Hey ROC, Give Me Your Comments On This Moon Shot

Guys, reading this thread, it just makes me feel so, well...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

mattograph wrote in post #6615605
Guys, reading this thread, it just makes me feel so, well...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

LOL, nice

.

Who's the dog? ROC or MJ? lol
Reading this thread I have understood one thing. I don't understand anything. i don't know how original pic from ROC looks like and what was a debate there, like but your is good. It's a photo-manipulation, and you can see it, but it is great and i really don't know how to do something like that in photoshop
Basicly what I understanded is that somehow most of you gosu, older and more expirianced photographers should loosen up when we newbies do some rokie mistakes, as pickin a wrong name for our thread

I know that like ROC I'm a newbie and I'm here to learn, so thank god for people willing to help, but I'm a bit disapointed how little responses and coments e.g. my threads got when I asked for c&c to improove my skills. We newbies get most reply's when you gosu(expirienced) photographers notice our mistakes and make your personal debate out of our threads.
but life is unfair

So i'll keep wisiting this forum and learn as much as I can on your photos and examples from the debates. It's still a great! forum, cause of you worthy and helpful few.

Btw I really like your pic. It would be a great wallpaper so if you have it as 1024x768 and you ar willing to share it post a link for me plz.

Reign wrote in post #6615320
ROC: For exposure settings, you'll do well to pick up a copy of Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure. It explains the relationship between the holy trinity of photography: Aperture, shutterspeed and ISO setting. With the right combination and understanding how metering works, then you'll be able to find the right exposure for any type of shot - be it night or day.

Then you'll be able to avoid being poked at by jerks like midnite jam!

Thanks, I'l look for the book. Maybe order it online.

Reign wrote in post #6615320
ROC:
Then you'll be able to avoid being poked at by jerks like midnite jam!

Reign, I'm not quite sure if I should accept this remark. Please edit your thread and replace the green faced tongue with a kinder smiley so I can better appreciate your genre of humor. As your comment is currently formatted, it seems to be a bit of a slam and I'm certain that you wouldn't want it reported to the "inappropriate-thread cops".

Those smileys can be dangereous--use the wrong smilley and people could possibly identify the comment as an intentional personal slam.

I would be of the opinion that in post-processing, anything is game as defined by - in professional terms - the particular etiquette. For example, only minimal PP can be done to photos submitted for sports or editorial, for landscapes or portraits or whatever, as much as you like is the benchmark. I do prefer though, personally, not so much PP that it destroys the natural beauty - in whatever form/genre that takes. Just my opinion mind! I think what Midnites' done here though is an example of photomanipulation - where a main point of focus is either included or subtracted to deliver on a particular concept. This is where fakery is just that - fake.
Just my €0.02.

midnitejam wrote in post #6622010
Reign, I'm not quite sure if I should accept this remark. Please edit your thread and replace the green faced tongue with a kinder smiley so I can better appreciate your genre of humor. As your comment is currently formatted, it seems to be a bit of a slam and I'm certain that you wouldn't want it reported to the "inappropriate-thread cops".

Those smileys can be dangereous--use the wrong smilley and people could possibly identify the comment as an intentional personal slam.

I wouldn't worry so much. It's only the internet.

If it matters any to ya, I read it that he was joking.

spooch wrote in post #6620602
Who's the dog? ROC or MJ?

Whichever one can lick themselves!

mattograph wrote in post #6622218
Whichever one can lick themselves!

Well it ain't me. Trust me...I've tried and just about threw my back out.:p

really nice photo, just one quick question, what is HDR? High Definition Resolution?

midnitejam wrote in post #6622010
Reign, I'm not quite sure if I should accept this remark. Please edit your thread and replace the green faced tongue with a kinder smiley so I can better appreciate your genre of humor. As your comment is currently formatted, it seems to be a bit of a slam and I'm certain that you wouldn't want it reported to the "inappropriate-thread cops".

Those smileys can be dangereous--use the wrong smilley and people could possibly identify the comment as an intentional personal slam.

midnitejam, I'm not quite sure if I should take that as sarcastic banter. If I were to edit my thread and replace with a kinder smiley, I would have to go with because I think he looks like a nice guy. Now, someone said to me recently that he's "got much thicker skin than that and [his] feeling was not hurt.:p" -- oh wait, it was ROC here. He used the green tongue smiley, too... maybe I should report him.

ieatmiraclegrow wrote in post #6625819
really nice photo, just one quick question, what is HDR? High Definition Resolution?

http://en.wikipedia.or​g …igh_dynamic_ran​ge_imaging

midnitejam wrote in post #6622010
Reign, I'm not quite sure if I should accept this remark. Please edit your thread and replace the green faced tongue with a kinder smiley so I can better appreciate your genre of humor. As your comment is currently formatted, it seems to be a bit of a slam and I'm certain that you wouldn't want it reported to the "inappropriate-thread cops".

Those smileys can be dangereous--use the wrong smilley and people could possibly identify the comment as an intentional personal slam.

ROC wrote in post #6622197
I wouldn't worry so much. It's only the internet.

If it matters any to ya, I read it that he was joking.

Do I have to post the puppy pic again?

midnitejam wrote in post #6599523
Hello ROC, please tell me what you think of this moon shot?

"Moon" or "no moon", my initial reaction was that it was a well exposed beautiful scene (even if the time of day was slightly "altered"). However, without resorting to pixel peeping, a couple things about the image immediately bothered me. The first thing that I saw was that it had to be a rarely seen "vampire moon" because it has no reflection in the water. The next thing was that the moon is closer than I thought because it is in front of the Photoshop clouds (those Photoshop clouds can sometimes be further away than they appear). Then there is the impossible sight of seeing a full moon that is between us and the setting sun -- 180 degrees out of position (presuming that the light at the horizon is sunlight). All of this forced me to check the EXIF for the date that the image was made which was April 3, 2008. That date does not coincide with a full moon (at least in my neck of the woods), but I had already figured things out well before that point anyway and just wanted to twist your tail a bit more.

bill boehme wrote in post #6628341
"Moon" or "no moon", my initial reaction was that it was a well exposed beautiful scene (even if the time of day was slightly "altered"). However, without resorting to pixel peeping, a couple things about the image immediately bothered me. The first thing that I saw was that it had to be a rarely seen "vampire moon" because it has no reflection in the water. The next thing was that the moon is closer than I thought because it is in front of the Photoshop clouds (those Photoshop clouds can sometimes be further away than they appear). Then there is the impossible sight of seeing a full moon that is between us and the setting sun -- 180 degrees out of position (presuming that the light at the horizon is sunlight). All of this forced me to check the EXIF for the date that the image was made which was April 3, 2008. That date does not coincide with a full moon (at least in my neck of the woods), but I had already figured things out well before that point anyway and just wanted to twist your tail a bit more.

Whyyyyy Bill, are you insinuating that my moon shot is a fake? What further proof do you have to substantiate this mere allogation?

Actually, I had the original-out-of-camera shot posted in this thread, but I see it has been removed. I'll see if I can repost it if you're interrested and you can see the before/after versions

My shot as I've already mentioned is a composit. I will also post the separate shot of the moon which I shot separately if you're interrested.

The moon shot was taken with a 70-200 F4 L USM with a 2x extender. Probably a whole year before, I shot the lake scene in the afternoon. The lake shot was taken on a cloudless overcast day with a drebel and 18-55 kit lens.

There is a wisp of cloud over the moon--I placed it there myself along with every other cloud. There is a moon reflection (however scant) Cause I put it there myself. With great effort I used restraint (uncommon for me) to apply the reflection and the cloud over the moon judiciously. The biggest error, as already mentioned in post processing, is the position of the reflection on the lake. The reflection should have been closer to the lower frame.

My monitor probably needs to be re-tuned cause I'm seeing the cloud over the moon and also the moon's reflection.

We need the pixel peepers to keep us honest.

Thanks for the comment, Bill. I appreciate your time for looking