On Sep 28, 3:44*pm, AM wrote:
On 9/26/2012 7:16 PM, RichA wrote:









On Sep 26, 12:48 pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/8025778157

If I tell my camera that the moon is a sunlit object (which it is), that
picture comes out orangey-brown. *If I use WB Auto, it's still pretty
brown. *If I turn off "Keep Warm Colors", then the moon comes out nearly
colorless like we *expect* it to be, but with weird faint magenta and
cyan patches which (to me, at least) indicate that it *had* a color
which has been subtracted away. *According to the folks here, the "real"
color of the moon is somewhere in between brown and colorless, so I used
the WB Auto version and futzed with "color temperature" (which is
nothing of the kind) in Lightroom 3.6 to get a compromise.

--
Please reply to: * * * * *| "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
pciszek at panix dot com *| above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
Autoreply is disabled * * | * * * --Thorin Oakenshield

When it comes to the Moon and planets, size matters. *This was shot
with a Panasonic G1 and a home-made 1000mm f8 lens. *The lens aperture
was 120mm.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...38333/original

Very nice !

Thanks. Using a scope large enough to fill the frame with an image
avoids a lot of issues, namely graininess, colour irregularities and
image softness. But SEEING conditions are KEY. If there is any
atmospheric unsteadiness, forget it, you won't get a good image.