On 30 January 2013 00:38, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> I've been puzzling over how this shot was done
> <http://www.naturephotoblog.com/index.php?showimage=324>
> It's clearly a very long night exposure in order to show a blue sky and
> significant color in many of the stars. But despite the lengthy
> exposure there are no star trails. That means the exposure was guided
> on an equatorial mount. But the would be contra-indicated by the fact
> that the rocks do not display any motion blurring. The rocks are
> clearly lit by flash but I believe the sky exposure was so long as to
> leave ghost images of the stationery rocks. But not ghosts are seen.
>
> Conclusion. Photoshop of two images.
>
I'm not quite convinced - looking at the horizon on the right of the
picture, I think I can see a few stars superimposed over the ground, and
likewise at the top edge of the right rock.
--
Stand firm for what you believe in, until and unless logic and experience
prove you wrong. Remember: when the emperor looks naked, the emperor *is*
naked, the truth and a lie are not "sort-of the same thing" and there is
no aspect, no facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with pizza.
-Daria Morgendorffer
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|