It stated that it was done in one exposure. Hmm... I guess that doesn't rule out "one exposure - doctored". I'd accept that it was extremely fast film or hypersensitive superconductive-chilled sensor or something. But like Stephan said - it's hard to swallow. It looks a bit unnatural. . -WaV
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Brian Riordan <[email protected]>wrote: > I too am interested in how it was created and if it was photoshopped- not > to discredit any art involved, but to ease my mind. There is no way, at any > film iso speed that my camera can operate at anyhow, that I could that much > light from the Milky Way into my sensor without getting motion streaking. A > confirmation that it was photoshopped, would satiate the itch to buy a > better camera. > > :) > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Joe Ranzau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> At least for me, I just want to know how the hell he did it so I can >> reproduce it. Short of finding the photographer to ask dissecting it is >> probably the next step. >> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Nancy Weaver <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It seems so sad to me that such a drop dead gorgeous photo should be >>> dissected in terms of how it was taken. Is anyone just enjoying it? >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Visit our website: http://texascavers.com >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >> >
