So called since it appears in October and, due to the increased light, was used by hunters and farmers to operate into the night.
DMC-FZ200. Manual, 1/250 @ f/6.3 ISO 160. 108mm (648mm equivalent). Handheld.
[attachment=6726]
Processed in Lightroom CC.
Regards,
Mike.
Love the detail on the top right, been years since I've shot the moon.
Super Mike, no Astronauts? Ed.
Thanks Guys. Now for part 2. Exif is as above with 1/500 @ f/5.8. Post processing has been increased. Sliders further to the right. Which makes the better shot ?. My preference is for the 2nd, but this is my first ever "Moonshot" and I would love your opinion. Both were as close as I dared to go handheld.
[attachment=6727]
Cheers, Mike.
the second is the better image in opinion.
I always prefer moonshots that are 1/4 or 3/4 shots, seem to get a larger area of crater details, where you can see them in relief better along the edge of the light.
Unsure, really need to see the original. Ed.
Ed is quite right but, as presented here, the first is much better in my view - the second appears to have some odd colour effects and looks over-sharpened. The Moon is a very bright object, so I would suggest that it is being shown rather dark here in both images.
Cheers.
Philip
Thanks for taking the time to comment. The second is an attempt to portray an harsher environment which I see the moon as being.. Highlights and Whites have been reduced in both to assist in bringing out more detail. I still have a preference for the second, but Philip makes some valid observations, and in the end it comes down to Ed's " To each his own "
Cheers,
Mike.