Charlie, I don't replace skies so I don't fudge the moon. If we shoot a wide angle scene we don't fix try to reverse the focal length back to 50mm(on a 35mm sensor) the way our eye saw it do we? I guess there is fudging that you can get away with and there is the obvious but it really just depends on who is holding the mouse. If they think it's ethical or don't care about it being somewhat of a real moment in time opposed to what was imagined, it just contibrutes to the whole problem of why digital photography isn't taken seriously.
I'm actually against digital manipulations. Perhaps I didn't express myself well- As I was enjoying your photograph it occurred to me that a wide angle shot that includes the moon is intrinsically distorted, with the moon getting smaller and smaller as the coverage gets wider and wider. If the intention of the photographer IS distortion- that's fine. But if a wide angle was used to incorporate more of a beautiful scene, is a smaller-than-real moon desireable?
I don't know- I meant only to raise the question.
Charlie
Sigh - I was loving the really nice image and the rarity of the event of getting all of the elements to line up for this. And then I scrolled down to the second version. My brain hurts now
Tim ONeill wrote:
Looks like the salt polygons are trashed again for the next few years. I'll be giving Badwater a pass next month. Super shot Steve.
There are some super pristine polygons (brand new salt) about a mile to the Northwest of the parking area. Super photogenic stuff. While I was there, they were wet, dry, then wet again. I was there for 3 days of rain.
