100 perscent luna - doesnt smell like strawberries

[h0ughy]

captured last night - 100 percent luna

[Peter Ward]

Nicely done. I got up at 5.00am to see whether the penumbral eclipse was worth imaging...it wasn't...a geez it was cold :cold:....I bailed and went back to bed.

[Quopaz]

Nice moon, I haven't worked out how to fit the whole moon in my DSLR yet. With a 2x barlow it's too big and doesn't fit. Without the barlow I can't get focus. Only way I can do it is with my little camera, afocally through the 25mm eyepiece. Not ideal. Moon looked pretty good when it was full a couple nights ago but I was at work.

[h0ughy]

Peter I just got to the 100 % mark and called it, I did have an aldi pink heated blanket over my legs and lap set on high. It was 4 degrees in the dome

[h0ughy]

You might need a 2inch extension which you can get from one of the astro emporiums.

[netwolf]

Nice capture, I was out with Binos from 445 to 525 but moon was so bright I could not see any shadow area at all. Glad I did not setup was cold , not as cold as Monday night though.

[RB]

What a fantastic shot mate !!!!

:eyepop:

[h0ughy]

OK so I played with some other data from Friday night, these images were native capture, is without a reducer, and had to be stitched together. So there is a subtle differences between the two. Question is does it appeal to any one?
Seeing as though most people don't look at lunar shots I could die holding my breath on a response..........

[jahnpahwa]

Yeah, I like the native capture here, the cooler hue version in particular.

I'm a newcomer, but I've been spending a lot of time thinking about astroimages and I guess a spend a fair bit of time thinking about them. Your first post shows more contrast and seems to reveal a bit more detail, but while it does that, it seems to bring the subject closer and seems "louder" and more accessible. Your native, cool version (and even the warmer yellower one) give the impression of a huge thing a very long way away, while not really giving up much detail at all. Its subtle, and perhaps this wasnt the feedback you were after?

In general, I think keeping things (solar system and beyond) looking like they're a long way away is good, and while it's impossible to convey a sense of the size of things (especially DSOs) I think an imager has done well when I look at something and think "whoa thats massive!". I've been struggling with my images, thinking that they all look like cartoons that depict something real, rather than looking real themselves, and wonder if I'm loosing that realness in my quest for detail.

[h0ughy]

Thanks for your feedback. I'd rather get feedback like that than politeness. There is a definite fine line between good and oh dear what have you done