Started Aug 31, 2012 | Discussions thread
CamasJC Senior Member • Posts: 1,382
Re: Still haven't seen . . .

jjnik wrote:

Um...maybe to see how much detail you can capture with different equipment...Um...maybe people have interests that are different than yours...You do realize that you don't have to look at them if you don't like them, let alone waste your time responding to them.

I think you missed my point jjnik. No doubt shooting a paper target or something well studied, like the moon in 'empty space' is a good way to test & or adjust our equipment or our skill. But...

Marianne's obviously humorous comment about a cow jumping over the moon, suggested a whimsical way to both bring together subject & title of the thread as well as remind us of the concept of 'earth context.' It is the latter that makes art (fairy tales, nursery rhymes, poetry etc) out of inanimate objects.

Nobody said art is the only legitimate purpose for photography so my question ("why") was meant to get at the OP's actual purpose and to reinforce the idea that earth context is indispensable in art (If art was his intent). It is the trees, the clouds, the silhouettes, the city skyline, the wolf howling (all earth objects) that add to the emotion that gives a moon image its unique artistic content. And this is the more reasonable way to differentiate our work from what has been done before, instead of trying to... compete with NASA on resolution.

BTW - I took a look at your gallery link and there are some nice images there...But... you do realize that many of your shots have been done why did you take them? No response required, just food for thought!

Thank you for the visit. But actually no, my images have not been done before, depending on what you mean by that. Even when I shot the Delicate Arch in Utah -- probably the planet's most photographed object-- as a sort of calibration exercise, I still looked for ways to capture something different from what had been done before. And high resolution (on which I spent considerable time) is not what differentiates my images from a million others. Rather it is perspective, light and atmospheric conditions that help cut down the number of close duplicates.

When shooting the moon we don't have much control over perspective, other than the focal length of the lens we use. Resolution and light can be influenced by -you guessed it- atmospheric conditions, yet a lot of the discussion here has been on how to eliminate the impact of such 'earth context' i.e how to make the image as similar to a 'standard" moon as possible.

Again, I can see the usefulness of this in calibration / adjustment of equipment or as a learning exercise. But when it comes to artistic expression it is the differences that make the piece not its similarities to a hypothetical standard. E.g. in the OP's image of his cat (an excellent 'artistic' rendering IMO) he used a creative slanted perspective and didn't try to 'standardize' the cat by having 'everything' in sharp focus... obviously his purpose was to communicate the emotion we can all feel by staring this familiar... "earth object" in its sharply defined eyes... And in that he was very successful, IMO.

Likewise, if not a cow over the moon, then perhaps a silhouette of one under it, might move the image from astronomy to art.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow