Hey ROC, Give Me Your Comments On This Moon Shot

mattograph wrote in post #6627610
Do I have to post the puppy pic again?

OdiN1701 wrote in post #6632746
Why is the moon green?

bill boehme wrote in post #6628341
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.

spooch wrote in post #6633304
looool

this is the best explanation so far why the photo is fake.

aaaaaa. Green Cheese. Gimme some

from midnitejam
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.

Things aren't always what you assume them to be, but for me the only thing of importance about an image is "Did I like it". 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--I don't care 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? In the old days of my old wet darkroom, those things were "legal".

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


Here is the moonlight version (they share the same exif)

Full EXIF Info
Date/Time 03-Apr-2008 07:13:52
Model Canon EOS 20D
Focal Length 18 mm
Exposure Time 1/800 sec
Aperture f/4.5
ISO Equivalent 100
Exposure Bias
White Balance
Metering Mode matrix (5)

midnitejam wrote in post #6633444
Dude! Did you over sleep or just arriving late to the party?. You haven't read the entire thread.

Here's the first explaination (and the best) of why the image is fake...........

ashjamesgav wrote in post #6633727
The original shot is not showing, can you fix the link? I'd like to see the difference.

bill boehme wrote in post #6634191
I think that the original has been placed under protective custody because it is suspected of still having its virtue intact (i.e., hasn't been Photoshopped).

ashjamesgav wrote in post #6633727
The original shot is not showing, can you fix the link? I'd like to see the difference.