| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2014 11:11:56 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Belt of Venus.
You may be misinterpreting the scene. |
doubt it, the belt of Venus on the opposite side of the sun is a quite uniform band, not a such a substantial gradient of local brightening. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 11:14:27 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Belt of Venus.
You may be misinterpreting the scene. |
doubt it, the belt of Venus on the opposite side of the sun is a quite uniform band, not a such a substantial gradient of local brightening. |
|
|
|
|
12/17/2014 11:17:33 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Belt of Venus.
You may be misinterpreting the scene. |
Richard, going back to the "huge moon" shot, are you suggesting int's possible for the moon to rise IN FRONT of the Belt of Venus? Serious question. On the surface of it, that seems impossible to me, since it's an atmospheric phenomenon. Do you agree that the "huge moon" shot is likely a composite, with the sky added in post? I'm perfectly willing to accept the stacking of the tree withg the moon as being a function of extreme telephoto, BTW, no problem there. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 11:33:27 AM · #129 |
Interesting, never knew there was a name for that phenomenon.
This is my only close-to-the-horizon moonrise shot, but even though it's small you can tell there's atmosphere haze/distortion around the moon (and clouds in front)
 |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 11:33:44 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Belt of Venus.
You may be misinterpreting the scene. |
Richard, going back to the "huge moon" shot, are you suggesting int's possible for the moon to rise IN FRONT of the Belt of Venus? Serious question. On the surface of it, that seems impossible to me, since it's an atmospheric phenomenon. Do you agree that the "huge moon" shot is likely a composite, with the sky added in post? I'm perfectly willing to accept the stacking of the tree withg the moon as being a function of extreme telephoto, BTW, no problem there. |
Wonderful things can happen in high elevation deserts. My equipment is far inferior to Peter Lik's, but I've seen some great moon/horizon/belt-of-venus conjunctions. 9000' above sea level. 
Something not seen at sea level!
eta: I'm very pleased to introduce the name to those who didn't know what it was. "Belt-of-Venus" is a phenomenon we get to see all the time in the mountains.
Message edited by author 2014-12-17 11:41:14. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 12:16:10 PM · #131 |
The original press release. In the specs you can see it's at least a two exposure composite (despite the description). I think there is enough to debunk the photo. I love the copy which describes the tree as being "petrified" (impossible). :)
Attention Collectors,
Its HERE, Peter Lik’s newest release! He has captured another perfect photograph that up until now had only imagined in his dreams!
This shot is incredible, different and truly one of a kind. Due to the advances in equipment and Pete’s quest to always be on the cutting edge., this piece may be considered the best “Night Shot” of Pete’s career. Let us know what you think.
Here is a description of the shot since the actual image will not be available until Tuesday 11/15/11.
This is a 4x5 horizontal style shot. It is one of the coolest shots of the moon I have ever seen. The moon covers 75% of the shot, and is perfectly exposed to capture all the details, every crater and line, the texture of the moonscape. It really is cool! On the conference call, the directors of the galleries really did go nuts when they saw it. The foreground is a silhouette of the Basin State Park, with a petrified tree partially in front of the moon. Several of the limbs of the Tree are the silhouette in front of the moon. This is a VERY unique shot, Pete doesn’t have anything like this. He used a huge 800mm lens to capture a double exposure of the foreground and moon, so surreal!
Bella Luna
Kodachrome Basin State Park, Utah
+ Camera Canon EOS 5D
+ Exposures f/11 @ 1/250 second and f/2.8 @ 20 seconds
+ Time 6:50P
+ Edition Size 950 Limited; 45 Artist Proof
This shot has eluded me my entire photographic career. I have spent years trying to perfect this
image, there are so many variables you don’t even think about. It’s a really touchy image, but when it all
lines up, the result is out of this worldâ€Â¦ literally. I have drawer full of transparencies that I have shot
over decades that just didn’t cut it. I tried all the variables; different lenses, exposures, compositions,
times, then much to my frustration the results back from the lab were always disappointing.
The remoteness of Kadachrome Basin in Utah was an obvious choice to finally nail this elusive
image; remote, clean air, and a selection of cliff tops to shoot from. I had been watching the
phase of the moon and tonight the moon was close to full. I had a specific composition in my
mind and I searched for days to line up this classic tree with the moon. Tonight I hope it all comes
together. It was a long night but I knew at some point my perseverance would be rewarded.
I was white knuckled as I set up the mammoth lens, filling the viewfinder with this balanced scene,
the tree framed amongst the rocks and the low lying clouds added to the tensionâ€Â¦ this had to
work. The desert silence was stunning, my pulse raced, I could hear the blood running through my
veins. Then, I saw the horizon starting to glow. The golden sphere slowly rose in front of me. I was
totally stunned. I couldn’t believe it. So connected to this lunar giant that I was trembling. Such
an impact on my life. I pressed the shutter, a feeling I’ll never forget. The moon, tree, and earth.
I hope to share with you this amazing connection I had on this special evening
with the moon, that affects our lives. It certainly affected mine.
-Peter Lik |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 12:22:30 PM · #132 |
Too many things just don't add up with the description. We have the location and time (6:50 PM). The moon is waning gibbous, according to my Photographer's Ephemeris, at 6:50 PM when the moon is waning gibbous it is located somewhere between 20 and 40 degrees below the horizon depending on what month we are talking about.
"I held my breath and pressed the trigger...the moon was nowhere to be seen." |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 01:32:07 PM · #133 |
Something certainly doesn't add up with that image for me. I don't know about the equipment aspect. Perhaps it IS possible that an 800mm lens can get that sort of detail and moon size.
But even in Richard's example of the moon at altitude, there is atmospheric interference. In Lik's version there is absolutely none. In addition, the proportions just seem off. A moon that size, that clean, that close to the surface of the earth...
I shot this image for a supermoon challenge. It is a composite. I shot the moon with a 300mm, and then at least tripled the size in post, and it's nowhere near the size of his moon...
But it's something about the composition that's bothering me. I just can't imagine a telephoto compression being THAT extreme.
On the other hand, if this IS a composite, it's such a mediocre composition... |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 02:03:12 PM · #134 |
Not composites:    
   Composite: 
Maybe my favorite, inspired by the poem "The Highwayman" by Alfred Noyes,
and set to music by Phil Ochs ...
The wind was a torrent of darkness among the gusty trees
The Moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 02:07:23 PM · #135 |
You wouldn't be able to get that exposure on the moon and still register the stars in the sky. The moon would be blown out completely. I read his description as implying a single shot although to be fair, it is listed as two exposures in the press release.
His galleries are impressive but many of his shots (particularly his vertical panoramas?) I find to be a little strange(their composition) to my eye. Definitely better in the gallery. Even the moon shot feels strangely cramped or something...
He is a good photographer and a better businessman.
@ DrAchoo -- LOL. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 02:08:57 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
On the other hand, if this IS a composite, it's such a mediocre composition... |
a composite they we cant agree is a composite, maybe that was intentional. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 02:11:10 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Something certainly doesn't add up with that image for me. I don't know about the equipment aspect. Perhaps it IS possible that an 800mm lens can get that sort of detail and moon size.
But even in Richard's example of the moon at altitude, there is atmospheric interference. In Lik's version there is absolutely none. In addition, the proportions just seem off. A moon that size, that clean, that close to the surface of the earth...
I shot this image for a supermoon challenge. It is a composite. I shot the moon with a 300mm, and then at least tripled the size in post, and it's nowhere near the size of his moon...
But it's something about the composition that's bothering me. I just can't imagine a telephoto compression being THAT extreme.
On the other hand, if this IS a composite, it's such a mediocre composition... |
I agree but the moon could be well up in the sky (excluding Doc's sleuthing), and if the photog was shooting from a low vantage point in a canyon the moon could appear very clear (although I still think the clouds would be in front of the moon.)
Message edited by author 2014-12-17 14:11:23. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 02:28:15 PM · #138 |
Yes. I think that the composite has the moon added rather than the background sky added. I personally think he composed the shot with the tree, shot at 20 seconds and got the silhouette of the tree with the stars and sky, later shot the moon when it was somewhere completely else (or not even on the same day) and probably high in the sky, and then put the moon in the original shot.
The moon could not have been present in a shot of 20 seconds duration. Not only would it have been blown out, it would have bleached out all the surrounding sky. The only way to capture stars like that in a 20 second shot is with no moon present. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 02:32:14 PM · #139 |
I thought of this telephoto moonrise picture which is really captured instead of composited.
The story behind the shot
Message edited by author 2014-12-17 14:32:40. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 02:42:29 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes. I think that the composite has the moon added rather than the background sky added. I personally think he composed the shot with the tree, shot at 20 seconds and got the silhouette of the tree with the stars and sky, later shot the moon when it was somewhere completely else (or not even on the same day) and probably high in the sky, and then put the moon in the original shot.
The moon could not have been present in a shot of 20 seconds duration. Not only would it have been blown out, it would have bleached out all the surrounding sky. The only way to capture stars like that in a 20 second shot is with no moon present. |
That's the stuff. Also, at 800mm+ of focal length, a 20 second exposure would have INSANE star trailing. Sheeit, i get star trailing sometimes with a 30 second exposure, at my widest focal length of 16 millimeters. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 05:00:08 PM · #141 |
If you don't want star trails this article has instructions for building a star-tracker platform for your camera ...
How To Detect An Exoplanet With Your DSLR |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 06:40:53 PM · #142 |
I have to agree with this.
I don't know what Hahn is talking about with the higher elevations we can see the belt of venus at sea level. BUT I never saw it with one bright side, it's was always pretty uniform across maybe a bit brighter in the middle but just a tad.
Maybe it's different out west. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 06:53:37 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by nygold:
I have to agree with this.
I don't know what Hahn is talking about with the higher elevations we can see the belt of venus at sea level. BUT I never saw it with one bright side, it's was always pretty uniform across maybe a bit brighter in the middle but just a tad.
Maybe it's different out west. |
We have the same moon and belt out west as you do in the east. :) |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 07:21:24 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by nygold:
I have to agree with this.
I don't know what Hahn is talking about with the higher elevations we can see the belt of venus at sea level. BUT I never saw it with one bright side, it's was always pretty uniform across maybe a bit brighter in the middle but just a tad.
Maybe it's different out west. |
We have the same moon and belt out west as you do in the east. :) |
That's what I thought but my point is that in Lik's image the so called belt is very bright on one side which leads me to believe it's a sunrise or sunset. Which puts the moon on the wrong side of the earth. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 07:51:38 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by nygold:
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by nygold:
I have to agree with this.
I don't know what Hahn is talking about with the higher elevations we can see the belt of venus at sea level. BUT I never saw it with one bright side, it's was always pretty uniform across maybe a bit brighter in the middle but just a tad.
Maybe it's different out west. |
We have the same moon and belt out west as you do in the east. :) |
That's what I thought but my point is that in Lik's image the so called belt is very bright on one side which leads me to believe it's a sunrise or sunset. Which puts the moon on the wrong side of the earth. |
I really doubt there is receptivity to a newreally old concept, but the zodiacal light can sometimes e strikingly bright. (not visible in the light polluted areas of the country) |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 08:09:26 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by nygold:
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by nygold:
I have to agree with this.
I don't know what Hahn is talking about with the higher elevations we can see the belt of venus at sea level. BUT I never saw it with one bright side, it's was always pretty uniform across maybe a bit brighter in the middle but just a tad.
Maybe it's different out west. |
We have the same moon and belt out west as you do in the east. :) |
That's what I thought but my point is that in Lik's image the so called belt is very bright on one side which leads me to believe it's a sunrise or sunset. Which puts the moon on the wrong side of the earth. |
I really doubt there is receptivity to a newreally old concept, but the zodiacal light can sometimes e strikingly bright. (not visible in the light polluted areas of the country) |
When out in the ocean there is no light pollution. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 08:11:53 PM · #147 |
I've done plenty of dark sky photography hahn and that isn't belt of venus or zodiacal light. It's either the dawn/dusk light or at best for Peter light from a town (but it wouldn't be white like that). I'd vote for it being light from the sun and a composited moon.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2014 08:14:23 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've done plenty of dark sky photography hahn and that isn't belt of venus or zodiacal light. It's either the dawn/dusk light or at best for Peter light from a town (but it wouldn't be white like that). I'd vote for it being light from the sun and a composited moon. |
+1 |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 08:23:39 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by PeterLik:
edit
"The remoteness of Kodachrome Basin in Utah was an obvious choice to finally nail this elusive image; remote, clean air, and a selection of cliff tops to shoot from. I had been watching the phase of the moon and tonight the moon was close to full. I had a specific composition in my mind and I searched for days to line up this classic tree with the moon. Tonight I hope it all comes together. It was a long night but I knew at some point my perseverance would be rewarded.
I was white-knuckled as I set up the mammoth lens, filling the viewfinder with this balanced scene, the tree framed amongst the rocks and the low lying clouds added to the tensionâ€Â¦ this had to work. The desert silence was stunning, my pulse raced, I could hear the blood running through my veins. Then, I saw the horizon starting to glow. The golden sphere slowly rose in front of me.
"
|
He is stating he waited a long night to make this shot... but an almost full moon will rise about the same time as the sun sets. Did he mean to say he spent a long day waiting for the event?
I don't begrudge him his millions but I do roll my eyes at the Harlequin Romance storytelling...from Peter Lik or Joe Schmo.
Full Disclosure: the sleuthing above didn't originate with me.
Message edited by author 2014-12-17 20:25:58. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 08:37:53 PM · #150 |
you kind of supplied the answer yourself as to why its not zodiacal light. you need EXTREMELY dark skies for that. it would never be visible with the full moon.
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by nygold:
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by nygold:
I have to agree with this.
I don't know what Hahn is talking about with the higher elevations we can see the belt of venus at sea level. BUT I never saw it with one bright side, it's was always pretty uniform across maybe a bit brighter in the middle but just a tad.
Maybe it's different out west. |
We have the same moon and belt out west as you do in the east. :) |
That's what I thought but my point is that in Lik's image the so called belt is very bright on one side which leads me to believe it's a sunrise or sunset. Which puts the moon on the wrong side of the earth. |
I really doubt there is receptivity to a newreally old concept, but the zodiacal light can sometimes e strikingly bright. (not visible in the light polluted areas of the country) |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 09:21:09 AM EDT.
