Re: Amazing astro photos

nethwaller - Original Message - From: "Darren Addy" <pixelsmi...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Amazing astro photos There is a difference between "Photoshop being allowed" and Photoshop being used in a less-than-honest method. On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Darren Addy <p

Re: Amazing astro photos

There is a difference between "Photoshop being allowed" and Photoshop being used in a less-than-honest method. On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Darren Addy wrote: > I came here to also say this. In almost these exact words. > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Paul

Re: Amazing astro photos

Didn't say it WAS done that way, only that it COULD be done that way. With "today's super-low-noise sensors" you could use a low flash power and mask off portions of the Fresnel lens to make the circle of light illuminating the bird small enough to not light the trees. I shoot the scene first

Re: Amazing astro photos

I came here to also say this. In almost these exact words. On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Great pics. But a fork, a spoon and a moon appears to be a photoshop job. > The tree branches are seen in silhouette but the bird is nicely > illuminated. By

Re: Amazing astro photos

John wrote: >You could probably do it with a Better Beamer. > >http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/review/better-beamer-flash-extender-review/ Not without illuminating at least part of the tree. I mean, the Better Beamer narrows down the field illuminated by the flash a lot, but it can't be

Re: Amazing astro photos

If this was a flash job you'd probably spot it by glints of certain portions of the branch underneath the bird. But I don't agree with Paul either. I think this is done by selective dodging. The main reason I think so is that the contrast in the plumage looks unnaturally harsh, as it would be

Re: Amazing astro photos

There are many stunning images, but the PHOTOGRAPHIC quality displayed here is quite low. There are only a couple of them that actually appear to have something within the frame in focus. I wouldn't want to be one of the judges trying to choose winners & losers based on what is displayed on that

Re: Amazing astro photos

You could probably do it with a Better Beamer. http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/review/better-beamer-flash-extender-review/ On 7/27/2016 5:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Great pics. But a fork, a spoon and a moon appears to be a photoshop job. The tree branches are seen in silhouette but the

Re: Amazing astro photos

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Gonz wrote: > > Is the mistake in the caption to "Northern Lights over Jokulsarlon, > > Iceland", where a couple is > > mentioned as looking at the lights and I can see no people in the frame? > I thought it was labeling the "lights" over

Re: Amazing astro photos

t; > John in Brisbane > > > > -Original Message- > From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts > Sent: Thursday, 28 July 2016 04:58 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > Subject: Amazing astro photos > > The photographs on th

RE: Amazing astro photos

al Message- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Thursday, 28 July 2016 04:58 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> Subject: Amazing astro photos The photographs on the short list for this year's Astronomy Photographer of the Year: https://www

Re: Amazing astro photos

Mark Roberts wrote: Larry Colen wrote: Also note that the Perseid meteor shower shot is acknowledged to be a composite of multiple exposures (doesn't say how many). Oops, Perseid, not Pleidies. My bad. By the way, the error I alluded to in the beginning was in the Antarctic aurora

Re: Amazing astro photos

I don't think it could be accomplished through dodging alone. You wouldn't have much color to recapture and you'd create a lot of noise. Perhaps a "replace color" in combination with some detail creation. But my money still says it's a composite. Paul via phone > On Jul 27, 2016, at 6:38 PM,

Re: Amazing astro photos

Yeah, the meteor shower is definitely not one long exposure. The Milky way would not have stayed put like that for 4 hours! On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Larry Colen wrote: > >>Mark Roberts wrote: >>> Paul Stenquist wrote: >>> Great

Re: Amazing astro photos

Larry Colen wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> Great pics. But a fork, a spoon and a moon appears to be a photoshop job. >>> The tree branches are seen in silhouette but the bird is nicely illuminated. >>> By what? Especially against the moon background, which would have

Re: Amazing astro photos

Mark Roberts wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: Great pics. But a fork, a spoon and a moon appears to be a photoshop job. The tree branches are seen in silhouette but the bird is nicely illuminated. By what? Especially against the moon background, which would have required a sunny 16 exposure.

Re: Amazing astro photos

What Paul said, plus, that moon looks to be tipped well to the left compared to the one I've been spooning to. J Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > Great pics. But a fork, a spoon and a moon appears to be a photoshop job. The >

Re: Amazing astro photos

Paul Stenquist wrote: >Great pics. But a fork, a spoon and a moon appears to be a photoshop job. >The tree branches are seen in silhouette but the bird is nicely illuminated. >By what? Especially against the moon background, which would have required >a sunny 16 exposure. Ain't gonna happen.

Re: Amazing astro photos

> On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:58 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > The photographs on the short list for this year's Astronomy > Photographer of the Year: > https://www.theguardian.com/science/gallery/2016/jul/27/astronomy-photographer-of-the-year-2016-shortlist-in-pictures >

Re: Amazing astro photos

Great pics. But a fork, a spoon and a moon appears to be a photoshop job. The tree branches are seen in silhouette but the bird is nicely illuminated. By what? Especially against the moon background, which would have required a sunny 16 exposure. Ain't gonna happen. Paul Paul via phone > On

Re: Amazing astro photos

Stunning pictures! Henk PS: (the other one of course is 2x "will be"" ) Op 2016-07-27 om 22:26 schreef Mark Roberts: Gonz wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: The photographs on the short list for this year's Astronomy Photographer of the

Re: Amazing astro photos

Wonderful shots indeed! Thanks for the link. Jostein Den 27. juli 2016 20.58.08 CEST, skrev Mark Roberts : >The photographs on the short list for this year's Astronomy >Photographer of the Year:

Re: Amazing astro photos

Gonz wrote: >On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Mark Roberts > wrote: >> The photographs on the short list for this year's Astronomy >> Photographer of the Year: >>

Re: Amazing astro photos

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Gonz wrote: > The shadow of Mauna Kea (they misspelled it) is my favorite. I have seen -- and photographed -- the shadow of Mauna Kea (from Haleakala, rather than from Hualalai), but this image is really much more effectuve than mine.

Re: Amazing astro photos

Wow! Those are indeed beautiful and fascinating images.Thanks for the link. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > (Trivia: Find the mistake in the captions on that web page.) > Perhaps

Re: Amazing astro photos

The shadow of Mauna Kea (they misspelled it) is my favorite. On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > The photographs on the short list for this year's Astronomy > Photographer of the Year: >

Amazing astro photos

The photographs on the short list for this year's Astronomy Photographer of the Year: https://www.theguardian.com/science/gallery/2016/jul/27/astronomy-photographer-of-the-year-2016-shortlist-in-pictures (Trivia: Find the mistake in the captions on that web page.) I saw the exhibit of the winners