Yet another total eclipse of the heart...

[Nnnnsic]

[stubbsy]

Leigh

Both of these are amongst the best I've seen here. Love all the stars in #2

What gear did you use?

[phillipb]

My guess is the world renowned Adobe telescope.

[Matt. K]

I'm guessing the stars were added? And...how do I know?

[Killakoala]

Nice and clever Leigh.

[Geoff]

PP or not - this is a great image Leigh.

[Nnnnsic]

The stars are from the same shot, I just took the same image and pulled the curves all the way up and removed the moon from the top layer. No raw adjustments, though.

And EXIF says D200, 80-400mm at 400mm, f5.6, 1 second, ISO 640

[Eugene-K]

Very nice! But I like the first one more. Looks more naturally to me

[MCWB]

Great stuff Leigh, I like the crop, it works well! Stars in the second are a little strange, but look cool so what the hell eh.

[Pehpsi]

Bloody awesome Great work.

[adam]

Looks good!
the 2nd one is a case where hot pixels and noise add to the photograph!

[iluxa]

The first photo is very good (stars are not dominating).

CCD/CMOS noise? (just kidding )

[gstark]

The stars are from the same shot, I just took the same image and pulled the curves all the way up and removed the moon from the top layer. No raw adjustments, though.

And EXIF says D200, 80-400mm at 400mm, f5.6, 1 second, ISO 640

And IIRC, Leigh didn't have a tripod with him either, so these will be handheld.

I prefer the more conservative look of the first.

[xorl]

Nice work Leigh. Great approach to a common subject - I wish I'd thought of it .

[ATJ]

And EXIF says D200, 80-400mm at 400mm, f5.6, 1 second, ISO 640

'cept there is no EXIF on the images as present.

I was amazed how bright the moon was before and after the eclipse. I was able to shoot at f/8 and 1/125" (ISO 200) which is only 3 stops less than what I'd use in full Sun (f/16 1/ISO).

[gstark]

I was amazed how bright the moon was before and after the eclipse.

Don't be amazed; this is normal.

That's one of the traps in shooting the moon; people tend to forget that it's actually a brightly lit object - it's light source being the sun.

[ATJ]

I was amazed how bright the moon was before and after the eclipse.

Don't be amazed; this is normal.

But I want to be amazed - and don't think you can stop me.

[gstark]

I was amazed how bright the moon was before and after the eclipse.

Don't be amazed; this is normal.

But I want to be amazed - and don't think you can stop me.

Ahhh ....


SPAEA.

[ATJ]

I was amazed how bright the moon was before and after the eclipse.

Don't be amazed; this is normal.

But I want to be amazed - and don't think you can stop me.

Ahhh ....


SPAEA.

Southern Prairie Area Education Agency?

[Reschsmooth]

it's light source being the sun.

Imagine the size of the kit bag required to carry around that reflector!!!

[Cre8tivepixels]

My guess is the world renowned Adobe telescope.

LMAO.........in all seriousness i have NOT seen one shot like these anywhere else, with the stars so well exposed.......nice shots, even if they are 'enhanced' with pp......

Dan

[Oz_Beachside]

very nice indeedy.

I would like to see one in between. The first is natural, the second belongs in a movie promo, love to see one halfway through the PP of the stars

[Nnnnsic]

I actually did use a tripod... I was on the balcony of one of my grandmother's place and even called her out when it had gone full eclipse.

And the lack of EXIF data is due to the "Save For Web" feature which I tend to use on images that I've put up on my blog... like these...

[zafra52]

Both images are excellent and, like many members above, I haven't seen any image of the moon and the stars so clear. Appart from using a good tripod you must also have used a hell of good lens to get those images. Congratulations, you should feel very proud of your effort.

[ozimax]

Leigh, the 1st is outstanding, (second is great too), please let someone pick this for a future POTW. I've tried taking these moon shots and have never succeeded. BTW, was this taken with your prime lens?

Fraser

EDIT: Sorry, just read all the posts, 'twas taken with 80-400, I had initially thought it may have been with your prime attached to a telescope...it pays to read the fine print etc...