Can you explain this pic? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/01/2005 10:46:19 PM · #1

Apparently the guy is saying it wasn't photoshopped:

Thread Link

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

02/01/2005 10:49:31 PM · #2

The "two" suns?

He has a UV filter that is causing a reflection. I can do that with the moon quite easily.

M

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/01/2005 10:50:05 PM · #3

Maybe he did it in Paintshop Pro.

Plexxoid

Canon EOS-30D

02/01/2005 10:51:19 PM · #4

Well, two suns? At night? Looks like it's at night...
My first guess was that it was taken through glass, and a hanging lightbulb is behind the camera somewhere, and that's the reflection, which is right on top of the moon (explaining the lit clouds). I Not really sure though.

02/01/2005 10:53:27 PM · #5

Originally posted by mavrik:

The "two" suns?

He has a UV filter that is causing a reflection. I can do that with the moon quite easily.

M

What kind of U/V are you using. I've never had that happen in that manner even with el cheapo filters on. Maybe lens flare but not a well defined double sun.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/01/2005 10:56:09 PM · #6

Originally posted by mavrik:

The "two" suns?

He has a UV filter that is causing a reflection. I can do that with the moon quite easily.

M

Possible explanation, except he was using a Coolpix 2100 in nighttime mode. Not exactly an advanced camera or anything.

And for the record its a picture of the moon.

Message edited by author 2005-02-01 22:56:46.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

02/01/2005 11:04:07 PM · #7

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by mavrik:
The "two" suns?

He has a UV filter that is causing a reflection. I can do that with the moon quite easily.

M

What kind of U/V are you using. I've never had that happen in that manner even with el cheapo filters on. Maybe lens flare but not a well defined double sun.

When I'm screwing it on or screwing it off it changes tilt. It's not the filter, but the angle. ;)

M

02/01/2005 11:17:47 PM · #8

Originally posted by mavrik:

[
When I'm screwing it on or screwing it off it changes tilt. It's not the filter, but the angle. ;)

M

Maybe, but I think I like the refelction of the lightbulb on the window theory better.

02/01/2005 11:20:29 PM · #9

Originally posted by slipintoshadows:

Apparently the guy is saying it wasn't photoshopped:

Thread Link

I agree. Not photoshopped. It was just a longish (2 min+ ?) exposure of the rising moon. The name "Lagrimasdeluna" means roughly "tears of the moon". Besides being overexposed for the moon, the moon has moved during the exposure.

Message edited by author 2005-02-01 23:22:04.

jab119

02/01/2005 11:22:25 PM · #10

of course it was photoshopped, I never seen a camera that can put your name on the photo, a date stamp for sure, but your name :p

a long exposure of the moon will result in an image just like that

James

02/01/2005 11:26:45 PM · #11

Originally posted by jab119:

He put it there later... and I don't think a Coolpix 2100 is capable of a 2 minute exposure, unless he's lying about the type of camera he used.

02/01/2005 11:30:54 PM · #12

Originally posted by jab119:

a long exposure of the moon will result in an image just like that

James

Don't think so. Not even close. The clouds have not moved and are not blurred. They would have moved faster, even on a calm night, then the moon could set. If it was a long exposure then the other lights in the image would appear far brighter then they are. Probabably been flared. Also, long exposure does not explain how one part of the moon has a slight halo and the other is clearly defined.

02/01/2005 11:42:54 PM · #13

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by jab119:

a long exposure of the moon will result in an image just like that

James

Don't think so. Not even close. The clouds have not moved and are not blurred. They would have moved faster, even on a calm night, then the moon could set. If it was a long exposure then the other lights in the image would appear far brighter then they are. Probabably been flared. Also, long exposure does not explain how one part of the moon has a slight halo and the other is clearly defined.

I disagree. The clouds don't look that much different from

that I did with an 8 sec exposure. From looking at the movement of the moon there, his exposure could well have been quite a bit less than 2 minutes...even 30 seconds or so.

02/01/2005 11:47:20 PM · #14

Originally posted by slipintoshadows:

He put it there later... and I don't think a Coolpix 2100 is capable of a 2 minute exposure, unless he's lying about the type of camera he used.

Where are you getting this information? His profile says that he uses a Canon Powershot A85?

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/01/2005 11:52:43 PM · #15

Originally posted by jemison:

I disagree. The clouds don't look that much different from that I did with an 8 sec exposure. From looking at the movement of the moon there, his exposure could well have been quite a bit less than 2 minutes...even 30 seconds or so.

The clouds in the first picture are far more well defined then these. And I don't see half of this moon haloed. It could have slipped down behind the mist of a cloud in the later part of the exposure, but that still does not explain the lack of brightness in the other lights in the scene and the lack of ambient light that would have lit the rest of the scene.

I would love to see the exif file on this if this guy is really claiming this was a long ex.

puma

Canon EOS-10D

02/01/2005 11:58:09 PM · #16

Is it possible that it is an eclipse. The clouds are not blurred so the exposure is not that long. It looks like the sun and that can be part of why everthing else is dark.There are some lights around the houses that could have illuminated them. The second light in the sky could then be the moon

02/02/2005 12:04:46 AM · #17

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by jemison:
I disagree. The clouds don't look that much different from that I did with an 8 sec exposure. From looking at the movement of the moon there, his exposure could well have been quite a bit less than 2 minutes...even 30 seconds or so.

The clouds in the first picture are far more well defined then these. And I don't see half of this moon haloed. It could have slipped down behind the mist of a cloud in the later part of the exposure, but that still does not explain the lack of brightness in the other lights in the scene and the lack of ambient light that would have lit the rest of the scene.

I would love to see the exif file on this if this guy is really claiming this was a long ex.

A couple of points...I think this was a moonrise, not a moonset. The other lights would not necessarily be real bright...the brightness of the moon is approximately the same as daylight (f/11 at 1/100 w/IOS100).

Here is another 8 sec. exposure at f/16. It would take several stops more exposure to really fry the other lights...they are *much* less bright than the moon. Could the "halo" be the result of a gross overexposure of that part of the moon image...the part that has been exposed the longest (assuming that it is indeed a moonrise)?

02/02/2005 12:11:47 AM · #18

Originally posted by jemison:

Originally posted by slipintoshadows:

He put it there later... and I don't think a Coolpix 2100 is capable of a 2 minute exposure, unless he's lying about the type of camera he used.

Where are you getting this information? His profile says that he uses a Canon Powershot A85?

That's the camera I use... I got this picture from a different forum.

02/02/2005 12:36:01 AM · #19

Originally posted by jemison:

Here is another 8 sec. exposure at f/16. It would take several stops more exposure to really fry the other lights...they are *much* less bright than the moon. Could the "halo" be the result of a gross overexposure of that part of the moon image...the part that has been exposed the longest (assuming that it is indeed a moonrise)?

Bill, where are you getting these? This one is motion blur not moon travel, unless the all the lights happen to be rising too.

02/02/2005 12:56:21 AM · #20

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by jemison:
Here is another 8 sec. exposure at f/16. It would take several stops more exposure to really fry the other lights...they are *much* less bright than the moon. Could the "halo" be the result of a gross overexposure of that part of the moon image...the part that has been exposed the longest (assuming that it is indeed a moonrise)?

Bill, where are you getting these? This one is motion blur not moon travel, unless the all the lights happen to be rising too.

Yeah, it looks like I ticked the tripod here, but on the earlier one it is moon travel. This one was the only other one I had that was 8 sec, and I thought it showed the difference in exp. between the moon and fore-lights. The moon is also a good representation of an 8 sec. travel.

This one is a one sec f/5.6. No moon smear here, but as you can see it is still way over exposed for the moon and the foreground lights still have a long ways to go before being blown out.

02/02/2005 01:07:05 AM · #21

Leave it open for two minutes and see what happens. That is about how long it would take the moon to travel the distance it did in the first post. the anbient light from a full moon after a 2 minute exposure would have made the houses light up like daytime. I'm just not buying the whole time exposure theory. I was out two nights ago a half an hour after sunset before the moon came out and did a thirty second exposure at f/4 and the ambient light near blew out the whole image.

Message edited by author 2005-02-02 01:07:40.

02/02/2005 01:49:43 PM · #22

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Well, at f/4 for 30 sec, the moon would have been overexposed by approx. 14 stops! And 1/2 hour after sunset is still quite bright. Why not wait til dark? Moonrise tonight is around 1:00am MST in the ESE direction. Slightly less than a half moon.