No complaints about the lens, will prob do the update when I get a chance.
A few of the Super Moon with Mt. Hood in some muggy/very hazy conditions, thank god for bug spray, I was being attacked during this amazing moment:
Jul 13, 2014 23:58 | #4216 No complaints about the lens, will prob do the update when I get a chance.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 14, 2014 08:16 | #4218 markesc wrote in post #17030275  A few of the Super Moon with Mt. Hood in some muggy/very hazy conditions, thank god for bug spray, ... ... and Photoshop! G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
r.morales Goldmember  2,296 posts Joined Apr 2007 Location: Bay Area Calif More info | Jul 14, 2014 08:55 | #4219 |
Jul 14, 2014 09:09 | #4220 ebiggs wrote in post #17030719 ... and Photoshop! It doesn't look like any crazy photoshop was done...it's clearly a moon rising shot...it's not like that Bella Luna shot... Andre or Dre
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 14, 2014 09:50 | #4221 DreDaze wrote in post #17030832 It doesn't look like any crazy photoshop was done...it's clearly a moon rising shot...it's not like that Bella Luna shot... Right! G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 14, 2014 10:35 | #4222 DreDaze wrote in post #17030832 It doesn't look like any crazy photoshop was done...it's clearly a moon rising shot...it's not like that Bella Luna shot... I was going to say the same thing: looks pretty natural to me. Maybe some minor contrast and sharpening, but nothing major. One of my shots from Saturday had almost exactly the same color SOOC. Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 14, 2014 13:04 | #4223 ebiggs wrote in post #17030719 ... and Photoshop! Your ignorance is showing. - Jason -
LOG IN TO REPLY |
LVMoose Moose gets blamed for everything.  More info |
Snow001 Senior Member  328 posts Joined Oct 2008 More info | Jul 14, 2014 14:03 | #4225 Beautiful shots! I hope I receive my copy by the end of August
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Why Photoshop? G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mbaddah Hatchling 3 posts Joined May 2012 More info | Jul 14, 2014 17:27 | #4227 What an amazing image and beautiful composition! Well done sir.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gjl711 "spouting off stupid things"  57,716 posts Likes: 4034 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Deep in the heart of Texas More info | Jul 14, 2014 20:14 | #4228 ebiggs wrote in post #17031852 Why Photoshop? The moon's angular width from edge to edge is roughly 1/2º, or about 30 arc-minutes. At perigee, a super moon, is slightly larger. Nearing 33 arc-minutes. It's apparent size does vary slightly between apogee and perige What this indicates is the moon is somewhere around 1/6th to 1/7th the height of the field of view and about 1/10th of the width. This can easily be figured out with simple math. The angular size of the moon will not change whether you walk closer or farther. What does actually change is the size of foreground objects, like mountains. So how does this work into the image being photoshopped? Not sure why, but call me JJ.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
snoopstah Member 61 posts Joined Sep 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC More info | Jul 14, 2014 20:20 | #4229 I'm genuinely unsure of the point you're trying to make (are you saying the moon is too big? Is cropping now considered 'Photoshop'?), but just to clarify:
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Andrushka "all warm and fuzzy"  3,735 posts Likes: 12 Joined Oct 2007 Location: OC, CA More info | Jul 14, 2014 20:27 | #4230  Permanentlyebiggs wrote in post #17031852 Why Photoshop? The moon's angular width from edge to edge is roughly 1/2º, or about 30 arc-minutes. At perigee, a super moon, is slightly larger. Nearing 33 arc-minutes. It's apparent size does vary slightly between apogee and perige What this indicates is the moon is somewhere around 1/6th to 1/7th the height of the field of view and about 1/10th of the width. This can easily be figured out with simple math. The angular size of the moon will not change whether you walk closer or farther. What does actually change is the size of foreground objects, like mountains. Who cares? This isn't a "no PS" thread. I didn't have my camera on me this night but I did watch the moon rise from the beach and it was huge. This photo looks very realistic for that night. I don't know if you've actually used this lens, or another lens at 600mm, but yeah, photo compression can mess with the brain http://www.paradigmphotographyoc.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Niagara Wedding Photographer 1304 guests, 168 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
