Wow! This image has seen to spark a nice thread. If I can, let me try to address some of the comments that have been posted:
1) The large post on the left looks to be larger than the other posts. There are a couple reasons for this. One is because that post was physically larger. If you look closely there is a sign on top of it that is not on the other posts. Second is becuase that post was closer to my camera than another of the others.
2) The same post has a much larger shadow because, again, it was a larger post, but also, becuase it was in a direct line of sight between the moon (my light source) and my camera. So we are seeing the shadow straight on.
3) The shadow that is underneath the monument is not a continuation of the shadow from the post, but rather it is a shadow from my tripod.
4) The stars appear to trail in all different directions. This is not caused so much by the rotation of the Earth (as we are used) but rather, the effects of a fisheye lens. I posted the image details on my website that bystander linked to. The pano was created by stitching together 8 seperate frames. For each frame, stars that were on the left side are trailed in one direction, while stars on the opposite side are trailed in a different direction. Same for the top.
5) All the data was collected within a 5 hour time span starting around 10:30pm. So we are not seeing the sun rising (or setting). The lights behind the monument are from city lights ~20 miles away.
6) There really was no wildlife that I could see that evening...I am not sure if that is unusual for the area or not?
7) The aspect ratio is "correct". The reason it may appear to have streched vertically is, once again, becuase I used a fisheye lens. When stitching the images together there was some horizontal compression. But that is the nature of the beast.
8) I captured the data for the landscape while the moon was still up. With a camera and a long exposure the ground was properly illumated. I then did a bit of HDR work with it to really enhance the colors and give the "fantasy" appearance.
9) The dirt road is not actually Monument Road - that is on the other side of the structure. The road in the image wraps around the entire monument so you can drive (over many bumps/potholes) around the thing.
10) It is very true that there are alot of artifacts in the image. But as Chris pointed out most of the artifacts in this image are a result of how the data was collected and the steps that were needed to combine all the shots. I freely admit there is scientific inaccurate (like Scorpius being on the wrong side of the Milky Way, or Vega being in the Milky Way). But there are alot of people out there that make wonderful images while trying to stay "true" to either what is seen or what the camera can capture. My goal was different. It was to create an image that connected the Earth to the night sky in a way that leaves the viewer with a sense of awe and wonder. I treat this image (and others like it) as a hybrid of digital art and photography so I am more than willing to sacfrice a little bit of accuracy for a "pretty picture". Plus, I find it fun to try and take dozens of individual images and combine them into a final product!
Well this has been fun, reading everything that has been posted here. There are some artifact that have been posted that I did not even realize until now as well as different perceptions of various elements. Thank you all for your comments!
Cheers,
Robert Arn
http://www.AstroArn.com
Wow! This image has seen to spark a nice thread. If I can, let me try to address some of the comments that have been posted:
1) The large post on the left looks to be larger than the other posts. There are a couple reasons for this. One is because that post was physically larger. If you look closely there is a sign on top of it that is not on the other posts. Second is becuase that post was closer to my camera than another of the others.
2) The same post has a much larger shadow because, again, it was a larger post, but also, becuase it was in a direct line of sight between the moon (my light source) and my camera. So we are seeing the shadow straight on.
3) The shadow that is underneath the monument is not a continuation of the shadow from the post, but rather it is a shadow from my tripod.
4) The stars appear to trail in all different directions. This is not caused so much by the rotation of the Earth (as we are used) but rather, the effects of a fisheye lens. I posted the image details on my website that bystander linked to. The pano was created by stitching together 8 seperate frames. For each frame, stars that were on the left side are trailed in one direction, while stars on the opposite side are trailed in a different direction. Same for the top.
5) All the data was collected within a 5 hour time span starting around 10:30pm. So we are not seeing the sun rising (or setting). The lights behind the monument are from city lights ~20 miles away.
6) There really was no wildlife that I could see that evening...I am not sure if that is unusual for the area or not?
7) The aspect ratio is "correct". The reason it may appear to have streched vertically is, once again, becuase I used a fisheye lens. When stitching the images together there was some horizontal compression. But that is the nature of the beast.
8) I captured the data for the landscape while the moon was still up. With a camera and a long exposure the ground was properly illumated. I then did a bit of HDR work with it to really enhance the colors and give the "fantasy" appearance.
9) The dirt road is not actually Monument Road - that is on the other side of the structure. The road in the image wraps around the entire monument so you can drive (over many bumps/potholes) around the thing.
10) It is very true that there are alot of artifacts in the image. But as Chris pointed out most of the artifacts in this image are a result of how the data was collected and the steps that were needed to combine all the shots. I freely admit there is scientific inaccurate (like Scorpius being on the wrong side of the Milky Way, or Vega being in the Milky Way). But there are alot of people out there that make wonderful images while trying to stay "true" to either what is seen or what the camera can capture. My goal was different. It was to create an image that connected the Earth to the night sky in a way that leaves the viewer with a sense of awe and wonder. I treat this image (and others like it) as a hybrid of digital art and photography so I am more than willing to sacfrice a little bit of accuracy for a "pretty picture". Plus, I find it fun to try and take dozens of individual images and combine them into a final product!
Well this has been fun, reading everything that has been posted here. There are some artifact that have been posted that I did not even realize until now as well as different perceptions of various elements. Thank you all for your comments!
Cheers,
Robert Arn
http://www.AstroArn.com