Hey ROC, Give Me Your Comments On This Moon Shot

Hello ROC, please tell me what you think of this moon shot?

(Anyone welcome to comment on this shot)

This is amazing! Great job!

very cool shot

I think it's great. Does that count? HDR?

LOL!!!

I would say, that, in a word, awesome.

If its HDR -- how many exposures.

Also -- is that the original moon?

WOW... that is unbelieveable

please give us all the lowdown on this shot... HDR... how many shots... exposure difference... and anything else you can think of.

I think is a great shot, althought I think it might have been a little more interesting if the horizon was pushed down further.

To me, it looks photoshoped, and if its not congrats that's a nice capture.

The reason I say it might be photoshoped is that If the moon was that full/bright there would be a lot more light on the lake/trees, even if you exposed for the moon.

Gorgeous shot. I might try to clone or heal out that center wisp of cloud in the middle of the sky and its corresponding reflection... My eyes keep bouncing between the moon and that.

OT

Midnite, do you know Joe the Plumber? Isn't he from Parma?

mattograph wrote in post #6600592
OT

Midnite, do you know Joe the Plumber? Isn't he from Parma?

Hahahahaha!!

Nice moon MJ:p I have seen this one before.....lol....it does look kinda cool though.

Thank you all for the nice comments. I will bet that none of you are pixel peepers ‘cause the pixel peepers whould have downloaded the image and viewed the EXIF .... After which they would have probably proceded to Bar-B-Q me for attempting to pass off a fakery.

I posted this image because of the recent post by ROC which was of a "Moon-Light" shot with a car as the subject. Few commenters believed it was shot at night. Review his thread and notice the controversy it created. Recall that his subject was shot at night but appeared to have been shot at noon without any shadows.

Things aren't always what you assume them to be, but for me the only thing of importance about a image is "Did I like it". I never doubted ROC's image was shot at night (and I didn't even peek the pixel). I accepted the honesty of his explaination. I was really really impressed with his "Manual" exposure abilities. But that's just me--I don't usually look for signs of deception, fraud, imposters, and cheats. If I find an image impressive, I don't question how it got that way.

My moon shot is an illusion. It is a composit of images which I have shot at different times. Do you still like it as much after you learned that it was created rather than captured? Are Composites, HDR's, saturation boosts, sharpening boosts, and exposure corrections legal? Where do you draw the line between captured and created?

As the following EXIF shows, the image was shot at about 7 pm (2.5 hours before dark during this season of the year in my area). The Moon was captured with a cannon 70-200 plus 2x extender and resized to fit the scene. The ambience was created with blue gradient masks. The Clouds and reflections were also created in photo shop.

I deliberately didn't reveal that the image wasn't what it seemed when I posted it in order to obtain unbiased comments . I would really appreciate your positions on this matter.

Where do you draw the line between captured images and post-processed images? When does post-processing stray from photographic integrity? Will people buy doctored prints?


Here is the original shot using the kit lense

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

mattograph wrote in post #6600592
OT

Midnite, do you know Joe the Plumber? Isn't he from Parma?

mattograph, I don't know Joe. I wasn't even aware that he was from Parma. But I absolutely identify with him even though I usually place plumbers (or at least the ones I've dealt with) in the same catagory as politicians and attorneys.

BTW, I do not identify with politions, attorneys, or any other form of blood suckers

I think Joe is from Toledo?

MJ, make that moon smaller and higher in the sky?