Half Moon - 3 versions

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,823
814
Germany
... I processed it 3 different ways and am wondering which way people like the best. ...
Definetely #3
To me this is the most natural and realstic one and like I would look through my Newton.

The other two have too much sharpening (#2) or too much contrast boost (#1).
Especially when you look at the edges of the craters and at the terminator.
Hope that helps.

But great work! (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF and AaronT

AaronT

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2013
239
528
Definetely #3
To me this is the most natural and realstic one and like I would look through my Newton.

The other two have too much sharpening (#2) or too much contrast boost (#1).
Especially when you look at the edges of the craters and at the terminator.
Hope that helps.

But great work! (y)
Thanks Maximilian
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,445
392
Davidson, NC
They all look a little over-processed for my taste. Sharpening makes highlights look like white dots. The lens is plenty sharp. I've taken handheld pictures of the moon with mine. I don't have a teleconverter. Great lens and nice shot.
 

AaronT

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2013
239
528
They all look a little over-processed for my taste. Sharpening makes highlights look like white dots. The lens is plenty sharp. I've taken handheld pictures of the moon with mine. I don't have a teleconverter. Great lens and nice shot.
Thanks Stevelee. That's why I posted these photos, to get some input and try to improve my processing. :)
 

AaronT

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2013
239
528
Definetely #3
To me this is the most natural and realstic one and like I would look through my Newton.

The other two have too much sharpening (#2) or too much contrast boost (#1).
Especially when you look at the edges of the craters and at the terminator.
Hope that helps.

But great work! (y)
Hi Maximilian, how does this version look to you? The first is with some minimal processing, most people seem to like more contrast. The second image is the original.

HalfMoon89-100%HzMinProcWeb.jpg


HalfMoonOrig89-100%.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximilian

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
Aug 16, 2012
6,478
5,067
Hi Maximilian, how does this version look to you? The first is with some minimal processing, most people seem to like more contrast. The second image is the original.

View attachment 189578

View attachment 189579
The last is by far the best of the lot for my taste. If most like more contrast, then put me in the minority. The last one is natural.
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
83
14
Wow, handheld, I don't think I would have expected to get such a good shot hand-holding. I guess I should have realized that was possible, since the moon is in direct sunlight, and 1/750 isn't slow. I gotta try this.

I initially preferred version 1, or at least the right-hand side of version 1 where there weren't many highlights. The highlights looked a bit unnatural, though. I like both of the two later ones you posted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AaronT

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,823
814
Germany
Hi Maximilian, how does this version look to you? ...
Thanks for addressing me personally, but I'd say the question is to all who want to contribute :)

... The first is with some minimal processing, most people seem to like more contrast. The second image is the original.
The last is by far the best of the lot for my taste. If most like more contrast, then put me in the minority. The last one is natural.
100% the same opinion.
You'd get the yellowish tone of the first one only if the moon is just above the horizon.
There you normally wouldn't get that much sharpness because of the turbulences in the atmosphere.
That colder color of the second one is more natural if the moon is higher in the sky.
And even if this is still processed (maybe you'll try to play tricks on us ;) ) the highlights at the craters are no so dominant as in your first tries and more natural.
In the first one of this second approach those highlights seem too much surpressed, especially if you look at the terminator and that crater on the upper right.
(edit: if I am not mistaken this is the crater "Plato" )

Have fun.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AaronT

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
Aug 16, 2012
6,478
5,067
So much depends on the atmospherics. I can't get good shots of the moon here in the damp UK because the atmosphere softens them. 5 years ago in Cyprus, on a birding trip, I took this shot using a 7DII + 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII +3xTC (yes overall 6xTC) handheld at 1/80s, maybe resting on a branch. The top one is the straight conversion from RAW with no other processing. The bottom is cooked by turning up the contrast and microcontrast to full heat. You certainly enhance the detail that way. For geographical analysis the bottom is better, but as a photo, give me the top one.
915A5322-DxO_moon_unprocessed.jpg
915A5322-DxO_moon_100_C_µC.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee and AaronT

AaronT

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2013
239
528
So much depends on the atmospherics. I can't get good shots of the moon here in the damp UK because the atmosphere softens them. 5 years ago in Cyprus, on a birding trip, I took this shot using a 7DII + 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII +3xTC (yes overall 6xTC) handheld at 1/80s, maybe resting on a branch. The top one is the straight conversion from RAW with no other processing. The bottom is cooked by turning up the contrast and microcontrast to full heat. You certainly enhance the detail that way. For geographical analysis the bottom is better, but as a photo, give me the top one.View attachment 189580View attachment 189581
Great photo Alan. A "Journalist" would be required to turn in the first photo. It has to be unaltered. An "Artist" would turn in the second photo. He would try to bring out all the detail and colour that is hidden in the original "negative". Ansel Adams would never be satisfied with the first example. I guess it all depends what mood you're in, or what audience you are playing to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valvebounce

AaronT

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2013
239
528
Okay, I'm probably just about at the end of this. I've re-processed this so many times my Wife is starting to call me Moon Boy. The first is the original and the second is my new favourite, which changes by the day, or hour. It's not as processed as some of my initial attempts. I might have over "baked" it a the beginning. I hope everyone is doing well with their "isolating".

HalfMoonOrig89-100%.jpg


HalfMoonAutoStakHzCweb.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximilian

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,445
392
Davidson, NC
Great photo Alan. A "Journalist" would be required to turn in the first photo. It has to be unaltered. An "Artist" would turn in the second photo. He would try to bring out all the detail and colour that is hidden in the original "negative". Ansel Adams would never be satisfied with the first example. I guess it all depends what mood you're in, or what audience you are playing to.
As neither journalist nor artiste, I aim in my processing most of the time to get the picture to convey what the scene look like to me when I took it. Within that I might convey a bit about how I felt, and sounds and smells, so I'm not aiming exactly for objective reality, if there is such a thing. But I want it to look like it looks, unless I am purposely playing around with some special effect. If I shoot a portrait outside, I'm not wanting to do an extreme background blur so people's attention will be drawn to the bokeh. I want the attention on the subject, and the background to be perceived as how things look when you are looking at something up close instead. In reality, that may be a little blurrier than what the eye sees in bright light, but the brain is receiving two displaced blurry images vs. the one I see in a photograph.

When I look at the moon, I don't see little white dots. Maybe there are some, but I don't see them. If I really wanted it to look realistic, I'd make the darkest tones on the lighted portion still to be fairly bright. That's how it looks. In practice I don't go to that extreme, and I don't mind the craters being more pronounced than I can see them, but in moderation. And being larger than the moon looks in the sky is fine. After all, I have seen it through binoculars and telescopes.

When I got the 100–400 mm lens a couple years back, I went out and shot the not-quite-full moon (and therefore not quite round). This is my interpretation retaining a silvery quality that I see in the moon. This is a 100% crop from the 400 mm shot, as I recall. Maybe it would look realistic if printed out on metal.

moon400.jpg
 

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
Aug 16, 2012
6,478
5,067
By good fortune, a very clear night tonight and the moon is high in the sky so I couldn't resist a shot of the moon. I have done no post processing other than matching the brightness of the exposure to be the same as what the real brightness appears to my naked eye. What a difference a clear sky makes.
DSC_8077-DxO_moon_real_1.jpg