Full Moon (1)

[Koshy]

[RovingMike]

Nicely detailed, but it is supposed to shine a bit :

[gray1720]

You could do with giving a similar tweak to a lot of your stuff - Mike is the guru when it comes to levels - because many of your pics look rather flat, when they should jump out. See Mike's treatment above - that's excatly what I mean. He's really made it stand out.

He's right about the details, though, they're great.

Adrian

[turbulentwheat]

with a little bit of brightening you can really see more of the details, very nice image

[Koshy]

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. I tend to keep my images a bit subdued but guess have to start experimenting with levels a bit more. Hhhmmm....

[MickLL]

I think that it depends on the use of the photo. Mikes version is much more striking and stands out much better than the original so for a pictorial use then Mike has improved it.

However if the use is scientific then the new version is not so good because there are areas where the detail has become burnt out. They are small admittedly but significantly detract from the photo from a scientific perspective.

MickLL

[Just_Dave]

Good effort, I always think that full moon shots are the hardest to get, with partial moon shots you get much better details in the creators and terminator, because of the contours and shadows

[RovingMike]

I think that it depends on the use of the photo. Mikes version is much more striking and stands out much better than the original so for a pictorial use then Mike has improved it.

However if the use is scientific then the new version is not so good because there are areas where the detail has become burnt out. They are small admittedly but significantly detract from the photo from a scientific perspective.

MickLL

Good point on the use Mick, but the machine is telling me the highlights are one click short of burning out. If you put it up to 1200% you can in fact see a pixel everywhere I think.

[MickLL]

I think that it depends on the use of the photo. Mikes version is much more striking and stands out much better than the original so for a pictorial use then Mike has improved it.

However if the use is scientific then the new version is not so good because there are areas where the detail has become burnt out. They are small admittedly but significantly detract from the photo from a scientific perspective.

MickLL

Good point on the use Mick, but the machine is telling me the highlights are one click short of burning out. If you put it up to 1200% you can in fact see a pixel everywhere I think.

I looked quickly and the problem is in and around the prominent crater to the right lower.(Tycho I think it's called - but that's dredging a memory from 50 years ago!).

MickLL

[RovingMike]

I looked quickly and the problem is in and around the prominent crater to the right lower.(Tycho I think it's called - but that's dredging a memory from 50 years ago!).

Yes the machine says no burnout, but my eyes do. In fact it is a case of where curves do a better job, because levels alone are taking it to the white point.

[MickLL]

My machine is saying 254,254,254 in some areas and not much darker in others.

Maybe that's not truly burnt out in the strict sense of the word but it's close enough for the comment to be valid.

MickLL