Moon , stars, and tress out back

[aesop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, this IS a photographic issue!

 

 

...firstly, apologies to the OP and other forum members for going slightly off-topic.

 

Stefan, I have no idea where you are coming from, but I can assure you that comments such as:

 

"

So the position/size of the Moon relative to the stars is unreal, isn't it? I prefer a more realistic scenery

"

 

followed by a request for:

 

"

Date, time, picture angle (camera/focal lenght) and direction (point of the compass)

"

 

would certainly not be entertained by me, even on a good day. The line of questioning is not helped by the fact that the relevant photographic details can be gleaned from the image itself.

 

Sometimes I just like to take shots and produce images. To be shared and possibly critiqued, in a constructive and helpful way. I do not expect a latter-day version of the Spanish Inquisition to result from posting said images on the LUF.

 

No, Stefan, I don't respond well to snide questioning of any sort. Then again, maybe that's just me.

[Guest nafpie]

The line of questioning is not helped by the fact that the relevant photographic details can be gleaned from the image itself.

 

Well, I am an astrophotographer and I am spacially interested in this kind of images.

 

There is a strict ethic for astrophotographers *not* to fake any heavenly bodies. Otherwise, it should be a part of the caption, so people are aware they look more to a 'painting' rather than a photograph.

 

You can be sure, for example, that no 'digitally composed' photo will ever be released as a 'book cover for a astronomy text or Sky and Telescope magazine' (as one suggested) without mentioning the fact that this is a digital composite.

 

I am not interested in an image with 'Photoshop stars' and a fictitious Moon, because the beauty of the real sky is not increasable in my eyes. However, you need some patience for a good shot to be in the right place at the right time.

 

Feel free to have another opinion.

 

Stefan

[carylwithay]

Thank you Phillip. I have spent enough time on this and that is that. Nafpie, if you have problems with my lovely image, then do not look at it.

Caryl

[Guest nafpie]

Ok, since nobody is able to show me/us at least one real constellation in the image, I think that even the stars in the image are NOT real.

 

I am willing to apologize if I am wrong, of course.

[aesop]

Ok, since nobody is able to show me/us at least one real constellation in the image, I think that even the stars in the image are NOT real.

 

I am willing to apologize if I am wrong, of course.

 

 

...you don't get it, do you, Stefan? This is not an astrophotographers' forum, and as such, we do not necessarily share your ethics vis-a-vis the creation and presentation of images.

 

You need to lighten up and stop trying hard to offend people just for the sake of it. There is a place for you to put on your astrophotographer's helmet and throw yourself around - and it certainly isn't here. We try to enjoy ourselves at the LUF.

 

I hope the noble world of astrophotography isn't quite as you have presented it.

[Guest nafpie]

I hope the noble world of astrophotography isn't quite as you have presented it.

 

http://www.astromeeting.de

[daveleo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

a very nice photo. (photos ?)

 

not quite sure why we are discussing constellations or signs of the zodiak, etc . . . .but i still like the photo.

[carylwithay]

Thank you, Dave, Glad you like it.

Caryl