""" Enlarged moon double exposure is, perhaps, the ultimate cliche in photography, but, it seems, I have no shame. """
Yep, but I've seen far worse instances of it... This is a great picture IMHO. Anyone got better results with Photoshop? Patrice Jack Davis a écrit : > A couple of details. Shot about 20 frames of the moon with A*300 f/2.8, > 1.4L T/C and 85B filter. (from my back patio) > Rewound the 20 frames in the LX (great feature), removed the 1.4L T/C > and, next day, headed for a local State Wildlife Refuge. Taken at about > noon. > Underexposed geese by 3 stops (2 by - exposure comp. and one by > shooting 100 ISO Provia at ISO 200). Left the 85B in place. > This small jpg produces some nodes (?) on the edge of the moon. > Something I haven't see before. They do disappear with zoom in. > Would liked to have had the full frame width, but the moon was too near > the center, thus the 8x10 crop. > Enlarged moon double exposure is, perhaps, the ultimate cliche in > photography, but, it seems, I have no shame. > > Jack > > Comments certainly appreciated. > > http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=198 > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________________________ > Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things > done faster. > (http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta) > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
