Re: Setting moon
- From: "mianileng" <mianileng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:01:24 +0530
"Steve" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:v1ouh49uq0bb3krc5eesqg4psded6vu2ju@xxxxxxxxxx
Exactly. That's why I felt that this shot, despite its technical
On 15 Nov 2008 22:33:21 GMT, rfischer@xxxxxxxxx (Ray Fischer) wrote:
mianileng <mianileng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A few days ago, when I was getting ready for bed around 4:00 am, I
happened
to glance out the window and noticed the color of the setting moon. I
grabbed my camera but was too tired and sleepy to set up a tripod or try
out
various manual exposure settings. So I shot handheld with spot-metering
at -1 EV.
Not that it's a bad photo, but the same result could be achieved
anytime by simply adjusting the color of any photo of the moon in your
favorite editor.
To me, that's not the same thing. There's a different type of
satisfaction in faithfully capturing a difficult image vs.
artistically creating something that didn't exist. They're both valid
things to do and be proud of when the results are nice. But one is
not the same as the other.
imperfections, was worth sharing.
I've made dozens of moon shots, some of them technically better than this
one, but the circumstances made this shot a difficult one. I've also seen
shots made by others with skills and equipment far superior to mine. But
many of those come out making the moon look like a dull dead rock which, of
course it is, but it doesn't *look* like a dead rock from our world. I
usually try to capture it as it appears to us - a beautiful shining globe in
the sky.
.
- References:
- Setting moon
- From: mianileng
- Re: Setting moon
- From: Ray Fischer
- Re: Setting moon
- From: Steve
- Setting moon
- Prev by Date: Re: sigma buys foveon
- Next by Date: Re: sigma buys foveon
- Previous by thread: Re: Setting moon
- Next by thread: Re: Setting moon
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|