Posting Moon shots: Purist/straight vs PP

[mtbdudex]

(I did a search on "purist" prior to posting and nothing came up)

I've seen lots of great moon shots here.

Being new to this forum/topic, is there understanding to post your moon shots "purist"/straight with very little PP, or to each their own artistic/technical abilities and post for others to C&C?

My shots, I have Mac version PhotoshopElements6 and have applied very slight sharpness and some other slight tweaks.
I'm so new to RAW/digital editing so learning as I go.

Just curious, not wanting to start a flame war either.

[edit]
I see this has been discussed in the general forum, Technology vs. Purist photography.. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=767625)

[VIGER]

I think we are assisting at the renaissance of photography and it takes some time for everyone to ajust. If Micheal Ange or Leonardo had an Imac or a Digital Camera what would they have done with it !???

Puriste in french means shooting pictures with a showbox : )

[krb]

[edit]
I see this has been discussed in the general forum, Technology vs. Purist photography.. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=767625)
Yes it has. As you see in there, post processing is considered okay by probably most people on these boards and I would say that the astro section is even more accepting of it. Some common techniques like photo stacking simply cannot be done in-camera.

[Bernoulli]

This could be a very good discussion. Probaby no one in this fine forum has come under more criticism for excessive lunar PP'ing than me, so I can speak from that experience.

Let's all accept that no PP at all isn't achievalbe; your camera does some on its own with every shot.

As far as the moon is concerned, I think it's pretty darned dull "as shot" and, for me, it only comes alive after bringing out color or details or features in PP. I've spent so many years looking at the moon that I'm always looking to see something new.

I think you have to be careful, not of crossing the PP line, but crossing the art line. This is a forum on photography. If you PP the moon, or anything else, you can start to inject colors and shapes that are not actually there. At that point you're doing art and, while art's a good thing, this is a forum on photography. I try to use PP only to amplify what is already there.

The upper-left is as shot, upper right is high-contrast greyscale, lower left is strecthed colors to see minerology, and lower right is processed to bring out maximum detail.

[Adrena1in]

I don't know which group I fall into, but with my shots of the moon I just try to sharpen it if it's a little soft. If it's too bright I've exposed too long and I dispose of the image. Same if it's too dark.

I do like to see the colourful moon shots, but it's not something I endeavour to achieve myself.

I'm not so keen on the artistic shots where someone pastes a moon image into a fake landscape or what-have-you, but they still have their place, and they actually take more time and artistic ability than a plain and simple moon-shot I think.

[ameerat42]

I'd say, "How ever you like." would be getting pretty close. Am...

[mtbdudex]

My further moonshots will have slight PP to enhance the image as I have been doing.
I like the RH shot very much. That's my benchmark, though I might have slightly less dark contrast, tbd, I need to "play" with the image and see what appeals to me.

[RadAL]

i think 98 percent of everyone just does slight PP (sharpen a little, levels, color balance and brightness/contrast adjustments...) to make shots better.... its pretty easy to tell a slight PP work from hardcore PP work. I like only doing light PP to my shots (which are mainly car shots)