Starship Asterisk*

by **Ann** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 4:05 pm

geckzilla wrote:astropix.ipac.caltech.edu is relatively new. I was looking at it the other day. It seems to have been dreamed up one day as a solution to the bitterness astronomers experience when searching for a Messier object only to be inundated with assault rifles.

Good.

And NGC objects are apparently coins.

Ann

by **geckzilla** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 3:43 pm

astropix.ipac.caltech.edu is relatively new. I was looking at it the other day. It seems to have been dreamed up one day as a solution to the bitterness astronomers experience when searching for a Messier object only to be inundated with assault rifles.

by **DavidLeodis** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 11:07 am

Wow! What an amazing image

(or should that be an amazeballs image using the word that has now apparently been recently accepted as a new word, at least in UK English

).

Sadly it was cloudy where I live so I did not see that 'Supermoon', though the next night there were clear areas and the Moon then looked Full(ish).

PS. I've noticed that the image also has AstroPix.com on it rather than just Jerry Lodriguss. I've now done a search and among several AstroPix's found one was for an AstroPix website that seems likely to be the one, in which it stated "AstroPix offers access to the public image galleries of many of the leading astronomical observatories under a single unified interface. Assets will include a full range of astronomical observations, artwork, and charts spanning the field of astronomy". I did not know of that.

by **Ann** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 1:28 am

geckzilla wrote:Several photos were taken in order to capture the large dynamic range and compress it into the smaller range displayed by our computer monitors. It was so skillfully put together, that there are people over at Facebook commenting that it doesn't look modified (this is the polite way of saying "Photoshopped") at all. It interests me that similar techniques were used for this image but people objected to it, cried "Photoshop!" and everything. The search for an objective guideline for aesthetics continues...

I suppose the difference between the two images is that we are all used to looking at the Moon, while few of us have looked at auroras through a skylight from inside a lava cage.

Ann

by **geckzilla** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 1:00 am

Yes, the duplication of a human eye visual experience (or, at least, something the viewer perceives as such) seems to weigh heavily in creating a more positive aesthetic experience for the viewer.

by **Chris Peterson** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 11:30 pm

geckzilla wrote:Several photos were taken in order to capture the large dynamic range and compress it into the smaller range displayed by our computer monitors. It was so skillfully put together, that there are people over at Facebook commenting that it doesn't look modified (this is the polite way of saying "Photoshopped") at all. It interests me that similar techniques were used for this image but people objected to it, cried "Photoshop!" and everything. The search for an objective guideline for aesthetics continues...

Without commenting on aesthetics, the two images are very different. The Moon image comes very close to duplicating the visual experience. The cave shot does not.

by **saturno2** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 11:25 pm

Beautiful image
Beautiful Surreal Moon
Majestic

by **ta152h0** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 11:11 pm

who could have possibly predicted rain and clouds in lthe Pacific Northwest the days before and during both the Wolf Moon and the Perseids. It is like cloubait events

by **rstevenson** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:36 pm

geckzilla wrote:... The search for an objective guideline for aesthetics continues...

We'll get that the day after we get world peace.

Rob

by **Boomer12k** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:24 pm

Really nice.!!!!

Ah...yes....the Energizer Rabbit...in the Moon....Base Drum included....he just keeps on going, and going....

:---[===] *

by **geckzilla** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:08 pm

Several photos were taken in order to capture the large dynamic range and compress it into the smaller range displayed by our computer monitors. It was so skillfully put together, that there are people over at Facebook commenting that it doesn't look modified (this is the polite way of saying "Photoshopped") at all. It interests me that similar techniques were used for this image but people objected to it, cried "Photoshop!" and everything. The search for an objective guideline for aesthetics continues...

by **Ayiomamitis** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 5:53 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
henrystar wrote:It does seem to me that all this "supermoon" business is bosh. Can the eye really detect the difference? Oh, I know there IS a difference, but in practice, one full moon looks just like any other full moon.
Yes, the difference is visually significant. A casual observer might never notice, but a critical one certainly can.

I agree with Chris that the difference is MOST noticeable for someone who is actively involved with the moon via observation and/or photography.

Anthony.

by **jm3** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:18 pm

Nice shot, Jerry, amazing work.

by **othermoons** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:04 pm

I grew up looking at an artists view of such a moon glistening in the night sky with the same serene clouds. The Night seemed so gentle. I never miss these events. Thanks for this beautiful image.

by **Ann** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 3:54 pm

henrystar wrote:
Ann wrote:Wow, that's a pretty Moon, indeed.

Ann
Ann, am I just an old grouch? It does seem to me that all this "supermoon" business is bosh. Can the eye really detect the difference? Oh, I know there IS a difference, but in practice, one full moon looks just like any other full moon.

Actually, I'm somewhat indifferent to the Moon, but lately it has looked impressive to me. This is because it has loomed so large in our skies, no doubt.

And surely Jerry Lodriguss' picture is both beautiful and evocative.

Ann

by **Chris Peterson** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:36 pm

henrystar wrote:It does seem to me that all this "supermoon" business is bosh. Can the eye really detect the difference? Oh, I know there IS a difference, but in practice, one full moon looks just like any other full moon.

Yes, the difference is visually significant. A casual observer might never notice, but a critical one certainly can.

By putting labels on certain astronomical phenomena- blue moons, named moons, super moons- people are encouraged to at least be a little more aware of these things.

by **geckzilla** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:22 pm

You are not just an old grouch, henry. The super moon is just another example of a way to sensationalize something so that people will pay attention because apparently no one cares about the full moon in any other month. (That is a completely untrue statement -- the moon and all of its phases is nearly universally adored by humanity)

by **BMAONE23** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:00 pm

henrystar wrote:
Ann wrote:Wow, that's a pretty Moon, indeed.

Ann
Ann, am I just an old grouch? It does seem to me that all this "supermoon" business is bosh. Can the eye really detect the difference? Oh, I know there IS a difference, but in practice, one full moon looks just like any other full moon.

Without a visual comparison they do look very similar, one full moon to another

: Click to view full size image

by **henrystar** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:49 pm

Ann wrote:Wow, that's a pretty Moon, indeed.

Ann

Ann, am I just an old grouch? It does seem to me that all this "supermoon" business is bosh. Can the eye really detect the difference? Oh, I know there IS a difference, but in practice, one full moon looks just like any other full moon.

by **just me** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:24 pm

This link:
http://www.astropix.com/Supermoon_20140810.HTM
says it was taken in suburban Philadelphia.

by **another guest** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:18 pm

Can anyone tell us where this image was captured?

Well, the description says:

from the east coast of the United States

So that does narrow it down a bit.

by **rwlott** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 12:13 pm

Agreed, this is a marvelous photo. However, the explanation fails to report from where on the US east coast it was taken. Jerry's (the photographer) website see he hails from Philadelphia. Can anyone tell us more specifically where this image was captured?

by **orin stepanek** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 11:26 am

Beautiful!

by **Indigo_Sunrise** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:50 am

Snip/

RedFishBlueFish wrote:one of the few examples of HDR imaging which does not seem contrived and jarring in effect.

I agree. Very serene, beautiful image. The clouds almost look as though they were painted in.

by **RedFishBlueFish** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 am

Beautiful.

Though I am sure the photographer may have been at first dismayed by the presence of the clouds, it comes together so well with a moon image having foreground, midrange and distance.

Also, one of the few examples of HDR imaging which does not seem contrived and jarring in effect.

Very nice.

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)

Re: APOD: Surreal Moon (2014 Aug 14)