Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with MF images - ARCHIVED - FOR VIEWING ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

awolf

Member
And your point?
This was Tokyo, last Mon, as I saw it (As a photographer I am sure you understand the difference between "as it was" and "as I saw it"). This is a panorama of 21 photos (7x3 bracketed photos) so yes, some manipulation was needed to pull it off. The moon was indeed there (we can debate sizes all day long, but were you there?) and although it was not "eclipsed" it had a very unusual color, due to the eclipse, I was standing on Roppongi Hills looking east.
 
k-hawinkler

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
awolf said:
And your point?
This was Tokyo, last Mon, as I saw it (As a photographer I am sure you understand the difference between "as it was" and "as I saw it"). This is a panorama of 21 photos (7x3 bracketed photos) so yes, some manipulation was needed to pull it off. The moon was indeed there (we can debate sizes all day long, but were you there?) and although it was not "eclipsed" it had a very unusual color, due to the eclipse, I was standing on Roppongi Hills looking east.
Click to expand...
It's a gorgeous image! Thanks again! :thumbs:
 
Shashin

Shashin

Well-known member
awolf said:
And your point?
This was Tokyo, last Mon, as I saw it (As a photographer I am sure you understand the difference between "as it was" and "as I saw it"). This is a panorama of 21 photos (7x3 bracketed photos) so yes, some manipulation was needed to pull it off. The moon was indeed there (we can debate sizes all day long, but were you there?) and although it was not "eclipsed" it had a very unusual color, due to the eclipse, I was standing on Roppongi Hills looking east.
Click to expand...
I was actually in the part of the world that could see the eclipse. You can check the locations that could view the eclipse. Pretty easy. No stage of the eclipse could be viewed from Tokyo--my family that lives there was jealous that we could see it. Like the sun, the moon at a horizon is red as the atmosphere filters out higher higher frequency wavelengths. But was that moon at the horizon at that time?

The other thing about the moon, it is easy to calculate its size in mm on an image plane and it is not very big. A super moon is not really very much bigger than a normal moon. In fact, people cannot visually tell the difference between that and a normal moon. And no, the atmosphere does not enlarge the image of the moon at the horizon--the angular dimension of the moon does not change with its position in the sky.

My point was it is a nice composite image. Or are you suggesting it is not a composite? I certainly don't mind composite images. Dan Linberg makes great composites. But it might be nice to share your techniques. Did you notice my smiley face?
 
A

awolf

Member
Shashin said:
I was actually in the part of the world that could see the eclipse. You can check the locations that could view the eclipse. Pretty easy. No stage of the eclipse could be viewed from Tokyo--my family that lives there was jealous that we could see it. Like the sun, the moon at a horizon is red as the atmosphere filters out higher higher frequency wavelengths. But was that moon at the horizon at that time?

The other thing about the moon, it is easy to calculate its size in mm on an image plane and it is not very big. A super moon is not really very much bigger than a normal moon. In fact, people cannot visually tell the difference between that and a normal moon. And no, the atmosphere does not enlarge the image of the moon at the horizon--the angular dimension of the moon does not change with its position in the sky.

My point was it is a nice composite image. Or are you suggesting it is not a composite? I certainly don't mind composite images. Dan Linberg makes great composites. But it might be nice to share your techniques. Did you notice my smiley face?
Click to expand...
As I said, it is a composition of 21 images, so yes, of course I recomposed the moon, but it was taken right there.
These were taken with a 90 mm, which made the moon, after the panorama stitching (almost a 180°), in comparison to the way I saw it, quite small. But in "reality" when you look at a moon like that, it seems a lot bigger then it really is ( imagine if I shot one picture, with a long lens, how much bigger the moon would appear). That is why I choose to compose it this way, so you get the feel of what I have seen. The colors/looks besides the usual development techniques, are pretty much as is.
I post here photos that I hope can be believable, not necessarily realistic. Don't care to talk much about the technique, I think that it takes away from the viewing pleasure in this particular thread. I usually don't even give my images a description name or precise location title, just so you can see the image with as "clear mind" as possible. You see now why ;-)

Sent from my iPhone
 
cunim

cunim

Well-known member
Shashin said:
The other thing about the moon, it is easy to calculate its size in mm on an image plane and it is not very big. A super moon is not really very much bigger than a normal moon. In fact, people cannot visually tell the difference between that and a normal moon. And no, the atmosphere does not enlarge the image of the moon at the horizon--the angular dimension of the moon does not change with its position in the sky.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true. My wife did some research on the moon illusion as part of a thesis. I remember signing up for the study because I would be locked away with this stunning psych major whilst staring at pictures of the moon. I was a goner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion
 
Shashin

Shashin

Well-known member
cunim said:
Not necessarily true. My wife did some research on the moon illusion as part of a thesis. I remember signing up for the study because I would be locked away with this stunning psych major whilst staring at pictures of the moon. I was a goner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion
Click to expand...
What is not true? The moon is not bigger at the horizon than the zenith? Your moon illusion link states the moon does not change size. Or the moon changes size with the company you keep? I never commented on that.
 
cunim

cunim

Well-known member
Actually, the moon illusion is one of those phenomena that does not respond well to experimental testing. Most students end up with a "combination of factors" explanation (including an angular expansion due to atmospheric effects) and those are notoriously hard hypotheses to reject. Psychology as a science is very subject to lax hypotheses, which is why we take such pleasure in rigorous statistical methodology (personal opinion). You can often publish a questionable experiment by analyzing the data in an elegant way.

What is certainly true is that who you are with makes the moon look more or less appealing. Really, the last time I cared about viewing the moon I was young and in love. Therefore, my personal preference for a photograph of the moon would be one that brings back memories of that time. Sadly, I cannot recall any lunar image that has had that effect on me. I suppose I have lost the callow emotionality of youth and, now, I most enjoy looking at NASA-type planetary imaging.

All this is quite beside the point. AWolf's photo is very nice and technically competent. Your point about mentioning technical details is well taken (because many of us are interested in technical details), but I think you agree that it doesn't matter if the photo is true to life. It is an emotion he is trying to convey.
 
Don Libby

Don Libby

Well-known member
Hiked up to Delicate Arch this past Tuesday carrying my XF, IQ180 and a 28mm D lens. I ended upshooting the entire time there handheld as I didn’t want the extra weight of a tripod and I thought this was just a test. (We did return the following morning with a 40-80 and tripod).

Hiked up in the dark to beat the crowds and since this was our first visit we thought maybe a sunrise. Turns out that sunset is slightly better however the crowds are huge.

6:41 am f/10 1/80 ISO 200 handheld. Overall I’m very pleased with the new XF body and how well the 28D behaves. This might very well be the first time a XF visit Delicate Arch!


View attachment 113014
 
Hulyss Bowman

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
Will is right, of course, and I do not see why on earth the author of this photo doesn't admit it is a composite picture... I know someone at Ningbo, as well, and the eclipse was not visible.
 
P

pesto

Active member
Hulyss Bowman said:
Will is right, of course, and I do not see why on earth the author of this photo doesn't admit it is a composite picture... I know someone at Ningbo, as well, and the eclipse was not visible.
Click to expand...
He did...perhaps you should read the entire thread.
This bickering is absurd. The image is beautiful as is and requires no explination or apology.
It is sad to see what should be a medium for plesant comradarie and friendly exchange perverted to by such petty and senseless attacks.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top