Look at what you've taken, are they ever going to be converted into a worthwhile image?
I am not sure if it's worthwhile, really. But, I enjoy looking at it (the cropped / edited version). I started this thread wondering if I could avoid the lens flare - but I now realize I cannot if I want to capture the shadowed part in one shot.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/9624229f129...1E2520F5C6CDB38C9&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
I'm generally happy with this shot. The part that bothers me is I can see some artifacts in the cloned part where I took out the lens flare.
Having fun is alway what you should be aiming for.
So consider these points:
The moon always has the same face towards us, so is always the same view.
Now if you look at David Nall's image you will see that he's waited until the subject was lit. In doing so has been able to produce an image which has sharpness, colour and contrast because the subject was well lit and he was able to use an exposure that allowed him to capture the moon at it's best.
What you're doing is waiting until the moon is at it's worst and trying to use processing to overcome the many limitations you have come across. The moon is not sharp because you have to use a long exposure and a high ISO. Because there is little light reflecting off the shadowed part of the moon there is little colour or contrast. The interval between the two separate exposures produces a highly over-exposed lit side of the moon that is again causing you problems.
So what are the two processes here?
David's is to look at the subject and understand how it's lit.
In you process you are forcing yourself to ignore your subject and the best way of capturing it. You're not seeing the many problems you encounter and learning from them because you're not looking at the subject but only the processing and technical side. You're not learning to observe your subject only to play with programs.
So how does this equate to normal photography? The difference in exposure between the lit and shadowed sides of the moon is more equivalent to trying to take a photo of flowers at night rather than during the day. Instead of learning this you're learning how to force a photo out of the worst possible conditions by over-processing it.
So here's a novel idea that comes if you observe and understand your subject and how it's lit rather than ignoring it and only trying to understand how to over-process it:
Why not shoot the full moon and use your processing skills to add a shadow rather than take it away? You will learn a lot more about photography, processing and observation than following your present path, (your foreground will be better lit, you will have far fewer blending issues when you combine foreground/moon, it's easier to do, etc...). ;-)
Photo by David Nall
