Mark Metternich wrote:
BTW, I went to 4 of Peters galleries yesterday and took a hard look at the prints (looks way better in print than the web version). I admit I am skeptical about the image and I have not read any of the arguments here about it (and I really don\'t care what Peter does). I can say it does look authentic in print with the exception that in my mind it has to be a blend for dynamic range. The reason I say that is because the moon notoriously blows out at shutter-speeds that are not real quick. Some of the stars in the image have indication of movement (I\'m roughly guessing 20-30 second shutter) and I can\'t see the moon not blowing out in that case. As far as him zooming up to get this shot, I\'m not sure, but I won\'t rule it out. Lastly, the print looks to me (with a trained eye) as if it could be legitimate. Having said that, I do know that his images are not all legit.
Mark --
At least from the web version, there\'s a very clear band of color on the horizon (whether clouds or an undetermined \"glow\"), and the moon is in front of that band, which is a physical impossibility.
Also, the dark crescent of the moon is purely aligned on the right side relative to the horizon, which, I believe, would only be visible at the North or South Pole. Any shot taken in Utah would have the dark portion of the moon stretching along the right-top corner, not the right side. (Other people who know astronomy better than I also point out that the moon face is oriented incorrectly for the shooting location, which I guess is another way of confirming the same thing.)
I really see no way this isn\'t a composite, and doubt that any difference between the print and web versions could change that perception.
Feb 07, 2012 at 02:27 AM
Previous versions of Raven Falls's message #10318151 « Peter Lik Comedy image »
