhere and quite a lot of it!

I too am puzzled as to how this exposure came about, I could well be wrong but I can't really see how any camera settings could capture stars and the moon so clearly in a single frame. If you managed it then that's awesome but I think I'd have to be there and see it come out of the camera to believe it! :LOL:
 
PMN said:
Perhaps it's something to do with the way it's been resized? There's very definitely oversharpening being introduced somewhere and quite a lot of it!

I too am puzzled as to how this exposure came about, I could well be wrong but I can't really see how any camera settings could capture stars and the moon so clearly in a single frame. If you managed it then that's awesome but I think I'd have to be there and see it come out of the camera to believe it! :LOL:
Click to expand...

Agreed(y)
 
Pookeyhead said:
I smell a rat.
Click to expand...
Yep...same here.
Pookeyhead said:
1/320th @ f11 would NOT reveal so many stars in one exposure with something as bright as a full moon in the same frame. .... in fact, even if the moon wasn't there, 1/320th @ F11... even at a very high ISO wouldn't reveal so many low magnitude stars. Anything less than Mag -0.4 to -0.5 would be totally invisible at such an exposure.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Not all is as it would appear.
 
I imagine it was sharpened during export. Why don't we let Allan run us through capturing the shot before we continue naming him a rodent. He is no amateur photographer and I'm not sure why he would intentionally deceive any of us.
 
Digitall said:
No sharpening at all in this Paul, thanks
Click to expand...

It's either been sharpened, lots or there is a load of contrast added.
I'm not convinced any compression in hosting could do that to the edges of the moon especially.

This, taken through a f4 telescope has been saved as a jpeg, put on Facebook, taken off and put onto photobucket.
22618_137309839749511_392039055_n_zps5fd71a6c.jpg
 
Last edited:
There is no rat in this picture, it's the last shot of nineteen. Why because it was the best looking on the lcd. Various settings were used for each picture. I was very surprised at the amount of stars showing, they do not show as bright in other peoples pictures. Nikon D3s set to manual as usual, Nikon 300f2.8, Kenko 300 pro 2x t/c. Sturdy tripod. Processed in PS6. My PS skills are limited so no fancy editing. There you have it, for me it was just the best of the bunch and the best picture of a moon I have every taken, and I have taken loads.
 
Was it shot RAW and if so is there any chance of a screenshot of it in Bridge? I genuinely don't mean to insult you by saying you faked it but I'm having a very difficult time trying to get my head around an image that in my mind kinda goes against the laws of physics!
 
There was a blue fringing around the left side sort of six o clock to twelve o clock, i used the clone tool to get rid of it.
I am not out decieve anyone because that way you only decieve yourself and life becomes a lie.
If you doubt my photography skills, please look in the macro section
 
Last edited:
The chromatic aberration correction tool in ACR generally works very well, it's usually only a case of moving the relevant slider a little to the left or right. A much easier and cleaner way of fixing CA than trying to clone it out. :)
 
Never taken a shot of the moon so appreciate the technical queries above yet I still like the image.
 
Your macro shots are lovely :)

Also the use of the clone tool is that part that made me think that it was sharpening. Apologies if it was rude.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
Was it shot RAW and if so is there any chance of a screenshot of it in Bridge? I genuinely don't mean to insult you by saying you faked it but I'm having a very difficult time trying to get my head around an image that in my mind kinda goes against the laws of physics!
Click to expand...

It was shot in RAW and I use Nikon ViewNX2 not Bridge.
You have every right to your opinions, but there was no jiggery pokery used here.
 
PMN said:
The chromatic aberration correction tool in ACR generally works very well, it's usually only a case of moving the relevant slider a little to the left or right. A much easier and cleaner way of fixing CA than trying to clone it out. :)
Click to expand...

You learn something new everyday nice one thanks for that.


Nice moon by the way love the detail, we had loads of cloud cover here so was unable to capture this one
 
That is an awesome photo of the Moon..
 
Digitall said:
There is no rat in this picture, it's the last shot of nineteen. Why because it was the best looking on the lcd. Various settings were used for each picture. I was very surprised at the amount of stars showing, they do not show as bright in other peoples pictures.
Click to expand...

That's because it's impossible to have an exposure that renders the moon correctly exposed, and also allow such a large amount of low magnitude stars.
To get that amount of faint stars, you're looking at least 20 seconds at a wide aperture and a very high ISO. If you were to shoot a full moon at the exposure requires to get those stars, it would be so massively over exposed, it would A) flare out all the stars anyway, and B) even if it didn't there would be no recoverable detail on the moon's surface.

Here's a shot of the moon at ISO400 1/1000th sec @ f4. RAW file, no adjustments made.

OmHgEjn.jpg


No stars. Why? Because they're too dim in comparison to the moon.. there's no way they could share the same exposure.

Here's the same shot with full shadow recovery in LR

CljqY7a.jpg


Still no stars... just a shed load of noise.

Can you please explain to me how you managed to get a well exposed moon, and stars that are in the order of 30 stops darker in one exposure please? As to the best of my knowledge, you've just achieved the impossible.

Can you post the RAW file to settle this? Not a screen grab.. the actual RAW file?

I call fake..... or.. you've just enhanced a shed load of noise and you think it's stars.... I'm not sure which.
 
Last edited:
some nice detail but looks really over sharpened, and theres an awful lot of white spots, they cant be stars, and I dont like the yellow border
 
If you publish the raw file this can be put to bed once and for all.
 
If it's not fake, then what you've got there is an extraordinary amount of hot pixels that just happen to arrange themselves in such a way as to look like stars. Not entirely impossible... but highly unlikely considering it was taken at 1/320th. If it IS hot pixels, any one of us should be able to recreate it from your RAW file with simple shadow recovery or curves adjustments.

What that is most definitely NOT.. is stars, as that is impossible.
 
Last edited:
Extraordinary capture.
 
I'm no star-gazer, but I have looked up at the moon often enough and that shot... it doesn't look like a photo taken from anywhere I have been on the earth's surface.
It looks just too 'sharp' to be real.
If it is... it's fantastic.....
But, are you SURE this isn't a wind-up, Star-Wars model shot, using macro-skills and an angle-poise?
 
Eddzz!! said:
http://biSPAM/124bb8j
Click to expand...


No.. I'm a photographer.

It's impossible to get stars like that, and a well exposed full moon in one exposure. It just is.


All I know is that if someone doubted the authenticity of my shot, I'd just supply the negative or RAW file to end the dispute.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
No.. I'm a photographer.

It's impossible to get stars like that, and a well exposed full moon in one exposure. It just is.


All I know is that if someone doubted the authenticity of my shot, I'd just supply the negative or RAW file to end the dispute.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're so bothered about it. Not really important is it?
 


As a comparison this is my moon shot sharpened and edited. Taken with a Nikon D300 and this

what i found difficult was getting the moon into view (it moves so fast close up) then focusing and trusting to luck everything else on the camera settings were correct. DOF impossible to get correct it this magnification.

I have to agree I can't see how the stars came out so well in the OP posting, none of my many attempts at photographing the moon show any, and that is with various lenses.

the closest I could get with that lens (2600mm)with a 2xTC fitted

 
Last edited:
Ricardodaforce said:
I don't know why you're so bothered about it. Not really important is it?
Click to expand...

For the same reason we all get hot under the collar when things like using a trained wolf for a wildlife competition that asks for animals in the wild, or using digital manipulation in the Charlie Waite awards happens ...

...it's cheating.

You condoning that? Funny how everyone pounces on the big guys, but when anyone else does it, we all turn a blind eye.

He states it's a single exposure, and the image is very, very suspicious, as he appears to have achieved the impossible. If he entered that in a competition who's rules stipulated no digital montage or composite, the organisers would be asking him for a RAW file to prove it.

Not being a competition doesn't mean we can't question the authenticity of an image. It's ethically wrong to deceive people as to the authenticity of an image. You gonna argue that point?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top