I tried to take a picture like this, but the moon came out all blurry. I had the focus set to infinity, and the moon was only about 240,000 miles away.
I went to Infinity once, but it was a long time ago, and I came back much too fast - it was all Pink Floyd's fault.... but it was just glorious. You should've been there! I drew a picture of what I saw there and showed it to the gal-pal. She said, "Wow! you really were Out There weren't you?" I replied, "Darling - you don't know the half of it! I could write a book about it, but I'd better not."
Tommy, Ray's right, it's only an issue of finding a tree that's far enough away and yet get the moon behind it. The issue is to get the moon so big, I don't know what lens that is, but it's big.
And apparently getting detail in the moon at the same time as the trees...? But it could have been a composite exposure.
I thought I could get better depth of field using a flash, but it washed out all the surface details, and I couldn't get any phase of the moon but full.
I'm going to buy an extension cable for my flash so I can position it off to one side.
12 comments:
That is an amazing picture. But, it looks so out of proportion. I mean the moon is SO big with respect to the trees. Do you think it's real?
By the way EO, thanks for the pointer to that site. I hadn't seen it before.
It was done with a long zoom as the moon was going behind a distant hillside, I betcha....
I tried to take a picture like this, but the moon came out all blurry. I had the focus set to infinity, and the moon was only about 240,000 miles away.
I have no one to blame but myself.
I went to Infinity once, but it was a long time ago, and I came back much too fast - it was all Pink Floyd's fault.... but it was just glorious. You should've been there!
I drew a picture of what I saw there and showed it to the gal-pal. She said, "Wow! you really were Out There weren't you?" I replied, "Darling - you don't know the half of it! I could write a book about it, but I'd better not."
LOL, guys!
Tommy, Ray's right, it's only an issue of finding a tree that's far enough away and yet get the moon behind it.
The issue is to get the moon so big, I don't know what lens that is, but it's big.
And apparently getting detail in the moon at the same time as the trees...? But it could have been a composite exposure.
(I couldn't find a home page for the Week In Pictures feature (oddly), but now I have at least put in a link to *a* page of them.
MB, that infinity joke is excellent. What an amazingly precise camera you must have.
And think, not even the stars are an infinite distance away, so they are very hard to focus on!
I thought I could get better depth of field using a flash, but it washed out all the surface details, and I couldn't get any phase of the moon but full.
I'm going to buy an extension cable for my flash so I can position it off to one side.
Makes you wonder what the infinity focus setting in cameras is for? For photographing the Big Bang perhaps?
MB, LOL.
Make sure you hire people to guard the cable along the way, for I suspect it needs to be quite long.
That flash, does it use standard batteries?
Nah - it just gets carried out there by a pink furry bunny with a drum.
Speaking 'bout da moon...there's going to be a total lunar eclipse Dec. 20 and Dec. 21st. Hoping for clear skies! :-D
Post a Comment