Yep, howling at the moon again. This is an in-camera double exposure shot with fuji reala 100 The placement and exposure had come out pretty much as I had hoped. . . .but what about this? your thoughts.
Thanks

Gad I wish I could do that!! I have got to pick up my film camera and give that a whack. Striking image Gary, allow me to howl with you! AWooooo!

Gary,

I've enjoyed looking at these moon over, etc photos...they're really wonderful.
In this one, the lighting and the reflection of the structure is just amazing.
The problem for me though with this is that there's something about the moon itself that doesn't sit right for me. I don't know if it's the placement in the picture or if it's that the moon and sky is muted and the rest of the photo has the vibrant glow that it does...but it just doesn't do it for me. It feels too artificial the way it is.
Emily

Another gorgeous shot Gary. The clarity of that structure is simply stunning. I love how the right side of it is perfectly lit up. Every thing is exposed just right in this scene. Reflections are great.

The only thing though, in the reflection right below the lens flare a black line appears in it. It looks kinda wierd on my screen.

Right there.
http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/1461/there5gl.jpg

Wonderful. (applause)

CLKunst. . .yes, give it a go. It really is not difficult. But at night is the best times for these double exposures because the black of the night does not record anything on the film so the sky leaves the first exposure completely intact and only exposes the moon where you place it. If one were to try this in the day, the lighted sky would record over the previous exposure and it would be an impressionistic form at best. Thanks for the Howl . . .

Emily . . .thanks for your thoughts on it. Your right about the moon looking placed. . .I guess theres no getting around that. I appreciate your comments, thanks

Liban. . .You know, i noticed that after I posted it and thought how could that happen, I did not do any editing on this. Then it occured to me. I had increased the canvas size to add the border and selected the white area ( Canvas color) with the magic wand brush to select it and fill with black. The wand selection creeped up the reflection as it is white and when I filled it with black, some black ran up the reflection. I since fixed it and replaced the image Glad you pointed it out. Thanks for the comments

Chunk . . . .I'm honored by your applause. . .thanks
Chunk

Gary,

I agree with the others, that your series of Moon over pictures are great. I like pictures that combine nature's beauty with something man made. The moon in this shot makes you look a little closer at the bridge when it may have otherwise been overlooked. You've inspired me to try some double exposure shots.

Thanks,
Paul

Yep, howling at the moon again. This is an in-camera double exposure shot with fuji reala 100 The placement and exposure had come out pretty much as I had hoped. . . .but what about this? your thoughts.
Thanks

Gary, I like this! Was this shot with your Tamron 28mm-75mm zoom? The flare is very well controled, I like the perfect halo arround one of the light. The composition is well balanced too.

The only "issue" that I can see here is that the moon seems to be too dim when compared with the rest of the picture. I am thinking that it would possibly look more realistic if it was a bit brighter.

regards

Seb

Gary, I like this! Was this shot with your Tamron 28mm-75mm zoom? The flare is very well controled, I like the perfect halo arround one of the light. The composition is well balanced too.

The only "issue" that I can see here is that the moon seems to be too dim when compared with the rest of the picture. I am thinking that it would possibly look more realistic if it was a bit brighter.

regards

Seb


Paul, interesting thoughts . . .and surely give the DE a shot.
Seb, glad you liked this. I played with another version in which I added a slight diffused lighting to enable the moon to better blend and makes it a bit brighter as well. What do you think of this version compared to the original?
Thanks
btw, Seb This scene was done entirely with my Sigma 170-500mm I shot the structure at about 400mm at 8.0 and then the moon at the full 500mm at about 8.0 as well. I find this to be a very sharp lens. It is not very contrasty, and not very fast ( 5 - 6.3) but packs alot of versatility for the buck. Got it on Ebay for about 325.00.

Gary,

This may be the monitor I'm using this morning, my work laptop but in the second picture the structure looks like a plastic model, but the moon looks much better.

Regardless of that the photo looks terrific.

I think if you register my opinion as outstanding on all your photos unless I comment :-)

I missed a wonderful looking moon this morning on the way to work, Bah Humbug :-(

Roger

Liban. . .You know, i noticed that after I posted it and thought how could that happen, I did not do any editing on this. Then it occured to me. I had increased the canvas size to add the border and selected the white area ( Canvas color) with the magic wand brush to select it and fill with black. The wand selection creeped up the reflection as it is white and when I filled it with black, some black ran up the reflection. I since fixed it and replaced the image Glad you pointed it out. Thanks for the comments

No worries man. That's what I'm here for.

All you gotta do to fix that Gary is double click the layer before you do the canvas size.

If the extension of the file is a certain colour (probably the background in your palette) then that means your layer is probably a background layer.

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/2157/background9hr.jpg

Once you double click, you'll get a little dialogue box just hit ok unless you wanna rename the layer. And that's it. :D
You're layer should look like this.
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/6918/layer08nc.jpg


Then after that when you do your canvas size change whatever area is extended beyond your original canvas will be blank. So if you select it you'll never select any part of your image since none of your image is blank.

P.S. I like your second moon better than the first. Also a bit of that black crept in again when you changed your canvas size to add that border. But that won't happen again right ;)

No worries man. That's what I'm here for.

All you gotta do to fix that Gary is double click the layer before you do the canvas size.

If the extension of the file is a certain colour (probably the background in your palette) then that means your layer is probably a background layer.

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/2157/background9hr.jpg

Once you double click, you'll get a little dialogue box just hit ok unless you wanna rename the layer. And that's it. :D
You're layer should look like this.
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/6918/layer08nc.jpg


Then after that when you do your canvas size change whatever area is extended beyond your original canvas will be blank. So if you select it you'll never select any part of your image since none of your image is blank.

P.S. I like your second moon better than the first. Also a bit of that black crept in again when you changed your canvas size to add that border. But that won't happen again right ;)


Roger. . . thanks for the words. Not sure why the second version structure would look different except maybe in relation to the moon now.

Liban. . .I tried your technique for making the border and it is very good. I, again, made the correction to it using your method and find it works very well. thanks for the heads up on the process.

Paul, interesting thoughts . . .and surely give the DE a shot.
Seb, glad you liked this. I played with another version in which I added a slight diffused lighting to enable the moon to better blend and makes it a bit brighter as well. What do you think of this version compared to the original?
Thanks
btw, Seb This scene was done entirely with my Sigma 170-500mm I shot the structure at about 400mm at 8.0 and then the moon at the full 500mm at about 8.0 as well. I find this to be a very sharp lens. It is not very contrasty, and not very fast ( 5 - 6.3) but packs alot of versatility for the buck. Got it on Ebay for about 325.00.

Gary, That second version looks very good to me.The moon is just right in this one as I see it.

Seb

Roger. . . thanks for the words. Not sure why the second version structure would look different except maybe in relation to the moon now.


Gary,

Looks fine on the home monitor and the second shot is much better - must be the display on the laptop, thinking about it its much darker than the one I have at home.

Roger

Hello Gary
The moon does look planted but moon or no moon, this image is great because the full metal/meccano effect of the bridge and the mercury-like reflections on the water combine to create the all steel effect that I think you were after.
Tom

Yep, howling at the moon again. This is an in-camera double exposure shot with fuji reala 100 The placement and exposure had come out pretty much as I had hoped. . . .but what about this? your thoughts.
Thanks

Nice. Seems very "sellable." What a good job on the exposure and the tones.

Hi Gary,

Just wanted to chime in... Beautiful photo. The lighting is very dramatic. Thanks for sharing...
Tim

I like this just the way it is, giving the moon a subtle role in the pic against the subject bridge. I think that some of the oddity of it is that the moon is on the opposite side of the bight part of the bridge( It may be just as bright on the other side, but we can't see.), and that the bridge is brighter than the moon. Burning the bridge and or dodging the moon, you've prolly allready thought about.
My only real crit is the white signboards or whatever at the bottom of the bridge. Just white shapes with little detail, a little distracting from a
Great Shot!
I like it a lot but I think you can improve upon it.
Mark.