Explain this picture please

[Bogen]

[bunglehead]

Adobe Photoshop?

I don't think it's possible for the moon face to be illuminated with the sun behind it.

[Rad]

Likely flash from photo of a photo.

 

For example:

Edited February 2, 2005 by Rad

[griz]

no, the photographer is just a retard.

 

the blown out smaller moon is the real way it would look under those lighting conditions on film. the big well exposed moon was probably put in on a second exposure with a bigger lens at night. either way it's a retard pic. w/ the two moons.

[Ponzini]

Or aliens are landing on Ama Dablam

[bunglehead]

Likely flash from photo of a photo.

 

For example:

Hey isn't that poster in the bathroom at OMC?

[Bogen]

Yeah, I think Griz nailed it, that is what it looks like.

[Ricardo_Montalban]

no, the photographer is just a retard.

 

the blown out smaller moon is the real way it would look under those lighting conditions. the big well exposed moon was probably put in on a second exposure with a bigger lens at night. either way it's a retard pic. w/ the two moons.

 

no one would go through the trouble to produce and sell a pic with two moons, one of them as crappy as that. the sun is setting behind the photographer as seen with the alpenglow on the peak, which would be consistent with the 'good' moon. but alas, it is too big for the scene and was photoshopped in.

i think griz AND rad are both right!

[Bogen]

Hey, that's pretty good Ricardo!

[K_Y_L_E]

Of course this is not the sun. True....the moon is reflecting the sun, which would be impossible if it were behind it. Also the sun is beginning to illuminate the face of the peak, again.... impossible if the sun is behind it. I don't know what or who the "photoshop" is but it sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. In truth the only plausible explanation is that there is a very tiny "second sun" between the photographer and the mountain. This is very common.

[Ed_Seedhouse]

No explanation necessary. There must be at least half a dozen ways to make a picture like that, none of them involving actuality.

[sobo]

...In truth the only plausible explanation is that there is a very tiny "second sun" between the photographer and the mountain. This is very common.

 

Anybody ever see that movie from the 1960s called "Doppleganger" about an astronaut who goes into Earth orbit and (ostensibly) fails to complete his mission, but in actuality really does, but he lands on an identical Earth which lies exactly opposite the sun from the Earth from which he left? And his "twin", or doppelganger, arrives on the first Earth and gets the same shafting as the first guy?? Kinda cool concept.

 

Interrogator: "Why did you turn back? Why? Why Why?"

 

Check it out here.

[Mark_Husbands]

duh.

[olyclimber]

Exactly. This photo was taken on a planet other than earth. I'm not going to ruin the secret "proj" a buddy of mine is working on by giving it up though.

[catbirdseat]

The large moon isn't necessarily too large, if the photo was taken using a telephoto lens. The presence of the small sun is rather weird if IT was the image that was photoshopped in. Under certain circumstances you can get an image of the sun called a sun dog, but the position of the image relative to the true sun is not right in this case.

[iain]

duh.

 

The Paradise visitor's center was my next guess too.

[barkernews]

Likely flash from photo of a photo.

 

For example:

 

uh... isn't that picture on the wall at Neptune Mountaineering?

[gwhayduke]

duh.

 

The Paradise visitor's center was my next guess too.

 

hah!

[K_Y_L_E]

I don't think it is flash exposure (light is not right for that), but then again, I don't really care either.

[joekania]

It could be a double exposure, the smaller moon looks like a long exposure, that's why it appears out of round, it travelled across the frame. The good moon image could have been exposed onto the film and hour or two later with a longer lens, as Griz said. Either way

Edited February 4, 2005 by joekania

[griz]

The large moon isn't necessarily too large, if the photo was taken using a telephoto lens. The presence of the small sun is rather weird if IT was the image that was photoshopped in. Under certain circumstances you can get an image of the sun called a sun dog, but the position of the image relative to the true sun is not right in this case.

 

dude, you're clueless. take it from a guy who's been shooting for over 20 years and professionally for half that... the big, well exposed moon would never show up like that in those low light situations on film. It shows up exactly like what you seem to think is the sun or whatever- overexposed and blown out.

 

Also, what the hell are you talking about a sun dog for? image google it so you know what it looks like. sun dogs show up under thin hazy cloud conditions and are merely rainbow like circles around the sun. How does that even remotely relate to this pic?

[Bill_Simpkins]

I agree. The Sun is behind the Moon in that pick. The front of the moon would not be lit. Simple as that.

Either one is photoshopped in or it is a picture of a picture.

[MtnNomad]

Or it could be a multiple exposure. Using a 200mm+ lens take a photo of the full moon with nothing in the frame but dark sky. Shutter speeds must be faster than 1/30th because the moon is moving. Do not advance the film recompose and take second (or third) image. My guess is this is what happened, I think the sun or blown out moon is the additional image. If you remove it the photo is possible in a single frame. Full Moon

[Dru]

collage of 2, maybe 3 images

[ScottP]

 

Think outside the box.