As a long time photographer, I will say that the picture is spectacular no doubt.
However, the photographer, to obtain a properly exposed moon in a concomitant properly exposed terrestrial farm scene, had to do a fair bit of work compositing two separate photographs. One photo of a properly exposed moon. A separate photo for the properly exposed terrestrial scene. As part of that compositing process, I do believe he may have, a bit more than slightly, increased the size of the moon.
The real scene's dynamic range of light is way too large for a single photo to capture it all as it looks here.
However, because sometimes the moon really does look huge when closer to the horizon to the wide dynamic range detector of the human eye, it is all good!! It looks real, minus the somewhat too large moon.
Now, there is one possible single picture alternative method. He may have used a giant telephoto lens, exposed for the moon, thereby underexposing the terrestrial scene, but, pulling the terestrial scene out of the shadows in Photoshop.
Not sure which one, probably the first though. More control.
As an artist you understand the poetic effect of redimensioning a little...but don't tell everyone the secret! I think we've all earned a little wallow this week... :D
Thank you!!!! When I saw this photo my first thought was 'lovely.' Second thought 'how?' It drives me nuts I can't take a decent pic of the beautiful & elusive moon. Have learned a lot from you. 😊👍🏼🦅
Full moon and a lighthouse. My evening is complete.
Thanks for taking a rest, and this photo is just exquisite.
Ally,
As a long time photographer, I will say that the picture is spectacular no doubt.
However, the photographer, to obtain a properly exposed moon in a concomitant properly exposed terrestrial farm scene, had to do a fair bit of work compositing two separate photographs. One photo of a properly exposed moon. A separate photo for the properly exposed terrestrial scene. As part of that compositing process, I do believe he may have, a bit more than slightly, increased the size of the moon.
The real scene's dynamic range of light is way too large for a single photo to capture it all as it looks here.
However, because sometimes the moon really does look huge when closer to the horizon to the wide dynamic range detector of the human eye, it is all good!! It looks real, minus the somewhat too large moon.
Now, there is one possible single picture alternative method. He may have used a giant telephoto lens, exposed for the moon, thereby underexposing the terrestrial scene, but, pulling the terestrial scene out of the shadows in Photoshop.
Not sure which one, probably the first though. More control.
As an artist you understand the poetic effect of redimensioning a little...but don't tell everyone the secret! I think we've all earned a little wallow this week... :D
;-)
The secret is not so safe with me Anne.
OK, I did read all that - and yours is safe with me! Wonderful!
I was pretty much thinking telephoto is how this was arrived at. Could be wrong.
The light, shadows, reflection and shades as well as a certain amount of compression make it look pretty natural to me.
No matter how though, I really like it.
For details though, one could always ask the artist. The post processes included with modern cameras are pretty seamless and amazing for sure.
Thank you!!!! When I saw this photo my first thought was 'lovely.' Second thought 'how?' It drives me nuts I can't take a decent pic of the beautiful & elusive moon. Have learned a lot from you. 😊👍🏼🦅
So noted. Still a wonderful look.
Absolutely. Modern Photography is vastly creative.