APOD: Supermoon Total Lunar Eclipse and... (2015 Sep 29)

[BMAONE23]

V

It is a pain that in a place like this under the name NASA are selected absolutely false images designed with the sole intention of using the impact of lying to get attention of impressionable unwary. Here is an example of a REAL image obtained in the minute of totality from 140 miles N-NW of Ibiza.

https://twitter.com/TeslaWeather/status ... 08?lang=es

How exactly is this image "FALSE"??
I don't see much difference between your "REAL" image and the alleged "FALSE" image in the APOD other than your image is less zoomed in on the moon and is a single image of a single point in time while the APOD is a composite of 19 images covering the time span of the eclipse and displaying it's progression through time in a single image. They have just been composited into a single time progressive image with the final background including the lightning being either the first or last image in the series.

Composites belong on spacecraft. Real photos belong in the real world. Is apod part of the real world or not?

APOD is part of the real world and so is this image. Composite images are real images of phenomenon as they occur through time.
Many composites exist for many reasons. All composites are either stitched mosaics covering areas larger than the original imager system allows to create a large panorama, or stacked composites which allow for gathering more light without having the shutter open long enough to create Blur or Star Trails.

Why do you consider this image to be "un-real" ?

[ChrisKotsiopoulos]

V

It is a pain that in a place like this under the name NASA are selected absolutely false images designed with the sole intention of using the impact of lying to get attention of impressionable unwary. Here is an example of a REAL image obtained in the minute of totality from 140 miles N-NW of Ibiza.

https://twitter.com/TeslaWeather/status ... 08?lang=es

How exactly is this image "FALSE"??
I don't see much difference between your "REAL" image and the alleged "FALSE" image in the APOD other than your image is less zoomed in on the moon and is a single image of a single point in time while the APOD is a composite of 19 images covering the time span of the eclipse and displaying it's progression through time in a single image. They have just been composited into a single time progressive image with the final background including the lightning being either the first or last image in the series.

Composites belong on spacecraft. Real photos belong in the real world. Is apod part of the real world or not?

APOD is part of the real world and so is this image. Composite images are real images of phenomenon as they occur through time.
Many composites exist for many reasons. All composites are either stitched mosaics covering areas larger than the original imager system allows to create a large panorama, or stacked composites which allow for gathering more light without having the shutter open long enough to create Blur or Star Trails.

Why do you consider this image to be "un-real" ?

Hello BMAONE23.
My earlier explanation is not good enough for you?
Let's summarize. The goods:
1) I personally like the image as well.
2) The Moon is real.
3) The landscape and the lightning are real.

The not so goods:
1) You can see the stars in front of the Moon in some cases. This is an indication that the Moon it is just copied and pasted in this position.
2) The Moon is too low. The moon is real but it's position is false.
3) The distance between the Moon's phases is also not indicative of the reality because if it was, the sequence wouldn't fit into this nice frame.

Consider this similar example. You turn the camera north and shoot some startrails. Then you turn your camera south and you shoot the Moon. Then you go to photoshop, copy the Moon and paste it in the centre of the startrails in front of Polaris.
The Moon is real. The startrails are real, but honestly, do you believe that this would be a real astrophoto?
If the answer is yes, I respect your opinion but I disagree.

[Chris Peterson]

The not so goods:
1) You can see the stars in front of the Moon in some cases. This is an indication that the Moon it is just copied and pasted in this position.
2) The Moon is too low. The moon is real but it's position is false.
3) The distance between the Moon's phases is also not indicative of the reality because if it was, the sequence wouldn't fit into this nice frame.

I agree that (2) and (3) are problematic. They misrepresent scales, and for that reason I would not have chosen this as an APOD. I don't think (1) is necessarily a problem. This is something that is normal in many composites, not the result of any copy/paste operation, but simply because layers are commonly combined by letting the lightest pixels float to the top, and that can result in ghost stars.

Edit: FWIW, the starfield is in Pegasus (which is reasonable for the shot), but the pixel scale of the stars means the Moon as shown is 2° across, or about four times its actual size.

[chelle]

The moon in this composite, before and after the eclipse portion of the night, appears to be going through a bizarre monthly cycle. Is this due to clouds passing in front of the moon that were then removed? I think that might be contributing to the "fake" look of this image. From here in the northeast US, the moon was indeed larger than usual in appearance early in the night (8:00), but by 10:00, the size appeared completely normal.

[mtbdudex]

I got into a debate on EarthSky facebook site https://www.facebook.com/EarthSky of this image:


It's also on their webpage:
http://earthsky.org/todays-image/best-p ... ign=buffer

from this person facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/miketaylorphot ... 474046461/

I posted my thoughts of it in the EarthSky site:
-beautiful
-moving emotionally
-artwork, not astrophotography
-Moon way to large
-not truly representing the moon going thru the eclipse phases in timeline correctly
-moon does not arc like that while moving thru the sky
-shadow angle of shed not match the moon position

I was thrashed upon by people, saying why would I "dis" a fellow photographer, and much worse.
a few agreed with me, I finally deleted my 2 comments and the replies it generated also .... some people I could not believe their attacks on me ...

[geckzilla]

Sometimes people attack the photographer or APOD itself, accusing either of trying to get away with some kind of nefarious plan to increase their popularity or whatever. Criticize the technique, tell us why you think it's wrong, nit pick it all you'd like, but please don't insult or demean anyone in the process.

[BillBixby]

Sure seemed like the woodwork was leaking trolls filled with wrath because the APOD was not exactly to there liking. I loved it. Some points were made re why they thought the picture was incorrect and I thank them for pointing out what was inaccurate. But the picture was chosen for both the data presented and the aesthetics. Those of you that posted other pictures showing corrections, thank you, too. To those who posted just mean spirit, your effort needs more work as you just came across as trolls looking to start chains of response of like kind. Please, work to keep discussions positive.

I get to the Starship Asterisk* page by clicking on the Discuss link, not the Disgust link.

Bill

[old dude]

, it is clear that it has come to mean that the moon is close to perigee and is somewhat larger in the sky

No, it doesn't. Find ten people around you who don't quite know what an 'eyepiece' is, and ask them what they think 'supermoon' means. You'll get 10 different guesses, none of them even borderline correct. That's precisely because 'supermoon' is a meaningless soundbite that is there to attract attention to the speaker -- and nothing more. Sadly, as someone said above, Facebook and its aggresive apologists have prevailed.

[Nitpicker]

, it is clear that it has come to mean that the moon is close to perigee and is somewhat larger in the sky

No, it doesn't. Find ten people around you who don't quite know what an 'eyepiece' is, and ask them what they think 'supermoon' means. You'll get 10 different guesses, none of them even borderline correct. That's precisely because 'supermoon' is a meaningless soundbite that is there to attract attention to the speaker -- and nothing more. Sadly, as someone said above, Facebook and its aggresive apologists have prevailed.

I'm pretty sure that the definitions of words are not based on the opinions of ten people chosen at random. I wonder how ten random people would define the word "perigee" (or even "perigee-syzygy")?

Allow me to be concise: a supermoon is a full moon near its perigee. The usage of the prefix "super" is not at all incorrect and has real meaning, despite the fact that a supermoon is only marginally bigger and brighter than any other full moon.

What is interesting about a supermoon lunar eclipse is that the umbral shadow is larger relative to the moon, than when the moon is further away and smaller. Thanks to whoever pointed that out earlier (I think it was neufer).

[geckzilla]

They would most likely all have different specific answers, not knowing quite what perigee is or how to be concise in their wording, but the core meaning of their answers would probably be pretty similar. It means a bigger moon. I've got a few non-astro friends hanging around on Facebook and the supermoon excites them and gets them out to look at this big, beautiful moon at perigee. I've even tried telling them you know, it's only such and such percent different. It's not really that much bigger. They insist that it really is and they love to look at it. Super is very easy for the lay person to get and that is probably why it has come into such widespread use.

[Chris Peterson]

They would most likely all have different specific answers, not knowing quite what perigee is or how to be concise in their wording, but the core meaning of their answers would probably be pretty similar. It means a bigger moon. I've got a few non-astro friends hanging around on Facebook and the supermoon excites them and gets them out to look at this big, beautiful moon at perigee. I've even tried telling them you know, it's only such and such percent different. It's not really that much bigger. They insist that it really is and they love to look at it. Super is very easy for the lay person to get and that is probably why it has come into such widespread use.

I was with a group of professional astronomers yesterday, and we were sharing images. We called it a lunar perigee eclipse, but none of us had any problem with "supermoon" since the word served to engage more people and get them interested in observing it, which we all agreed was more important than disparaging a term which technically shouldn't be required.

[Cousin Ricky]

They would most likely all have different specific answers, not knowing quite what perigee is or how to be concise in their wording, but the core meaning of their answers would probably be pretty similar. It means a bigger moon. I've got a few non-astro friends hanging around on Facebook and the supermoon excites them and gets them out to look at this big, beautiful moon at perigee. I've even tried telling them you know, it's only such and such percent different. It's not really that much bigger. They insist that it really is and they love to look at it. Super is very easy for the lay person to get and that is probably why it has come into such widespread use.

I was with a group of professional astronomers yesterday, and we were sharing images. We called it a lunar perigee eclipse, but none of us had any problem with "supermoon" since the word served to engage more people and get them interested in observing it, which we all agreed was more important than disparaging a term which technically shouldn't be required.

This amateur concurs.

[old dude]

They would most likely all have different specific answers, not knowing quite what perigee is or how to be concise in their wording

Precisely. They don't know what they're looking at, but it is 'super'. Really educational.

but none of us had any problem with "supermoon" since the word served to engage more people

Exactly. What matters today is entertainment value and popularity, not genuine interest and knowledge. I wonder what will it be next time, when 'super' gets stale.

[Chris Peterson]

but none of us had any problem with "supermoon" since the word served to engage more people

Exactly. What matters today is entertainment value and popularity, not genuine interest and knowledge. I wonder what will it be next time, when 'super' gets stale.

Genuine interest and knowledge often begin with entertaining engagement.

[geckzilla]

They would most likely all have different specific answers, not knowing quite what perigee is or how to be concise in their wording

Precisely. They don't know what they're looking at, but it is 'super'. Really educational.

They're doing way better than you, anyway.

[old dude]

They're doing way better than you, anyway.

Okay, okay, with this strong argument of yours all is obvious, you win, I lose.

[geckzilla]

They're doing way better than you, anyway.

Okay, okay, with this strong argument of yours all is obvious, you win, I lose.

Yes, well, regarding the moon they couldn't be happier. You are, unfortunately, sounding quite bitter. It'd be better if you were happy.

[Al_manac]

And the path of the Moon in the picture does not even follow the ecliptic, being some 30 degrees at an angle.

When I create composites, I strive to achieve "what I would have seen if I was there":
1) To depict in a single frame an event over the course of time
2) To create dynamic range that is similar to the eye

The eye easily handles a full Moon at 1/600sec and a city nightscape that requires a 1.5sec exposure. Compositing them may be a lie scientifically, but I'm trying to communicate what the eye *can* see.

This image went over that line of being representative.

Colours are a tricky subject. At night when you wake up in your bedroom, you cannot see colour, but it is there - therefore one could take the position that your eyes do not tell the truth. But green grass in a wide angle picture of the Milky Way? It is green, but the picture screams "wrong!" in my head - it really does not convey the moment at all.

Speaking of exposures, there is no way you could see that many stars in the sky with the foreground lit up like that. Just like in the Apollo Moon shots there are no stars in the sky! The exposure is too short. Yet here again, with the eyes you can see the Milky Way and the features on a totally eclipsed Moon - you just can't take a picture of that because the Moon is still way too bright and will overexpose.

The bottom line? Don't misrepresent either reality or what the eye sees. That was art, not astronomy.