RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Is this a photoshopped picture? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6084)

JimThias 10-31-2007 05:54 PM

Is this a photoshopped picture?
 
I've never seen the moon look this large on a wide angle shot.

[photoid=209367]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the moon only appear that "large" when you use a telephoto lens? And judging from the distortion, this shot was on the wide end of a wide angle. With a wide angle lens, the moon should appear small in the sky, no?

http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif

Another shot with the moon appearing smaller with LESS of a wide angle:

[photoid=209377]

Ween 10-31-2007 06:10 PM

You could write the photog and ask him how he got those results. I can't tell from the EXIF how long the shutter was open, but the moon shows no sign of motion in the sky...

Andrew Blaszczyk (2) 10-31-2007 06:17 PM

Multiple Exposure?
 
It appears this may have been a scan from a slide or print. With that said remember that multiple exposures are different from photoshopping in a moon. As long as the photo is taken on the same frame it can be comprised of two images such as a close-up of the moon and then the rest of the scene. Personally, there is nothing 'illegal' or 'wrong' with that since its all work done with the camera. I just with the XT had a multiple exposure feature. :( Maybe it does and I'm missing something?

Ween 10-31-2007 06:25 PM

Well, multiple exposures on the same frame would be the same as using the layer feature in PS, would it not? The end result is an image that is not a representation of reality...

JimThias 10-31-2007 06:54 PM

By the way, my intention was not to call out the photographer as "cheating" on this picture. Before I got my zoom lens, I was always amazed at how big the moon or sun could look in a picture with such a lens. I'd always been stuck with wide angle lenses that not only gave a slight warped sense of reality (on the very wide end), but also were never able to capture this "large moon" effect. When I saw this photo, the size of the moon along with the exaggerated wide angle distortion caught my attention. The first thing that popped in my head was, "how is that possible?"

If it truly is a real image, I guess I stand to learn how something like that was captured.

ottergoose 10-31-2007 07:04 PM

You guys bring up excellent points (perhaps I shouldn't have submitted my comment so quickly) - what about the exposure on that - when I've tried shooting the moon with anything in the foreground, it never works out, as it's difficult to get full sunlight on both. Compare to this, which is my favorite moon shot on this site...

[photoid=176075]

JimThias 10-31-2007 07:12 PM

Thanks for posting that, Nick, I'd never seen it before. VERY cool shot.

JRMDC 10-31-2007 07:21 PM

Earlier, I had send admin an inquiry by email regarding the shot in question. I'm glad to see that my eyes are not deceiving me.

It does raise the question, as Andrew stated, as to what is allowed and not allowed at RP. I did not think of a multiple exposure, but to me, in this day and age, that is just another technique for doing the same thing - combining separate images into one piece of art. Personally, I think that both A) RR photography could use a website where more artsy/non-representational stuff is shown, and B) RP is not the place for that, given its existing focuses.

Putting aside what is and isn't allowed on one particular spot of the WWW, my personal artistic view is that the combination in that particular photo is unsuccessful. I don't see how an oversized moon adds anything to that shot in terms of composition.

ken45 10-31-2007 07:45 PM

When you have a harvest moon, the moon indeed appears that large when rising at the end of day. However, it also tends to be an orangish color, which this one is not. The moon was full or about full on August 26th when he says this was taken, so he didn't give himself away by making a dumb mistake in that respect, so who knows. Check out the link to see how big it can be.

http://www.pbase.com/missouri_skies/image/54578562

I too wish my 30D could do multiple pictures on one frame. I've seen some very neat shots done this way, and I've planned a few myself, although I think I may have thought up a way around that obstacle, I just need to find a situation to attempt it in.

JRMDC 10-31-2007 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken45

I too wish my 30D could do multiple pictures on one frame. I've seen some very neat shots done this way, and I've planned a few myself, although I think I may have thought up a way around that obstacle, I just need to find a situation to attempt it in.

For a digital sensor camera to do multiple exposures, there must be a way to save the first exposure while the second is done. Perhaps there is a way to create a camera that does so on board - a bit of memory space to keep the first image on - but in practice I think it would be both easier and more effective, because more flexible in terms of handling the blending of exposures, to simply take two shots and combine them in post-processing.

JRMDC 10-31-2007 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken45
Check out the link to see how big it can be.

http://www.pbase.com/missouri_skies/image/54578562

Do I understand correctly that shot is with the camera attached to a telescope? "TeleVue Pronto Telescope"

If so, I agree, in the sense that one can make the moon as big as one wants by using the appropriate telephoto. What is puzzling here is the mix of (apparent!) telephoto on the moon and wide angle on the trains.

JimThias 10-31-2007 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken45
When you have a harvest moon, the moon indeed appears that large when rising at the end of day. However, it also tends to be an orangish color, which this one is not. The moon was full or about full on August 26th when he says this was taken, so he didn't give himself away by making a dumb mistake in that respect, so who knows. Check out the link to see how big it can be.

http://www.pbase.com/missouri_skies/image/54578562

Ken, I understand what you're saying, but AFAIK there are only two ways to achieve a moon that size: Zoom lens or extreme crop. The photo in question is neither, as it appears to be at the extreme WIDE end of a wide angle lens.

JimThias 10-31-2007 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

If so, I agree, in the sense that one can make the moon as big as one wants by using the appropriate telephoto. What is puzzling here is the mix of (apparent!) telephoto on the moon and wide angle on the trains.

Ahem! "Allegedly"

:lol:

Joe the Photog 10-31-2007 10:17 PM

Aside from what Jim pointed out -- zoom on the moon, wide on the train -- what puzzles me is that the street light is starred but the moon is crystal clear and tack sharp. In some way, it's the most in focus thing of the entire picture.

Allegedly, of course.


Joe

sd9 10-31-2007 10:38 PM

Allegedly
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Ahem! "Allegedly"

:lol:


I'm not saying, but,, if you save it to your hard drive and zoom way in, look at the pixels around the edge of the moon,

JimThias 10-31-2007 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd9
I'm not saying, but,, if you save it to your hard drive and zoom way in, look at the pixels around the edge of the moon,

That was the first thing I did. ;-)

Save The Wave 10-31-2007 11:46 PM

The Pentax PZ 1 35mm camera had a multiple exposure feature (up to 9 frames on one slide), and that feature has carried over to their "prosumer" dSLR line.

SP3197 11-01-2007 03:56 PM

Well checking historical data, the moon appears to be in the correct phase for that day.

The following information is provided for Port Jervis, Orange County, New York (longitude W74.7, latitude N41.4):



Sunday 26 August 2007 Eastern Daylight Time SUN Begin civil twilight 5:50 a.m. Sunrise 6:19 a.m. Sun transit 1:01 p.m. Sunset 7:42 p.m. End civil twilight 8:11 p.m. MOON Moonrise 6:25 p.m. on preceding day Moonset 3:53 a.m. Moonrise 6:57 p.m. Moon transit 11:58 p.m. Moonset 5:08 a.m. on following day </PRE>Phase of the Moon on 26 August: waxing gibbous with 96% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

Full Moon on 28 August 2007 at 6:34 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.


Northern Limits 11-01-2007 04:11 PM

I took a few multiple exposure moon shots last winter with my FILM :p SLR.

Because of the speed of the earths rotation, to get the moon that sharp you have to take it seperately, then recompose, adjust the shutter speed, and take the landscape.
Zooming out for the second exposure will not change the image already on the film, hence the big moon. I even added a star filter to the second exposure, so the moon was clear and the lights were starred.

I'm not at home, otherwise I would scan the photo in here.

Northern Limits 11-01-2007 04:19 PM

Just as another thought. This could be argued as manipulation because you can put the enlarged moon in the finished picture where it would not exsist in true life. (One for the Administrators to think on :wink: )

John Craft 11-01-2007 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC
For a digital sensor camera to do multiple exposures, there must be a way to save the first exposure while the second is done. Perhaps there is a way to create a camera that does so on board - a bit of memory space to keep the first image on - but in practice I think it would be both easier and more effective, because more flexible in terms of handling the blending of exposures, to simply take two shots and combine them in post-processing.


The D200 offers up to ten exposures in a single image.

Northern Limits 11-01-2007 11:26 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Northern Limits
Just as another thought. This could be argued as manipulation because you can put the enlarged moon in the finished picture where it would not exsist in true life. (One for the Administrators to think on :wink: )

So here is one of these double exposure pics I took. Note, if the moon had been in the frame for the timed exposure it would be an oblong shape. Also, this oversize moon has been moved; it was never in the location it is in this pic, and the fencepost shadows will give you a clue to where it actually is.
I also used two different lenses to get this effect, first the moon on a zoom, and then the scene on a wide angle.
So instead of removing branches and wires, I basically added a moon. Sounds like manipulation. :shock:

JimThias 11-01-2007 11:33 PM

Jim, did you take the first wide and then zoom in on the moon for the double exposure? Your moon still looks smaller than that of the photo in question that I posted, and your shot looks less wide as well (in relation to the subject).

Northern Limits 11-01-2007 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias
Jim, did you take the first wide and then zoom in on the moon for the double exposure? Your moon still looks smaller than that of the photo in question that I posted, and your shot looks less wide as well (in relation to the subject).

I took the moon first on a faster exposure, zoomed in so the size would be relative to the planned shot.
Then I composed the wide angle, and during the 3 minute(?) exposure a logging truck obliged me with the light show.

JimThias 11-01-2007 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northern Limits
I took the moon first on a faster exposure, zoomed in so the size would be relative to the planned shot.
Then I composed the wide angle, and during the 3 minute(?) exposure a logging truck obliged me with the light show.

Ahh, I see how you did it now.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.