Moon Tonight 06/03/2009

[Celestron]

Setup the AT1010 refractor on a tripod and shot a few rounds . XSi , AT1010 80MM , FL/480mm f/6.0 . PP in PS7 .

[Tunneruk]

Awesome shot!

[iceis007]

That is incredible. Absolutely.

[Vulcan58]

Excellent - Probably one of the best moon pics I've seen for ages.

[Peerie]

Sorry, I don't agree with the comments above.

It is a good capture but requires some post processing to strike a balance between the dark mare and the right hand side that has overblown highlights.

John

[Chopper Al]

Blows mine completely out of the water!! Just couldn't get the focusing sharp.

BTW, the date on your photo says 07 (July) and should be 06 (June).

Al

[Celestron]

Thanks for the comments everyone !
Chopper , thanks for the pointer ! My brother had also made me aware of that .

[Celestron]

Sorry, I don't agree with the comments above.

It is a good capture but requires some post processing to strike a balance between the dark mare and the right hand side that has overblown highlights.

John


Sorry you disagree John . PP will not solve the problem tho unless you want to loose detail on the dark side . The AT1010 achromatic refractor is a very nice refractor but it does produce some bright images unless you do shorter exposers and low ISO . I like my moons to be as close to natural as possible . As you might look on my website i have a couple that show example of what i'm talking about . I don't like dark moons unless the detail and sharpness is dead on and closeup . Alot like the ones Bernoulli produces . Refractors are like a large lens but produce better images that are sharper IMO .

[Peerie]

I too don't like dark moons. In my post I said to strike a balance between the dark and the light.

John

[Bernoulli]

I like it a lot. When I first saw it I thought it was oversharpened but after a bit I came to like the luminous quality, and the sharpened highlights adds some sparkle to that.

You know what would be fun sometime is to start a thread with a completely unprocessed moon picture and invite everyone to download it, perform their own post-processing perferences on it, then post the result back in the thread. It would be an interesting comparison of styles and tastes. Would this be worth a try?

This one isn't the way I PP the moon, but I like it.

[Celestron]

I like it a lot. When I first saw it I thought it was oversharpened but after a bit I came to like the luminous quality, and the sharpened highlights adds some sparkle to that.

You know what would be fun sometime is to start a thread with a completely unprocessed moon picture and invite everyone to download it, perform their own post-processing perferences on it, then post the result back in the thread. It would be an interesting comparison of styles and tastes. Would this be worth a try?

This one isn't the way I PP the moon, but I like it.


Thanks Bernoulli ! Yeah i think it might be worth while to see how everyones own personal preference is . I know you shoot RAW and you do many types of PP but i also kow you must have at least one main PP that you like best in your images . I know i like your upclose and personal moon images alot ! They are usually really sharp and detailed . How would the rules be maybe ? Any moon taken (in the past or present) or should they be all new moons starting with a new one you can image first starting with a new date ??

[Bernoulli]

I'm going to do it and let's see what we get. I'll start the thread in a bit. I hope I can count on you for a contribution!

I spend a a good bit of time looking at considerably PP'ed pictures of other worlds as part of my job and I think it's highly influenced what I do with my own shots. As you said, I'm always after detail, probably because I spend so much time looking for it in images.

[Celestron]

I was going to shoot again tonight with my C8 but clouds rolled in before total darkness and ruined :( it but i hope maybe this weekend i'll have another chance :D !

[Peerie]

It would also be helpful if the rules of your thread could include, shooting data and the workflow for post processing.

John

[Bernoulli]

I agree.