Mick, the moons do not appear to be focused in the combined shot. There is no reason you can't use layering, this is common on very bright targets like M42 Orion nebula, where the core blows out when you expose for cloud detail. However, it is possible to get both the moons and Jupiter in one shot without layering, by using video frame stacking and exposing to at least pickup the moons. You do not mention how the image was acquired.
Hi
Personally, yes, I think it is cheating, sort of, but, with some objects it is the only way deal with the vast difference in brightness across the region of interest.
I would, and not doubt will, do it.
I also think it is only an issue if the shot is passed off as being a single shot.
Yep sure is, but you now have as pretty picture, sorry but that's the way it is.
However if it was done just for your personal interest all is good, but you cant post it as a well done shot of Jupiter and the Moons.
I know i will be shot down in flames for saying what i feel, but what else is new
Lots of people combine different exposure lengths and some shoot mono with filters to make a composite image so I can't see the difference with stacking different exposures on a planet image as compared to doing the same to a deep space object. Stacking multiple images is pretty much the standard procedure in digital processing.
If that's cheating, then we all cheat all the time! So no, IMO this is not cheating, it's just layering to increase the dynamic range that our eye sees anyway. Nice Jupiter by the way. Moons are a tiny bit out of focus.
Not an issue, isn't that what they call HDR? You've just done it manually. If everyone on this forum posted their pictures straight off the camera without any post processing, they would look pretty ordinary. Anyone with experience in this field know when a shots been tinkered with on a computer. We all do it. Nice effect.
Is it cheating or is it just a better/easier way to do it? The tools both hardware and software are there to be used and how you use them is up to you. Personally I think it was a clever way to solve what you thought was an issue with your image. People use multiple exposures all the time so if you've used it to create something that pleases you or someone else then why not?
The reality is that all images go through some form of post processing even the ones from the big boys at NASA. There's nothing wrong with a little cheating so long as you're honest about it when interrogated by the 'www' masses. It's really only when someone tries to claim that they've taken a 'one shot Hubble quality image of M42 using a magnifying glass and a 1MP camera from a smartphone handheld' that people begin to lose trust and respect for them.
Having said all this I do think that it's always good to learn or at least try to learn how to do things with the least amount of manipulation possible first. I often find that the people who 'cheat' best usually already know how to do things without having to 'cheat', which probably explains why they are so good at it.
I capture lightning strikes and i have had the odd really good shot, maybe one out of 100.
So if i capture that on in a 100 shot it is one frame exposure to capture it.
But if i stayed out and captured 10 more ordinary strikes and combine them it has become a very nice combination of may strikes,and becomes a pretty picture, there is nothing wrong with that and they do look good.
Thanks for the opinions everyone. It was done for me and I would never pretend otherwise when playing around with this stuff. It was a first time idea I thought I'd try.
Leon, happy for your opinion too. You really got me with the lightning one - I sometimes spend hours trying to get a good lightning shot during a storm and I know how satisfying a good result can be.
What you have done is a rudimentary form of bracketing. This is a legitimate way of taking images. In landscape photography, you set up the camera and expose for the foreground, mid tones and then the sky. This is then combined in processing. It has been done since before digital photography and most certainly before photoshop. It's not like you are taking one sky shot and applying a different location to create what is called a composite.
What you have done is a rudimentary form of bracketing. This is a legitimate way of taking images. In landscape photography, you set up the camera and expose for the foreground, mid tones and then the sky. This is then combined in processing. It has been done since before digital photography and most certainly before photoshop. It's not like you are taking one sky shot and applying a different location to create what is called a composite.
Shoot away mate.
Exactly image manipulation has been around long before the digital era. Most of the terms and techniques came from film. Here's a good example of how enhancements are done on film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eha7v1tVzA start at about 10 mins in.
Like the others have said it's all about experimenting, learning, practising and having fun.
I capture lightning strikes and i have had the odd really good shot, maybe one out of 100.
So if i capture that on in a 100 shot it is one frame exposure to capture it.
But if i stayed out and captured 10 more ordinary strikes and combine them it has become a very nice combination of may strikes,and becomes a pretty picture, there is nothing wrong with that and they do look good.
It is not a Lightning strike, one frame capture.
Leon
Hi Leon, even the single frame lightning strike shot can be immersed in trick photography. I have taken a few lightning shots myself, I set the camera so as not to overexpose the background but using 20 second exposures. With a good storm this can result in recording multiple strikes on a single frame.
I'd say cheating was necessary with this subject, as (and Colin will keep me honest here!) I don't reckon there's a camera on the market with the dynamic range to capture bands on Jupiter and it's moons in the same shot
That may be so Rick, but when I take lightning strikes it is one frame at a time, and if i get one all well and good if not, better luck next time.
I have never ever combine images, you either get it or not, a bit like fishing i guess, you get a bite or not and sometimes you catch a big one, not that I have ever caught a big one, Fish that is
Anyway guys this is not how this thread started, your just getting very technical now, and i too know one can do many things with modern Cameras these days.
I answered a simple question from Mick and answered it the way i saw it.
I wouldn't call it cheating - I'd call it manipulating an image. "Cheating" implies a deliberate intention to mislead for the purpose of gain. Cheating is when there are a set of rules laid down - as in a competition - and a photographer engages in manipulations that are expressly forbidden.
Of course, it comes down to personal choice but, as other posters have mentioned, image manipulation is pretty much par for the course in photography. It begins when you select particular settings before shooting, and, even if you don't do that yourself the camera will use its own inbuilt algorithms to to try and improve the outcome. Manipulation can range from cropping, sharpening, and a very wide range of general improvements - through to stacking, layering, etc and even combining images from unrelated shoots. It's much easier in the digital age but it's as old as photography. Now we can do with a few clicks what used to take us hours in the darkroom.
These days I assume that any image I see on the internet will have been manipulated in some way and may have been fairly extensively Photoshopped. For instance, the great images that we're used to see from spacecraft etc have all been highly processed and manipulated. It doesn't bother me, and I'm really only interested in whether the result is a successful composition that tells an interesting story.
However, it's definitely good practice to let viewers know when any major manipulations have been done.
To make a photograph that recreates what the eye would see at the same perspective of the view through the telescope onto the camera sensor, requiring adjustments and manipulation to equalise the poor dynamic range of any camera sensor as opposed to our eyes is not cheating. It is adjusting for the inadequacy of the technology used, be it film or digital.
When we have cameras that can take an image that can attune to the levels of human vision in terms of dynamic range then we can continue this discussion.
That may be so Rick, but when I take lightning strikes it is one frame at a time, and if i get one all well and good if not, better luck next time.
I have never ever combine images, you either get it or not, a bit like fishing i guess, you get a bite or not and sometimes you catch a big one, not that I have ever caught a big one, Fish that is
Anyway guys this is not how this thread started, your just getting very technical now, and i too know one can do many things with modern Cameras these days.
I answered a simple question from Mick and answered it the way i saw it.
Leon
Capturing multiple lightning strikes in one frame from multiple images is not the same as what the OP did to adjust for poor dynamic range of current technology. The comparison is not the same.
but you cant post it as a well done shot of Jupiter and the Moons.
It's really only when someone tries to claim that they've taken a 'one shot Hubble quality image of M42 using a magnifying glass and a 1MP camera from a smartphone handheld' that people begin to lose trust and respect for them. 
