Ironically, just a couple of days ago my stock house sold a shot of the moon that took me about 5 minutes to execute. Ordinary pictures sell. However, I agree that some foreground elements can make such a shot more interesting. That usually works best as a composite, as illustrated by Jack. Otherwise, you can't get enough DOF at a reasonable ISO. Moon shots have to be wide open or close to it in order to get enough shutter speed for a crisp shot. (The damn moon keeps moving on us:-). Paul On Oct 8, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>> Nothing overly awesome, just a shot >> of last night's big harvest moon. > >> http://www.neovenator.com/special/2006_harvest_moon.html > > John, it's a nice shot, but, like every other similar photo of the > moon, it > is boring. How many hundreds of these shots of the full moon have > we seen? > While such a photo may show of the skill of the photographer, or the > quality of the gear, artistically and creatively there's little > substance > to such pics. > > A more interesting shot would be if there were something else in > the frame, > perhaps a horizon, or a skyline, or perhaps it could be more > interesting if > only a portion of the moon was shown in an upper corner. Or maybe > a shot > taken earlier in the evening, when the light was brighter, the sky > more > colorful, the moon more "transparent" or lower to the horizon so > some other > natural elements could be included in the shot. > > BTW, I'm not picking on you or anyone who wants to make such a > photo, I'm > just wishing for more and hoping that some of the people with long > lenses > who make such photos might want to try something a little more > creative, > unusual, and interesting. > > > > Shel > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
