The Girl and The Moon

[kaihp]

I was biking home slowly (still with camera in my left hand) after shooting deer in the local park and happened to pass by this bench just after sunset where a girl was watching the Supermoon. I stopped the bike to find the right composition and shot 7 shots fairly rapidly. Luck would have that the 300mm was wide enough to get the full bench in the picture.

Both shot handheld at 1/320sec, 300mm, f/2.8, ISO400, with a 5D3.

 

[Click]

Nice pictures. I prefer the first one.

 

[kaihp]

Nice pictures. I prefer the first one.

Thanks Click. I'm a little torn between the pics (different 'feeling' to them), but I am leaning to the first one too

 

[MrFotoFool]

Definitely the first.

 

[NorbR]

Interesting. It's nice to see both pictures, they really give a different vibe. Personally I definitely prefer the second one.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Kai.
Very interesting shots. My thoughts, I don't know the woman, so with that said I prefer the second shot. Having said that the first is good too.

Cheers, Graham.

 

[lion rock]

To each it's own ...
I feel each photo conveys a different sense of "focus" on the subject. If you want to show the person, then no doubt the first photo will be used. A focus of the moon with some background, then, the second. And there is a recognizable figure of a person --- a woman, in the foreground. Just no telling what the big clump is next to the woman. Not bad having both together, giving the viewer a couple of stories.
I like both.
-r

 

[tpatana]

Nice.

First of course.

Other looks too,... hmm... almost like glued on.

 

[JPAZ]

I like the first better. You could, of course, "cheat" (not meant to be derogatory just means more aggressive post processing and not as true as the original) and cut the moon in focus from the second to past into the first after removing the blurry moon form the first. Net effect would be different.

 

[TeT]

I like the first better. You could, of course, "cheat" (not meant to be derogatory just means more aggressive post processing and not as true as the original) and cut the moon in focus from the second to past into the first after removing the blurry moon form the first. Net effect would be different.

+1 was curious what this pic would have looked like at narrower aperture s

do it do it...

BTW: I like #1

 

[kaihp]

I like the first better. You could, of course, "cheat" (not meant to be derogatory just means more aggressive post processing and not as true as the original) and cut the moon in focus from the second to past into the first after removing the blurry moon form the first. Net effect would be different.

+1 was curious what this pic would have looked like at narrower aperture s

do it do it...

BTW: I like #1

Sorry, but I just bare use PS so I don't know how to do it. Since the shots are handheld, I need to align the moons correctly and CS6 is unfriendly enough to me to pass on it.

But I like the idea

Edit: obviously, I found a way to do it. It's quick, it's dirty. But it's there. Tell me where the moon should go

 

[JPAZ]

Ah, you've taken the plunge. Two options now, in my opinion.

1- Move the moon up and to the left so it is just a bit higher than the girl's head but about on thee 1/3 imaginary line from the left edge of the photo. And, consider making the moon bigger like a super tele shot from farther away from the bench. Or,
2- Move the moon a bit higher and crop the shot eliminating the left side of the bench altogether (although the empty sky is a very appealing part of the shot).

Were I home with my computer now, I'd give it try to just demonstrate what I mean. Again, both of the originals have some appeal as they were but with these changes it feels like a better composition (at least to me). Thanks for submitting and trying. Great capture at the moment.

 

[TeT]

I like version 3....

 

[Click]

I like version 3....

+1

 

[MartinDaniel]

I absolutely positively love these - great job!