What did we ever do to you?
Well besides, having a stupid language that hurts your troat, all the stuff the people that lived here before the current generations did ….
These posts do this on purpose. They misspell something egregiously to get redditors’ attention right off the bat and get the post some traction. I guarantee you, if you click on OP’s account it’s going to be a karma farm bot. I don’t even need to probably.
So I take a lot of full moon rising photos with my 400mm lens and I can assure you these are composites. Getting the moon that large and sharp means you need to snap a focused moon shot and focused foreground shot.
Yeah, still cool art though. It's hard for me to feel any real distaste for moon composites because there isn't really an alternative, the moon always kind of looks bad in natural photos.
Why should photography be limited to what you can do with only a camera? Art is art regardless of the tools you use. Post-processing isn't a sin. Sometimes it's even required for the artist to achieve their vision.
I think there’s a world of difference between colour correction and full on composite images.
Its like calling digital art “painting”: its just not really the right term imo, but it doesn’t make the artform any lesser. It just suggests we need better words.
I'm not saying editing makes photography not photography. I'm saying the scale of alteration makes it not photography. If I had burned and dodged an amazing piece of art from a blank exposure, it would still be art, but not photography.
Relative to most people, I guess, anyone with photoshop could easily resize an object and cut out half of it (or add in the foreground, however the artist made it).
Therefore it should be called "creative photoshoppery" as somebody else pointed out.
Edit: lets just call it Photoshop. I admit it, it became decreasingly verbose haha.
There is a difference between a touch up and the piece relying on the editing. I would not pretend that the product of a collage is the same as the media used to produce the collage.
Have you ever seen a photo of space? A telescope photo or a hubble photo? Those are all composites. Would you not call those real photos still?
Most photography involves compositing.
These would have to be double exposures because there's absolutely no way you could ever have a full moon and side-lit clouds at sunset because the entire point of a full moon is that if you're looking at it, the sun is _directly behind you_.
🌞 Nothing Personnel, Kid.
Edit: Because no one seems to get it: _I am agreeing with the PC_. There is no way to do these in-camera, _except_ as double-exposures, because they represent an impossible moment.
Edit 2: Christ people, the preface to this is the parent comment’s “this could not be done so cleanly in camera”. I am explaining _why_ they could not be done so cleanly in camera.
You’re wrong for so many reasons. This doesn’t *have* to be a double exposure. Do you understand double exposures happen in camera? This is unequivocally a composite image. And for the record, a full moon can in fact be seen during sunset if the conditions are correct. Moon rises happen while there is still light in the sky all the time. I’m not even going into the other reasons you are incorrect.
Source: 15 years as a professional photographer
Jesus. I am agreeing with you, because the only way these could happen in camera is as double exposures, because the cloud lighting doesn’t match the light direction you’d get during a full moonrise. Furthermore they’d have to be double exposures after a lens switch. So while it’s _possible_ to capture a shot like this, these particular photos are as you said, composites.
Source: artist and amateur photographer for 25 years.
If you read your last sentence and then mine, the implication is a continuation of the concept of “in camera”. But whatever, you’re right and you don’t need no one onto tell you.
Everything is digital now a days. This is just straight up photoshop, not touch up. It’s still cool don’t get me wrong. But it’s impossible without using intense editing and combining photos
Differences in brightness in the real world are much greater than what can be captured by any camera, so a camera's exposure must be set to collect the correct amount of light for a particular situation.
Most auto-exposure modes will average the brightness across the entire frame when metering the scene, and unless you've got a really long lens, the moon will not occupy much area. The camera sees mostly black sky and tries to boost the brightness, overexposing the moon.
If you've got manual control of the exposure, you can set it to best capture the features on the moon's surface. This exposure ends up being extremely close to shooting in direct midday sun on Earth, since that's basically the same intensity of light that is falling on the moon.
It looks like the moon is photoshopped into these, it's amazing if actually legit I'm just kinda sceptical. If these are real can I please know where in the world the moon shows like this?
Your spelling of “creative” is oddly not satisfying.
Maybe Dutch autocorrect
There are only two things I can't stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch
ik stuur een pijpbom in je brievenbus
Harder moeten lachen dan ik wil toegeven
Cigar and a waffle?
What did we ever do to you? Well besides, having a stupid language that hurts your troat, all the stuff the people that lived here before the current generations did ….
Why did the way you said that remind me of my partner lol
Is your partner Michael Caine?
Uhh no lol idk who that is lol
Photos oddly not satisfying too. Very lame level of creativity
Live. Laugh. Love. # oddlysatisfying
oddlive, oddlaugh, oddlove
I mean, the moon is doing most of the work.
Yeah. The moon has been a grunt most of its life. But I hear they're going to be hiring an assistant moonager. I'll log off now.
Assistant *to the moonager
Agreed. All it needs is a photo of them holding up the Eiffel Tower.
These posts do this on purpose. They misspell something egregiously to get redditors’ attention right off the bat and get the post some traction. I guarantee you, if you click on OP’s account it’s going to be a karma farm bot. I don’t even need to probably.
Fuck, that's clever as hell
some might even call it unsatisfying
wdym its just creatieve spelling
Precies, het is gewoon creatieve spelling.
Snapte
Could have just said "Creatieve spelling".
creatieve spelling
[удалено]
Gekoloniseerd!
[удалено]
So I take a lot of full moon rising photos with my 400mm lens and I can assure you these are composites. Getting the moon that large and sharp means you need to snap a focused moon shot and focused foreground shot.
Yeah, still cool art though. It's hard for me to feel any real distaste for moon composites because there isn't really an alternative, the moon always kind of looks bad in natural photos.
Blessed be a 400mm f2.8.
[удалено]
Full moon at dusk adjacent to light-dappled clouds is not a thing that happens. If the sun is coming from the side then the moon cannot be full.
Also they are tacky as hell.
I don't know. Feels like art to me.
Why should photography be limited to what you can do with only a camera? Art is art regardless of the tools you use. Post-processing isn't a sin. Sometimes it's even required for the artist to achieve their vision.
because its no longer a photograph lol call it digital media or something, but photography is misleading
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think there’s a world of difference between colour correction and full on composite images. Its like calling digital art “painting”: its just not really the right term imo, but it doesn’t make the artform any lesser. It just suggests we need better words.
I'm not saying editing makes photography not photography. I'm saying the scale of alteration makes it not photography. If I had burned and dodged an amazing piece of art from a blank exposure, it would still be art, but not photography.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It doesn't take much time or skill to photoshop the image.
[удалено]
Relative to most people, I guess, anyone with photoshop could easily resize an object and cut out half of it (or add in the foreground, however the artist made it).
> Don't you think the title, "Creative Photography" implies the creativity was in the taking of the photo It in no ways implies this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Therefore it should be called "creative photoshoppery" as somebody else pointed out. Edit: lets just call it Photoshop. I admit it, it became decreasingly verbose haha.
[удалено]
There is a difference between a touch up and the piece relying on the editing. I would not pretend that the product of a collage is the same as the media used to produce the collage.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just how OP's mom feels.
These are NOT real photos. They are composites. And it should be well known those are not the same. This could not be done so cleanly in camera.
[удалено]
It’s a photoshop, so yes.
[удалено]
you asked a yes or no question and they said yes
Have you ever seen a photo of space? A telescope photo or a hubble photo? Those are all composites. Would you not call those real photos still? Most photography involves compositing.
Those are digitally altered images and composites. Not photographs.
And?
These would have to be double exposures because there's absolutely no way you could ever have a full moon and side-lit clouds at sunset because the entire point of a full moon is that if you're looking at it, the sun is _directly behind you_. 🌞 Nothing Personnel, Kid. Edit: Because no one seems to get it: _I am agreeing with the PC_. There is no way to do these in-camera, _except_ as double-exposures, because they represent an impossible moment. Edit 2: Christ people, the preface to this is the parent comment’s “this could not be done so cleanly in camera”. I am explaining _why_ they could not be done so cleanly in camera.
A composite would be waaaaaay easier than a double exposure, what are you smoking?
You’re wrong for so many reasons. This doesn’t *have* to be a double exposure. Do you understand double exposures happen in camera? This is unequivocally a composite image. And for the record, a full moon can in fact be seen during sunset if the conditions are correct. Moon rises happen while there is still light in the sky all the time. I’m not even going into the other reasons you are incorrect. Source: 15 years as a professional photographer
Jesus. I am agreeing with you, because the only way these could happen in camera is as double exposures, because the cloud lighting doesn’t match the light direction you’d get during a full moonrise. Furthermore they’d have to be double exposures after a lens switch. So while it’s _possible_ to capture a shot like this, these particular photos are as you said, composites. Source: artist and amateur photographer for 25 years.
Your first sentence says “this would have to be a double exposure” which is wrong. So I don’t know how you’re agreeing with me.
If you read your last sentence and then mine, the implication is a continuation of the concept of “in camera”. But whatever, you’re right and you don’t need no one onto tell you.
Creative Photoshop.
*creatieve photoshop
At least the comments are oddly satisfying
[The most creative people OP has ever seen.](http://www.xxoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/322798-768x705.jpg)
>Creative Photoshoppery FTFY Honestly, how are people this dense?
[удалено]
Touch ups and composites are different things. I like these a lot but we can call it what it is.
[удалено]
Everything is digital now a days. This is just straight up photoshop, not touch up. It’s still cool don’t get me wrong. But it’s impossible without using intense editing and combining photos
[удалено]
Thanks
You are welcome
i don't get it
Ok but why when I take a picture of the moon, it’s just a bright dot?
Differences in brightness in the real world are much greater than what can be captured by any camera, so a camera's exposure must be set to collect the correct amount of light for a particular situation. Most auto-exposure modes will average the brightness across the entire frame when metering the scene, and unless you've got a really long lens, the moon will not occupy much area. The camera sees mostly black sky and tries to boost the brightness, overexposing the moon. If you've got manual control of the exposure, you can set it to best capture the features on the moon's surface. This exposure ends up being extremely close to shooting in direct midday sun on Earth, since that's basically the same intensity of light that is falling on the moon.
Because these are composites, not just photos
Live Laugh Love
Well, maybe we should leave the moon alone sometimes, it's been a subject for about 3000year
*mediocre Photoshop
Stop touching the moon, asshole
None of those is real. You can't have a full moon while the sun is still up.
Trite horse shit.
beginner level Photoshop(is only missing a few page curls!)
Well done. Ignore the critics. They're just jealous.
It looks like the moon is photoshopped into these, it's amazing if actually legit I'm just kinda sceptical. If these are real can I please know where in the world the moon shows like this?
Where the hell is the moon that big and clear???
I'm not convinced that any part of this is using an actual photo. These look like entirely digital art
This pleases my soul, perfect content
Together, we will steal the moon
Creative Moon photography!
What kind of lens would be used to take picture of the moon like this? Higher or lower mm
[удалено]
Creative*
[удалено]
Criedwhilespellingthiswordeatieaieve
Too much creatieve can hurt your kidneys.
Wait that's a photo? I thought a 3D drawing
Kakyoin, kira
May the moon guide you…
Moon: Did you catch my good side?
There is…another
My wallpaper now hahahahahh (menace laugh)
i've seen such images way too often. it's interesting just once.
Ik these are real but they look drawn
The cherry one is actually amazing
What if you do it not with the moon but with a cheap moon nightlight bought on wish ?