PHOTO: New Half moons - in or out?

Dear friends,

Encouraged by the fact that one of my pictures of the moon got downloaded, I decided to take a few more 500mm shots during different phases.

However, my recent drawbacks with so many rejections of all kinds make me wonder whether these two files are headed to the same fate.

Let me explain.

This first file Half Moon in Blue Sky sounded like an interesting opportunity because it shows the moon against the sky during the day, which is something not many people associate the moon with.  To me, it is an opportunity.  But the problem is that very contrast is achieved while taking a picture under these conditions.  At 100%, it has showed me a similar level of noise as my accepted pictures.  The difference is that this one is against a blue sky.  And to a certain extent it makes me afraid it might be rejected.  Since my first edition in software left me unhappy, I chose to only add a bit more contrast to the image.


The second file Half Moon in Night Sky fills me with more hope.  It doesn't display noise, and seems to be in good focus under sunlight white balance.  Am I wrong?

Half Moon in Blue Sky

Half Moon in Night Sky

(Edited on 2013-02-24 04:15:59 by jluizmail)

(Edited on 2013-02-24 05:04:57 by kelvinjay)

Those links don't seem to work

If you just paste them and don't bother trying to make them links - I'll edit them for you, but they need to be posted in a shared or public folder. Also, it may be easier for you to just use the UBB forum mode, rather than the WYSIWYG mode. You can change it by clicking on the bottom bar where it says

My Account>>Preferences>>Forums>>Writing/editing mode and choose UBB.

(Edited on 2013-02-23 16:52:10 by kelvinjay)

Thanks, kelvinjay. I've chosen UBB now. And I don't mind administrator making adjustments in my posts to help them fit the standards. It's good.

Those links you have put in aren't a proper address. They look like just a part.


I suggest you get a Dropbox account and use that.

Actually Dave, I think they are Dropbox links, just not the usual format.


@jluizmail: please check your links and post them again. We cannot access the images.

I hope they work fine now.

i'd say that on the blue shot the blue looks unnatural and "over processed" it looks noisy too. The black shot has too much black background. It needs cropping closer to the subject. I'm far from an expert on astronomical shots, and I realise there are problems with atmosphere and "stopping" the apparent movement oblects in the sky, but neither of these moons look particularly sharp to me. Unless you're using an equatorial mount you'll need a fairly fast shutter speed. Can't tell what you used though becasue the exif has been stripped.

The moon is too small in both shots for what are essentially plain-background shots. Plus the blue is very noisy.

Dear esp_imaging,
Would you say that cropping the one with the black background, but leaving some copyspace is a better solution? I also agree that there is noise in the blue one. I thought of following a piece of advice I got here, and try to remove the noise in post-processing.
The only thing I am afraid is if even that is not seen as interesting enough to grant approval.

(Edited on 2013-02-24 15:31:36 by jluizmail)

Images do not require excess copy space when it is just a single colour e.g. plain back, white or blue and excess copyspace is a rejection reason in itself. I've shown below what I think would be a more acceptable amount of copyspace:



Basically, iStock aren't in the business of charging clients for plain backgrounds that they could add themselves for free.

Even that is too much negative space.  Not sure how much closer to the moon you can get though!

Thank you, Beano5.


But I have already submitted the file after the suggested changes.  I noticed that even a few recently approved images display even more negative space.  For what reason, I am not aware.  But the one I sent was cropped, and was shot at 400mm (600mm in 35mm format).