Big Moon

[Ricardodaforce]

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?

I'm not going to argue anything because I don't give a flying ****, but I am amused out how stressed you are about it. You're going to give yourself a coronary. It's a photo!

 

[paulk]

I've done a fair bit of astro photography and I have never had anything like that

 

[Hacker]

I'm not going to argue anything because I don't give a flying ****, but I am amused out how stressed you are about it. You're going to give yourself a coronary. It's a photo!

Okay, everyone needs to calm down.

However this is a photography forum and the image was put up for critique. Whilst I am no expert on moon/star shots I have to agree with Pookeyhead on this one in that seems like an impossible shot to get with one exposure and I think it right to call it out in this instance - even if it is just for the OP to explain how he managed what no-one else seems to be able to achieve.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Fine... let's all lie about how we created our images That's how it is around here is it? We deceive one another and mislead each other as to how images are created?

Cheating is cheating.. doesn't matter if it's the big guys, or rank amateurs. It shouldn't be encouraged, condoned, or overlooked. It sends the wrong message.

Great forum this... when the bloody regulars are willing to turn a blind eye to what is blatantly a very suspicious image just because it's another forum regular. LOL

Talk about closing ranks or what.


[edit]

I cross posted with the moderator.... my points still stand though.

 

[Hacker]

Fine... let's all lie about how we created our images That's how it is around here is it? We deceive one another and mislead each other as to how images are created?

Cheating is cheating.. doesn't matter if it's the big guys, or rank amateurs. It shouldn't be encouraged, condoned, or overlooked. It sends the wrong message.

Great forum this... when the bloody regulars are willing to turn a blind eye to what is blatantly a very suspicious image just because it's another forum regular. LOL

Talk about closing ranks or what.


[edit]

I cross posted with the moderator.... my points still stand though.

It's nothing to do with 'forum regulars', maybe some people aren't so concerned about it.

 

[MJWC1]

It's noise, pure and simple.

Looking back at the image again after reading all the comments, it doesn't even look like stars. Even leaving aside the physics that establish it is impossible to get the right exposure for both moon and stars in one shot, it just looks wrong. There are sequences of vertical and horizontal dashes in there, lots of other things that are the wrong shape, and the dots/dashes/etc are far too dense. Whether all this noise was introduced during the capture or through processing (oversharpening?) I don't know, but that HAS to be what it is.

IMHO - the OP has not consciously deceived anyone, but has failed to realise he has ended up with a horridly noisy image.

 

[Pookeyhead]

A possibility mentioned in post #32

If so... any one of us could easily recreate it given the RAW.

I've failed to recreate this with any astro photo I've ever taken though when I try to push the shadows into noise. If the shot was massively under exposed it would be at least conceivable, but still the least likely explanation.

 

[AstroMarcus]

Sorry to add my part, I actually do Astro-photography, and run an Astronomy business, the original image contains noise, the what would look like stars are simply not stars but a mass of noise. I have taken thousands of images of the moon an know that it is simply impossible to ever see stars due the sheer mass of the moon, it gives of such light that the camera can not see past, it will only ever pick up the detail from the light the moon gives off, the rest of the sky will be washed out by the moons light.

Here is an image of the moon I have taken which will show what I mean...

Hope this helps, this was taken through a Newtonian telescope with a focal reducer at F4.

Marcus

Forgot to say sorry, that's why when I image a deep sky object I have to wait until the moon isn't around, it washes the whole sky out!

 

[Eddzz!!]

Thanks to AstroMarcus for clearing that up! I believe apologies are owed to the OP following accusations of 'cheating' and 'deceitful behavior' when obviously an honest mistake had been made.

[EDIT] Also, Marcus - fantastic picture!

 

[Ricardodaforce]

Thanks to AstroMarcus for clearing that up! I believe apologies are owed to the OP following accusations of 'cheating' and 'deceitful behavior' when obviously an honest mistake had been made.

[EDIT] Also, Marcus - fantastic picture!

I agree 100%. It will be interesting to see if Mr Angry is man enough to do so though.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Thanks to AstroMarcus for clearing that up! I believe apologies are owed to the OP following accusations of 'cheating' and 'deceitful behavior' when obviously an honest mistake had been made.

I will when I see a RAW that proves it's noise, yes.. happily. I'm afraid Marcus's post proves nothing one way or the other. All he's saying is what I've already said: That it's impossible to get stars and the moon in the same frame. He mentions it's possible it could be noise, but I notice on his moon image there is none, nor will he be able to recreate it from that image... just as I can't in any of mine.

I've already said, ages ago that noise is a possible cause. I just think it unlikely given the brightness of the moon compared to the background noise levels.

A nearly full moon is seriously bright. We're talking around 1/250th or so at ISO100 f11. If you pulled back exposure to the extend required to bring noise up to those levels then the moon would be a featureless white blob. I can't imagine a scenario that has a moon so bright in the frame, yet requires exposure/shadow recovery to the extent of producing such noise in the background. It makes zero sense. It's just incredibly unlikely unless the moon itself was hugely underexposed, and at 1/320 f11 (the EV used), even at iso100, that is not possible with an almost full moon. Anyone who knows anything about photography will understand why that is so.

I agree 100%. It will be interesting to see if Mr Angry is man enough to do so though.

When we see a RAW.. yes... happily. I fail to see what Marcus's post proves.

Sorry lads... I still think it's a fake. When a RAW is posted that proves me wrong, I will personally apologise to the OP and donate £20 to the charity of his choice.... but not until I see the RAW file.

 

[AstroMarcus]

I'm sorry to disagree with you there, as a newb to this site, I think I have proven a lot in the image I displayed, my point was, I know for a fact that it is impossible to get an image of the moon with stars showing that bright. As we all know that the moon radiates its own light, you could shoot all night under different settings and still the moon will wash out any light from the stars....its physics....the moon is closer...the light from even the brightest star in the sky with a good low magnitude ( for instance Sirius ), which is the brightest would be washed out.

I believe that things have got out of hand really, as said, I do this for a living, so any input I can give I am here to help, learning from others is the way I did and always a good leap forward, that's why I joined here, my day time stuff is a bit rusty so am learning from you guys!

Marcus

 

[On the Huh]

It;s very nice and sharp for such a noisey photy but I like it a lot.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm sorry to disagree with you there, as a newb to this site, I think I have proven a lot in the image I displayed, my point was, I know for a fact that it is impossible to get an image of the moon with stars showing that bright. As we all know that the moon radiates its own light, you could shoot all night under different settings and still the moon will wash out any light from the stars....its physics....the moon is closer...the light from even the brightest star in the sky with a good low magnitude ( for instance Sirius ), which is the brightest would be washed out.

Which is exactly what I am saying. You're agreeing with me.

 

[purenvdesign]

Again, not trying to say you're a fake but this can be easily made in photoshop by doing the following.

1) Duplicate the original moon image onto a new layer > High Pass. When adjusted to the correct levels click OK and set the blending mode to 'Overlay'.
2) Duplicate the original moon image again, Fliter > Emboss. When adjusted to the correct levels click OK and set the blending mode to 'Overlay' again.

Also looks like there could be a little drop-shadowing on the moon.

 

[ChrisCW]

I am with Pookey on this, intended or not, the OP has posted a picture which he has stated is the moon and stars. We all know this is not possible on a single exposure, so it has been questioned. The OP can post the raw file and we can then see if it is noise or something else, either way the OP will learn from the experience and his PP will improve, which is not a bad thing, that's what we all join for, is it not?

 

[Jimi-the-fish]

As we all know that the moon radiates its own light, :

"...and run an Astronomy business..."

In which case you should definitely know that the moon doesn't radiate it's own light! I'm pretty sure it's reflected sunlight. :- )
I agree about the brightness thing though and the reason is scattering of moonlight in the atmosphere is brighter than most starlight.

J

 

[AstroMarcus]

Thank you for pointing that out to me I would never have guessed that....I thought the talk was about the image not in any way to be pedantic with the comments I made simply about the image not the physics of light!!

Maybe this isn't the forum for me...if I wanted ridiculous comments I would ask my children!

 

[Ricardodaforce]

Thank you for pointing that out to me I would never have guessed that....I thought the talk was about the image not in any way to be pedantic with the comments I made simply about the image not the physics of light!!

Maybe this isn't the forum for me...if I wanted ridiculous comments I would ask my children!

To be fare that wasn't a ridiculous comment. It was a correction.

 

[Carlh]

Come on guys, I think its getting out of hand a little.

If the OP could join back in this convo and just put this to bed once and for all.

As I stated in one of the first posts, I couldnt reproduce that with 40 images, but is it possible the figures given at the beginning were incorrect? i.e. can you duplicate that image, with a open aperture to pick up the stars and a fast enough shutterspeed to stop the moon from getting blown and focus set to infinity? i.e. 320th, F1.8 infinity focus?

 

[PMN]

can you duplicate that image, with a open aperture to pick up the stars and a fast enough shutterspeed to stop the moon from getting blown and focus set to infinity? i.e. 320th, F1.8 infinity focus?

Aperture and shutter speed work together to expose the image (along with ISO) so you can't adjust one to get the stars and the other to keep the moon in check. If you're pretty much filling the frame with the moon there's simply no way of exposing the moon properly and bringing the stars out as well.

 

[Eddzz!!]

Maybe this isn't the forum for me...if I wanted ridiculous comments I would ask my children!

Don't worry Marcus. This forum is full of keyboard warriors. There's plenty of friendly folk around here too You just have to grit your teeth with the bad'uns!

 

[MJWC1]

I saw a nice shot tonight, taken by a relative who is a pro photographer. A lovely image of the super moon (properly exposed) above the peak of a cloud capped mountain (properly exposed). There were a few stars clearly visible in the image. Not as bright as in the OP's image (and only a fraction of the number), but they were definitely there.

But...

My relative stated that this was done while playing around with in-camera multiple exposure. The settings were:

Mountain and stars: 25.0 sec f5.6 ISO 200 @70mm
Moon: 1/800 sec f5.6 ISO 200 Nikon @300mm

I'm not going to try and calculate how many stops difference there are between 1/800th and 25 seconds, but that is the degree of difference you need to expose for both stars and the moon. For my relative's photo, he could have captured the stars with a shorter exposure (that would then have lost the mountain), but the point remains. Never mind the different focal lengths involved.

 

[Jimi-the-fish]

Thank you for pointing that out to me I would never have guessed that....I thought the talk was about the image not in any way to be pedantic with the comments I made simply about the image not the physics of light!!

Maybe this isn't the forum for me...if I wanted ridiculous comments I would ask my children!

Sorry, wasn't trying to offend, just be correct, I did include a for what it's worth. You would be amazed the number of people that think that the moon does emit light. I did actually agree with your observations as well in the second part. Anyway, please stay and post some more through the 'scope pictures if you have them - always interested. Back to discussing that photo...

J

 

[On the Huh]

I'm waiting for a big BAZINGA! from the OP.

 

[rhonddaboy]

It's not going to happen

 

[rajp]

I just want to know how the shot was taken. Really like it so would be good to know that.

 

[pickercymru]

On first sight I thought the background stars had been superimposed - there are not that many stars of that magnitude in the sky - If Allan says it just came out that way - all I can say is they didn't on mine so well done to him!

 

[On the Huh]

It's not going to happen

Some sort of anomaly then I guess.

 

[ghoti]

It is absolutely impossible to get a photo like this with one exposure. Impossible. The dynamic range is far, far, far too large for pretty much any imaging device to handle. The OP is expecting us to believe that he's taken a single shot with a dynamic range hundreds of times larger than even the human eye can resolve. You couldn't even see this shot with your own eyes looking through a massive telescope.

Even if you exclude the moon, you must be talking about stars at mag +15 or higher. The proposal that this is one shot at 1/320 and f/11 is so roaringly preposterous that it must be a wind-up.

 

[ghoti]

I guess if you wanted to give the benefit of the doubt that he's transgressed the laws of physics, the matter could be put to rest without the RAW file by punching the time and date of the image into planetarium software.

This will give you an accurate star-map for that moment in time, and it can be compared with the starscape in the photo. I can't be bothered because I'm already 100% satisfied it's not real.

Here's one: http://neave.com/planetarium/

 

[MJWC1]

They don't even look like stars...

Sequences of straight lines? Requiring patterns? Look closely - clearly noise.

 

[ghoti]

They don't even look like stars...

Sequences of straight lines? Requiring patterns? Look closely - clearly noise.

Someone else has already pointed out why this doesn't settle the OP's claims that it's not a composite or a manipulation.

It's not the most important issue in the world, but I think honesty is important in a forum that explicitly offers help and advice. The OP is almost certainly telling porkies of one kind or another here and the broad result of letting little pork pies like this go unchallenged is that people coming here to seek earnest advice are given unreasonable expectations. For a newcomer, that puts the whole draw of the forum into doubt.

 

[On the Huh]

I think people can make their own minds up, and I really don't think that puts the whole forum into doubt. There is no law requiring the OP to come back to this thread so if he's not going to, then close/delete it and forget about it.
Some of us may not respect him anymore for not coming back and answering those of us who question further this photy, but it is really up to him.

 

[Yv]

I think it is fairly obvious the OP is not going to come back and help clear up this mess, so I think it is best that people make their own minds up and move on.

Mind the doors.