by Moonwalker » Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:11 am
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:22 pm
GeoXXXXX wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:08 pm
It’s beautiful and technically well done but these type of composites I find are leaving me cold. They really look unnatural with the super saturation and the foreground that just looks “fakey” for lack of a better word. It’s the same problem with HDR, most people just overdo it in spades.
The foreground adds nothing to the photo, it distracts from the wonderful shot of Orion.
Just my two cents...
Agreed. I don't get much out of a picture like this. The same shot, much less deep, and covering a somewhat larger field would have worked better, I think. Something that shows all of Orion setting against the mountains becomes something that can enhance what we already see with our eyes. The disparity between the celestial and the terrestrial, though, is just too great in this image to make much sense.
Hi, Guys! I actually love that with an image of mountains I can see with my eyes, there´s this beautiful image of the sky and its stars which I could not see with my eyes without a zoom, and great exposure, and multiple shots, etc. I am not a photographer or astronomer, just a simple citizen who loves looking at the sky and I think where you find what you don´t like I find what I most like
There are lots of bigger images of nebulas and only of space that I love too but the mountains here bring closer the sky for me, they make this marvel more "human", more touchable, approachable; they remind me that from where we live, from where we stand we have this amazing stuff above.
Regarding the technical part of the photo, I heard the photographer on tv say, it was with a normal professional camera with a 180 I think. Multiple expositions (26 I think he said) and he has like a motor to compensate the Earth rotation. Then he took a pic of the landscape. No extra lenses. The only thing was the multiple shots as each of them were of 3 mins exposure and then bring them together (I don´t know how). Something like this is what I understood. Sorry, not a very scientific explanation, haha, more or less what I remembered from the interview. Regards!
[quote="Chris Peterson" post_id=302946 time=1591708945 user_id=117706]
[quote=GeoXXXXX post_id=302945 time=1591708097]
It’s beautiful and technically well done but these type of composites I find are leaving me cold. They really look unnatural with the super saturation and the foreground that just looks “fakey” for lack of a better word. It’s the same problem with HDR, most people just overdo it in spades.
The foreground adds nothing to the photo, it distracts from the wonderful shot of Orion.
Just my two cents...
[/quote]
Agreed. I don't get much out of a picture like this. The same shot, much less deep, and covering a somewhat larger field would have worked better, I think. Something that shows all of Orion setting against the mountains becomes something that can enhance what we already see with our eyes. The disparity between the celestial and the terrestrial, though, is just too great in this image to make much sense.
[/quote]
Hi, Guys! I actually love that with an image of mountains I can see with my eyes, there´s this beautiful image of the sky and its stars which I could not see with my eyes without a zoom, and great exposure, and multiple shots, etc. I am not a photographer or astronomer, just a simple citizen who loves looking at the sky and I think where you find what you don´t like I find what I most like ;) There are lots of bigger images of nebulas and only of space that I love too but the mountains here bring closer the sky for me, they make this marvel more "human", more touchable, approachable; they remind me that from where we live, from where we stand we have this amazing stuff above.
Regarding the technical part of the photo, I heard the photographer on tv say, it was with a normal professional camera with a 180 I think. Multiple expositions (26 I think he said) and he has like a motor to compensate the Earth rotation. Then he took a pic of the landscape. No extra lenses. The only thing was the multiple shots as each of them were of 3 mins exposure and then bring them together (I don´t know how). Something like this is what I understood. Sorry, not a very scientific explanation, haha, more or less what I remembered from the interview. Regards!