# Half Moon - 3 versions



## AaronT (Apr 2, 2020)

Hello Everyone, I got a shot of the moon last night. I processed it 3 different ways and am wondering which way people like the best. BTW, 5DsR, 100-400L, 1.4TC, ISO 800, 1/750, F9.5, hand held.


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 2, 2020)

AaronT said:


> Hello Everyone, I got a shot of the moon last night. I processed it 3 different ways and am wondering which way people like the best. BTW, 5DsR, 100-400L, 1.4TC, ISO 800, 1/750, F9.5, hand held.
> 
> View attachment 189556
> 
> ...


Number 2, for me.
And, once again, a proof that the 100-400 is a great lens!


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 2, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Number 2, for me.
> And, once again, a proof that the 100-400 is a great lens!


#3 for me, but depends somewhat on context if composite with another image.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 2, 2020)

AaronT said:


> ... I processed it 3 different ways and am wondering which way people like the best. ...


Definetely #3
To me this is the most natural and realstic one and like I would look through my Newton.

The other two have too much sharpening (#2) or too much contrast boost (#1).
Especially when you look at the edges of the craters and at the terminator.
Hope that helps.

But great work!


----------



## AaronT (Apr 2, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Number 2, for me.
> And, once again, a proof that the 100-400 is a great lens!


Yep, I really like my 100-400L. It is my most used lens.


----------



## Click (Apr 2, 2020)

Another vote for #3.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 2, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Definetely #3
> To me this is the most natural and realstic one and like I would look through my Newton.
> 
> The other two have too much sharpening (#2) or too much contrast boost (#1).
> ...


Thanks Maximilian


----------



## stevelee (Apr 3, 2020)

They all look a little over-processed for my taste. Sharpening makes highlights look like white dots. The lens is plenty sharp. I've taken handheld pictures of the moon with mine. I don't have a teleconverter. Great lens and nice shot.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 3, 2020)

stevelee said:


> They all look a little over-processed for my taste. Sharpening makes highlights look like white dots. The lens is plenty sharp. I've taken handheld pictures of the moon with mine. I don't have a teleconverter. Great lens and nice shot.


Thanks Stevelee. That's why I posted these photos, to get some input and try to improve my processing.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 3, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Definetely #3
> To me this is the most natural and realstic one and like I would look through my Newton.
> 
> The other two have too much sharpening (#2) or too much contrast boost (#1).
> ...


Hi Maximilian, how does this version look to you? The first is with some minimal processing, most people seem to like more contrast. The second image is the original.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 3, 2020)

AaronT said:


> Hi Maximilian, how does this version look to you? The first is with some minimal processing, most people seem to like more contrast. The second image is the original.
> 
> View attachment 189578
> 
> ...


The last is by far the best of the lot for my taste. If most like more contrast, then put me in the minority. The last one is natural.


----------



## gruhl28 (Apr 3, 2020)

Wow, handheld, I don't think I would have expected to get such a good shot hand-holding. I guess I should have realized that was possible, since the moon is in direct sunlight, and 1/750 isn't slow. I gotta try this. 

I initially preferred version 1, or at least the right-hand side of version 1 where there weren't many highlights. The highlights looked a bit unnatural, though. I like both of the two later ones you posted.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 3, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The last is by far the best of the lot for my taste. If most like more contrast, then put me in the minority. The last one is natural.


Thanks Alan. The last is most realistic for sure.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 3, 2020)

AaronT said:


> Hi Maximilian, how does this version look to you? ...


Thanks for addressing me personally, but I'd say the question is to all who want to contribute 



AlanF said:


> > ... The first is with some minimal processing, most people seem to like more contrast. The second image is the original.
> 
> 
> The last is by far the best of the lot for my taste. If most like more contrast, then put me in the minority. The last one is natural.


100% the same opinion.
You'd get the yellowish tone of the first one only if the moon is just above the horizon.
There you normally wouldn't get that much sharpness because of the turbulences in the atmosphere.
That colder color of the second one is more natural if the moon is higher in the sky.
And even if this is still processed (maybe you'll try to play tricks on us  ) the highlights at the craters are no so dominant as in your first tries and more natural.
In the first one of this second approach those highlights seem too much surpressed, especially if you look at the terminator and that crater on the upper right.
(_edit: if I am not mistaken this is the crater "Plato" _)

Have fun.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 3, 2020)

So much depends on the atmospherics. I can't get good shots of the moon here in the damp UK because the atmosphere softens them. 5 years ago in Cyprus, on a birding trip, I took this shot using a 7DII + 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII +3xTC (yes overall 6xTC) handheld at 1/80s, maybe resting on a branch. The top one is the straight conversion from RAW with no other processing. The bottom is cooked by turning up the contrast and microcontrast to full heat. You certainly enhance the detail that way. For geographical analysis the bottom is better, but as a photo, give me the top one.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 3, 2020)

AlanF said:


> So much depends on the atmospherics. I can't get good shots of the moon here in the damp UK because the atmosphere softens them. 5 years ago in Cyprus, on a birding trip, I took this shot using a 7DII + 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII +3xTC (yes overall 6xTC) handheld at 1/80s, maybe resting on a branch. The top one is the straight conversion from RAW with no other processing. The bottom is cooked by turning up the contrast and microcontrast to full heat. You certainly enhance the detail that way. For geographical analysis the bottom is better, but as a photo, give me the top one.
> 
> View attachment 189580
> View attachment 189581


Great photo Alan. A "Journalist" would be required to turn in the first photo. It has to be unaltered. An "Artist" would turn in the second photo. He would try to bring out all the detail and colour that is hidden in the original "negative". Ansel Adams would never be satisfied with the first example. I guess it all depends what mood you're in, or what audience you are playing to.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 4, 2020)

Okay, I'm probably just about at the end of this. I've re-processed this so many times my Wife is starting to call me Moon Boy. The first is the original and the second is my new favourite, which changes by the day, or hour. It's not as processed as some of my initial attempts. I might have over "baked" it a the beginning. I hope everyone is doing well with their "isolating".


----------



## stevelee (Apr 4, 2020)

AaronT said:


> Great photo Alan. A "Journalist" would be required to turn in the first photo. It has to be unaltered. An "Artist" would turn in the second photo. He would try to bring out all the detail and colour that is hidden in the original "negative". Ansel Adams would never be satisfied with the first example. I guess it all depends what mood you're in, or what audience you are playing to.


As neither journalist nor artiste, I aim in my processing most of the time to get the picture to convey what the scene look like to me when I took it. Within that I might convey a bit about how I felt, and sounds and smells, so I'm not aiming exactly for objective reality, if there is such a thing. But I want it to look like it looks, unless I am purposely playing around with some special effect. If I shoot a portrait outside, I'm not wanting to do an extreme background blur so people's attention will be drawn to the bokeh. I want the attention on the subject, and the background to be perceived as how things look when you are looking at something up close instead. In reality, that may be a little blurrier than what the eye sees in bright light, but the brain is receiving two displaced blurry images vs. the one I see in a photograph.

When I look at the moon, I don't see little white dots. Maybe there are some, but I don't see them. If I really wanted it to look realistic, I'd make the darkest tones on the lighted portion still to be fairly bright. That's how it looks. In practice I don't go to that extreme, and I don't mind the craters being more pronounced than I can see them, but in moderation. And being larger than the moon looks in the sky is fine. After all, I have seen it through binoculars and telescopes.

When I got the 100–400 mm lens a couple years back, I went out and shot the not-quite-full moon (and therefore not quite round). This is my interpretation retaining a silvery quality that I see in the moon. This is a 100% crop from the 400 mm shot, as I recall. Maybe it would look realistic if printed out on metal.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 4, 2020)

By good fortune, a very clear night tonight and the moon is high in the sky so I couldn't resist a shot of the moon. I have done no post processing other than matching the brightness of the exposure to be the same as what the real brightness appears to my naked eye. What a difference a clear sky makes.


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 4, 2020)

Hi Alan. 
Very nice shot, as are some of the others, I tend to agree with most of the comments about over processing.

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 5, 2020)

And just for grins, this is what Mars looked like that night through the 400 mm lens. It was closer than usual. Again, a 100% crop.


----------



## AlanF (Apr 5, 2020)

stevelee said:


> And just for grins, this is what Mars looked like that night through the 400 mm lens. It was closer than usual. Again, a 100% crop.
> 
> View attachment 189589


The newspapers claim that the decrease in pollution is a boon for astronomy. And that is really a neat one of the red planet. For the fun of it, I gave the vanilla shot of the moon a dose of DxO's Clearviewplus. It really does bring out a huge amount of detail.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 5, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The newspapers claim that the decrease in pollution is a boon for astronomy. And that is really a neat one of the red planet. For the fun of it, I gave the vanilla shot of the moon a dose of DxO's Clearviewplus. It really does bring out a huge amount of detail.
> View attachment 189604


Some might call it over processed but I like that version. BTW, what lens did you use?


----------



## stevelee (Apr 5, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The newspapers claim that the decrease in pollution is a boon for astronomy. And that is really a neat one of the red planet. For the fun of it, I gave the vanilla shot of the moon a dose of DxO's Clearviewplus. It really does bring out a huge amount of detail.



That is lovely, and doesn't seem to have as many artifacts as your earlier processed versions. I like the detail.

I live in a metropolitan area north of a good-sized city. So light pollution is more of a factor than anything else. I have never bothered to get my telescope out since I've lived here. We certainly couldn't see any deep sky objects. The moon and Mars were both to my south, of course, toward the city, but bright enough for that not to matter, and high enough in the sky to be above the crud near the horizon.

I did take some pictures of the moon and of Jupiter through my telescope back when I lived in the country south of town, and I was still shooting film. The telescope itself is OK, but the clock drive is probably not very accurate, and the angle is hit-or-miss, and I really couldn't see through the camera well enough to focus at night. I would set it up during the day and focus on something far away. If I lived in a less light-polluted area, I would be tempted to buy a new telescope with all the computer aiming and tracking controls. But it is too easy just to go look though others' telescopes on viewing nights.

Given all those limitations, my pictures of Jupiter are at least recognizable. I could see four of its moons through the telescope, but none of them showed up on the slide. The moon pictures are not as good as what I get handheld at 400 mm.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 6, 2020)

AaronT said:


> ... I've re-processed this so many times my Wife is starting to call me Moon Boy. The first is the original and the second is my new favourite, which changes by the day, or hour. ...


I like both. No real favorite.


----------



## angrydog (Apr 6, 2020)

Here is a cropped JPEG SOC I took last week. EOS R, Sigma 150-600 & 1.4 TC, 840mm, 1/50 sec. f/11 ISO 100


----------



## AaronT (Apr 6, 2020)

angrydog said:


> View attachment 189635
> 
> 
> Here is a cropped JPEG SOC I took last week. EOS R, Sigma 150-600 & 1.4 TC, 840mm, 1/50 sec. f/11 ISO 100


Great photo angrydog!


----------

