This is certainly more than just a double exposure. (Obviously it can't be a single exposure since the moon is so much brighter than the stars and the shaded part of the moon is never darker than the sky beside it). It is clearly a composite of at least two separate images (with different composition, not just different exposure). This scene cannot exist.
Let's review the problems with it compiled from various people's comments.
- The moon is in front of the clouds in the background.
- The shadowed part of the moon must be opposite of the sun.
- A full moon is always in the opposite part of the sky the sun, not in nearly the same direction.
- The orientation of the moon is wrong. (It is rotated relative to how it would appear in reality.)
The moon was shot in a different part of the sky and then pasted into this image.
Those that think it is a single exposure - keep it real. That is curtainly not. Totally agree with the above. I have more to add:
-dark side should be the same colour of the sky or slightly lighter;
-depth of field issues regarding taking of a photo of the moon - sorry can't get tree and moon in focus at the same time at 1200+mm focal length at the scale of the tree. I think someone has already pointed this out.
-the moon has been taken at 1/500s (ISO200) at probably the native focal length of a reflector (not refractor) telescope at F11 (Celestron C14 or equivalent Meade). Larger the diameter, the less effect atmospheric abberations have. The moon shot is probably a composite of four images. Stars don't show at these short shutter speeds - only Jupiter, Venus, Sirius, Mars, ect. Not 8 magitude stars as depicted here.
-If that part of the sky is that bright, why are the rocks/tree so dark. Late gibbous phase with the lighting angle would implicate a strong twilight with the sun less than 5deg below the horizon - no stars at that point.
Hey, we can go til the cows come home. This is a dead set composite. Great work still as you can expect from Peter Lik. Love his wide format film work too!