Just past full...

Beautiful level of detail. Well done!!

Yeah, I definitely think it can stand on it's own. It's a wonderful glimpse in to the details of the heavens that we rarely get to see. In terms of "art".. f$@% art. If you say it's art, I say keep making artistic shots. Some may say that this shot has been done hundreds of times, but a) this is Yours, and b) it's never exactly the same and c) so what? Just keep enjoying your shooting, and I hope you keep sharing with the rest of us.

An astrophysical object is as much in the realm of art as any object on terra firma. I feel sorry for those who look but can not see the art and the beauty in everything that is around us. Concerning your "moon shot", it is very well done. That Takahashi instrument really delivers the goods. I can appreciate the difficulty in obtaining such a fine photograph. I have tried to instigate the PhotoNet management into creating a separate critique category for images such as this. They don't seem to hear me. Perhaps others can help take up the challenge? Regards.

Technically very nice, especially around the upper right curve.

The right edge shows more detail because it is the edge of the shadow and the low angle of the sunlight causes distinct shadows. This line (or area) is often referred to as the terminus. During full moons the entire earth-facing side of the moon is lit from straight on as a result far less dramatic. See: http://www.pbase.com/image/17798372 for an example of this.

Excellent exposure, Dave!

Never get tired of looking at the Moon as it moves through its monthly cycle...There is enough natural beauty to behold here, so yes it can stand on its own. Anyone looking close enough will see the magnificent 'rays' of crater Tycho, down the bottom, while on the RH side, both Mare Crisium and crater Langrenus are competing for my attention... Due to their proximity to the terminator, these features stand out really well!

Astro photography can be artistic (what is the definition of art-Art?): can be interesting, beautiful and creative and help to become aware of our place "here". I find this kind of photo very interesting and I know it is a difficult task to reach a photo as good as this one. The problem with most moon photos is that it is very difficult to be original. Anyway, good work, I like it.

This is very well done technically but I can't really give very high marks for originality. Perhaps if you took it from a different angle ;-)

I've been dabbling in moon photos for a while now, I don't have a telescope, but use a 10D with a 1000mm - this gives a 1600mm field-of-view due to the 1.6 cropping factor of the 10D. Maybe I'll post one some day, but as David said, it's hard to be original with this type of shot!

Actually, I think I like the other 2 even better, the lighting due to the eclipse gives them an even-more 3D effect.

Best wishes,

I'm working on it! (Actually we all should be, but that's another subject !-)

It's a technically very good image of the moon. Congrats on capturing it so well. Sorry, but I cannot see how anyone can give high marks on originality. What's so original about it?

It is just a very good photo of the moon. Perhaps photo.net must include a third box to rate a different aspect, not aesthetics, nor originality, but "technique". My rating would be "Technique=9/10".

Originality is a very interesting question here. We've all seen perfect moon pictures just like this in text books, atlases and the like. But how many photographers do we personally know who are striving to achieve pictures like this? All the moon shots we see in atlases are probably licensed by Nasa or various observatories, and are all probably from just a handful of original negatives. I know loads of excellent photographers but very few who have tried this kind of work, so although we've seen this before, the relative originality is not as low as half of the inane flower and pet pictures we see here.

 

Art? I notice the photographer appears quite defensive about this as an artistic expression. It's nice to see no-one has seriously challenged that valid stance.

Very nice. I realy like the shot "Three weeks later, June 5, 2003" on your web page.

Thanks! That was shot with a Takahashi Mewlon 2160mm f12... I couldn't use it for the eclipse shots (or this shot) because it has too narrow a view for the full disk.

Dave, who cares for originality or definition of art. Astrophotography is one of the most difficult branches of photography, needing the most from the photographer and equipment. Getting good images is more a question of knowledge than money, and this is a very good thing nowadays!. For my part, I'm going right now to create a folder in order to upload my Luna pictures!