Critique Style Requested: Standard
The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
I was not going to post this photo as it is just another crescent photo, and I was not sure whether to post it here in this category or in the landscape category, but there was no land in the photo. This was photographed last night, as it is the first-day crescent, and when I finished it I just saved it away. But this morning, the simplicity of these moon photos is one of the aspects that make them so alluring.
Specific Feedback
Are these crescent photos too simple?
Any other feedback is appreciated.
Technical Details
Nikon D850, Nikon 400mm f/5.6 MF, at f8, 1/13 sec at ISO 100.
Processed in ACR and PS CC
1 Like
Wow!! They are awesome because they are so simple!! And the wispy clouds could be read as terrestrial elements of some sort. My scores for both aesthetic and technical are 10/10. I can even see a hint of detail in the tiny slice of lighted surface. One caveat, though, for aesthetic – I feel the need for just a bit more room for the moon in the frame – for the virtual rest of it. Sort of like the virtual feet on a wading bird or an animal standing in brush.
Why didn’t I think to try for this? I always get so much blur from thermal mixing that I never get a clear shot of an evening crescent, which is always very low on the horizon, but with burst mode I should try for a simple version of “lucky imaging”.
Thanks, @Diane_Miller for the feedback. Yes, I was a little unhappy with where I placed the moon. It did need a little more room.
I have been photographing the first-day crescent for 30 years. Exposure is easy, just meter for the sky and hold it at either middle tone or half a stop to one stop above middle tone. You can’t meter the moon as it is just too small. Next, the only time I have ever gotten wavy moons is when it is just above the horizon, like less than 1-degree altitude. The moon is only 0.5 degrees in diameter, so if the moon is anywhere near the horizon it does get wavy. The moon in this photo was nearly 6 degrees in altitude above the horizon. If you photograph it when it is still high enough, you won’t have to contend with the thermal air currents. It’s a give-and-take as if the sky is not interesting enough, then having some land element helps. But rather than wait for the moon to reach the lower altitudes, I will move to a wider angle lens, like 200 mm on full frame, or 200 mm on a DX crop giving an effective 300 mm view. And sometimes I will just move around to find some trees nearby to get a foreground element, and then focus stack the frames, one for the moon and the second focused on the trees, or whatever I find that is interesting, all at the same focal length.
And then there is always a morning crescent, the day before. Air should be calmer then, but I have a hill to the east so would have to drive a few miles. Certainly could be done, though – maybe I need to start thinking about that!
I have a really old one of a composite focus that I don’t think I have posted here. I need to turn on the RAID array tomorrow – I’ll dig it up and toss it out.
Diane,
Yes morning old crescents are possible too except you’ll need to work quicker as the dawn progresses and the sky brightens the contrast between the crescent and the sky lessens making it harder to discern the moon.
