The Water Pump & Moon ( the controversial )

What an excellent shot and beautiful composition, I really like it.  Well done,

Very nice.  kind regards

Best regards Bela!

PDE

There is a lot more going on than you first think. It hangs together very nicely.

Very nice scene. The moon definitely adds both intrigue and loneliness to the scene.

Thank you for your comments for all of you.

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

A simple but very nice image. The almost cloudless sky keeps it simple. The windmill and moon are well placed in the frame. I might have put the moon slightly further right, but that is a personal preference. The cluttered foreground clashes with the simplicity, I would crop about half and darken it some.

When I see shots with a moon, I usually try to determine if it is a composite. Not that a composite is bad, I do them myself, but you get extra credit if the moon is real. I am fairly certain this is real. The landscape is flat allowing a distant viewpoint necessary for a moon this size. The artists portfolio is very traditional, nothing that looks over Photoshopped. It also passes the "bow and arrow" test. If you think of the lit part of the moon as a bow, the arrow it would shoot must point at the sun. If there is no evidence of the sun, then the arrow must point at the horizon.

Just  a great work !

I too wondered if this is a composite. If it is it is well done. The composition is perfect in my view. The tones are just right. The timing is just right too. Everything is in order in this photograph.

Overall, I would rate this photograph as excellent. It is a very quiet photograph. It may be too quiet for some. Too careful.

This photograph, excellent as it is, does not excite me. Like the phases of the moon, it is predictable. But also like the phases of the moon it is assuring, beautiful and something you look forward to, something you expect. Quietly.

There are many photographs like this, but few as charming.

It would take a mighty long lens to get the moon that big. . . .

It has to be a composite, but it is beautifully done.

--Lannie

In addition, the angle of the moon looks like the angle that I have seen close to the equator, but not on the equator. The terrain hardly looks tropical.

The left or right tilt is irrelevant, unless one knows whether it was shot at sunset or sunrise, but the angle of the tilt is important for determining latitude--unless it is a composite.

So, on other grounds besides the size of the moon, I say that it is a composite.

Again, however, none of that detracts from the work. I have tried a lot of shots with both the moon and the earth lit well enough to see detail in both--and that is very, very difficult in one shot. One almost has to have the sun still shining on the earth to get both the earth and moon in great detail.

Great work, Bela, regardless of the issue of whether or not it is composite. It pretty clearly is.

--Lannie

I have a suggestion to the administration. Can we have a weekly forum entitled "Is it real or not"? The elves would choose a photo, any photo, and it would be up to PN members to discuss whether the photo was real, a composite, a fake, authentic, and all other important matters of fact. [Tongue in cheek. Don't take me too seriously, please.]

I find looking at a large moon in the early night sky very exhilarating, almost spiritual as an experience. I can't remember ever seeing a pic of the moon that came close to moving me in a similar way, except maybe some of the pics from the first moon landing when I was a kid.

This photo loses a lot, for me, because of the foreground, which Matthew has already addressed. It seems to work against the stillness and calmness of the moment, without being any kind of ironic or contrapuntal foil, which I might appreciate. The two structures in particular seem to lie there like lead.

On the other hand, the way the light catches what appears to be a small island or peninsula is kind of nice, as it echoes the way the moon is etched by the light. So there's a distinct visual connection formed which draws me in. The fact that the moon's highlighting is an arc and the lighting of the land mass is more hard-edged and almost points like an arrow also is an intriguing interplay.

I thought I had commented on this photo when it first appeared; perhaps it was a second, similar photograph that Bela posted. I knew (or had a very strong suspicion) that the moon had been altered in some way, but my comment at the time (and this comment remains valid today) is that I thought Bela's work on the moon was exceptionally well done. I think the moon is one of the most frequently added elements that people put in their photographs, and it is seldom done well because it's extremely difficult to get the light and tones of the moon to match that of the surrounding sky, and the composite work usually looks very obvious. Here, I thought Bela did the best "moon work" that I've ever seen in a photo, especially in the upper portion of the shaded moon where it blends in with the sky. Part of the reason for his success is that this is not (as I understand) really a composite, but rather simply an increase in size of the moon as it existed in this location on this particular night. Bela simply increased its size where it was already located in the sky. I'm sure that made it much easier to integrate the enlarged moon into the night sky in a seamless way.

We usually have to take what the landscape gives to us, good and bad, despite our best efforts to find a composition that says what we want and avoids saying what we don't want. I "wish" the water tanks had not been associated with the windmill, but this is apparently a fully functioning windmill and a place to store the pumped water is necessary, even if it "clutters" the photo. I like the thin, illuminated cloud on the horizon, as it breaks up the uniformity of the sky somewhat, and it emphasizes the fact that the sun is setting just below the horizon. For my eyes, the foreground neither adds nor detracts; it is simply there, and I hardly notice it. I'm not sure what an alternative might be.

This photo appeals to me because of the quiet time of day in what I know as a rustic, working landscape. The sun has set, the moon will soon very quietly follow, and only the plaintive calls of coyotes will be left. It's a beautiful time of day, and I think Bela has sensed that as well and emphasized the point in his own way by making the moon larger than life. [This last observation is very tentative, because I know how wrong I can be when I try to glean the inner motives and thoughts of another person; that's a very hazardous undertaking.] Regardless, that's what I see, hear, and feel in Bela's photograph, and I find it very appealing.

Dear Fred. As an owner of this image, I was trying not to add any comments. But! When I see people poor vision I can't stand silent. " light catches what appears to be a small island or peninsula".
I don't know, how you can see an island in this image, where not such a thing exist here, even with a very strong imagination. You can see the horizon, a far mountain range on it and above the sky with clouds illuminated by the SUN, all ready below the horizon, for me, but not for the much higher sitting clouds. It is to bad, I have to explain al this, what is actually on the picture.
Regardless, thank you all the comments for all of you.

Bela, I don't find it too bad that you explained it. I rather appreciate it. Please excuse my poor vision.

Stephen, you said "I'm not sure what an alternative might be." I think there is not always an alternative. It is true that in landscapes as well as many pictures we take, we are dealt the hand we're given in terms of various elements. My contention would be that not every scene, therefore, makes for a photograph I would take. The great thing is that others would take it, and that makes for horse racing and variation in photographic visions.

Stephen, here is the version that you were thinking of, with different comments:

[LINK]

Is this version different, apart from the comments?

--Lannie

So if I understood right, please correct me if I am wrong, this photo is chosen so we can discuss the ability and skills of the photographer in creating images in PS?...because such a photo never existed as other mentioned in above comments, again correct me if I understood otherwise.
Bela, don't take me wrong, I am just trying to figure out if we are talking about a photo taken as is or a photo created in PS.

"This photograph was chosen because the Elves think it is interesting and worthy of discussion. When participating in the Photograph of the Week forum, please offer a critique of the photo -- address its strengths, its weaknesses. (Read Discussion)"
Can't see here a world from the Elves, how this images was created and if it is real or what ever. I don't believe the PN is a criminal court, and you have to have documentation style of photography here.
Of course, the image was created, as most of the images, including Ansel Adams, and it is not the point here, and I never said it is 1=1 an original image, a documentation of a scenery. The question is here, as the Elves said, " address its strengths, its weaknesses."
For those whom they are questioning the originality of the image. The image is two (2) shoots at the same place, one with a 24-124 and the other from the same moon, a Tamron 200-500mm lens, at 500mm, placed the moon to the same place as the original, but mach smaller moon was. The funny thing is, how your nice gentlemen debating not on the image artistic value, as being asked, rather, the way in which it was produced. Witch is absolutely irrelevant.
Thank you very much your visits and comments. I like to hear more.
Cheers.

Hi Panayotis. The photo was taken in situ. At the field, but edited in photoshop as every image edited in the photoshop. So, it is not created in photoshop. In the old time, wet darkroom, you created/edited all your prints, including even the negative development too.
Cheers.

If one is interested in the skill of photography, then it matters whether or not something is a real photograph. If one is interested only in art then it should not matter much whether the image is a composite. I am interested in the skill of photography so it matters to me that this is a composite. As Bela says in his bio, he is interested in photography as a means of artistic expression so I'm sure he is not concerned at all that this is a composite.

With images like this I just go though my checklist to see if there is something worth getting photographically (not artistically) excited about:

1) Great light - no.
2) Aesthetically beautiful - no, the foreground is messy and the subjects are not particularly beautiful.
3) Good tonality - no, sort of flat and uninterersting.
4) Interesting composition - no, just ordinary with no special insight here.
5) Photographic skill - no, the original is pretty basic and the composite moon is also easy to do.
6) New vision - no, this sort of thing is pretty common.
7) Interesting subject - no, pretty ordinary and accessible.
8) Decisive moment - no, it's a composite.
9) Implied meaning - none for me.

As a photograph, this doesn't really score well on any of my basic tests. It's not a bad picture at all, it just doesn't get a great on any of my criteria. As a piece of art ........? Best, JJ

Some of you guys have never tried to capture the moon and the earth in a single exposure. It is extraordinarily difficult to do without either blowing out the moon's details or darkening the earth's details. My own portfolio is littered with failures of attempts to capture both in a single exposure. A few photographers here have done it, yes, but they are a tiny number. The time of day has to be perfect as well. Typically it can be done only while the sun and moon are still both above the horizon.

Details of both moon and earth are clearly visible in this photo. More than that, the result created by importing a larger image of the moon is a very powerful image that instantly grabs the eye. This is truly beautiful work by a true master. I frankly love the foreground details as well as terrestrial background.

Bela has done a masterful composite here. Composites with the moon and earth are the norm on Photo.net and elsewhere.

I challenge all of you who disparage this composite to go out and try to capture the moon and the earth in a single exposure. You are in for a very sobering and educational experience.

--Lannie

Lannie, I'm one who's never tried to capture the moon and the earth in a single exposure. I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of beans. Degree of difficulty could be a factor relating to a photograph but it's usually way down on my list of qualities I'm looking for in photos I want to spend time with. My sense is that many people commenting on, for example, my own photos, have never attempted to photograph a drag queen, or a nude male. And yet I still value their thoughts about my photos, both negative and positive. That they've not attempted such photos themselves doesn't come into much play in my getting something out of their comments to me.

And even if I did think a certain photographic result took some kind of extraordinary skill to do, I could easily respect and admire the skill without necessarily liking the photo that results from that skill. None of this is to question your own liking of the photo. I respect your opinion and taste. But I don't quite understand why you thought it relevant to suggest that "some of you guys have never" . . . etc.

I like the challenge, Fred, as well as the results when I can see both moon and earth in a single exposure. None of that detracts from Bela's creation in the least.

Here are a very few that I have found in over two years of searching that managed to capture both moon and earth in a single exposure:

[LINK]

[LINK]

[LINK]

[LINK]

[LINK]

As I said, I can appreciate this type of shot, but that does not keep me from appreciating what Bela has done, which is to me a very beautiful combination of capture and creation.

I repeat what I said, however: getting both moon and earth in a single exposure is very difficult. I invite all of you critics of Bela's photo on the grounds that it is a composite to go out and try to get both moon and earth in a single exposure.

Here is the one by Neil Jolly above that he reworked in Photoshop:

[LINK]

Again, none of this detracts from Bela's photo in the least. I truly love Bela's photo. Congratulations, Bela!

--Lannie