Starship Asterisk*

Surreal Moon

Explanation: Big, bright, and beautiful, a Full Moon near perigee, the closest point in its elliptical orbit around our fair planet, rose on August 10. This remarkable picture records the scene with a dreamlike quality from the east coast of the United States. The picture is actually a composite of 10 digital frames made with exposures from 1/500th second to 1 second long, preserving contrast and detail over a much wider than normal range of brightness. At a perigee distance of a mere 356,896 kilometers, August's Full Moon was the closest, and so the largest and most super, of the three Full Moons nearest perigee in 2014 now popularly known as supermoons. But if you missed August's super supermoon, the next not-quite-so supermoon will be September 8. Then, near the full lunar phase the Moon's perigee will be a slightly more distant 358,387 kilometers. That's only about 0.4 percent less super (farther and smaller) than the super supermoon.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

Wow, that's a pretty Moon, indeed.

Ann

WOW!
a WOLF's MOON !!!
very poetic and inspiring!
Thanks !

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.

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.

Beautiful!

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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)

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.

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

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.

Nice shot, Jerry, amazing work.

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.

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...

Really nice.!!!!

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

:---[===] *

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

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

Rob

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

Beautiful image
Beautiful Surreal Moon
Majestic

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.

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.

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