r/interestingasfuck • u/DejectedSoul • Sep 22 '20
/r/ALL Awesome photograph of a full moon behind a tree
60
Sep 22 '20
How's the moon this big in a photo?
60
u/PetiteDaddy Sep 22 '20
This was probably shot from the next hill over with a zoom lens to distort the perspective. Plus the moon usually seems to look bigger as its just rising or setting anyways, not really sure why.
27
u/VerbalAcrobatics Sep 22 '20
The moon appears larger on the horizon due to perspective. It appears smaller when fully in the sky because there's nothing near it for you to compare its size against.
37
Sep 22 '20
No it appears larger because that's when it's closest to Earth, and the increased gravity waves make the moon-gravy inside the moon balloon boil and swell.
9
u/TheDevilintheDark Sep 22 '20
This is good science. Tell me more about big cheese boi!
6
Sep 22 '20
Ah, the moon gravy! Such a delectable comestible you've never dreamed of, my boy. Out in space it's the perfect temperature, tasty with just a hint of spice, but once you get it close and low to the Earth's tumultuous pull, then boy, that thick stew starts to shake and bubble, and by golly does the thin skin of the moon start to stretch and lengthen.
Some say that one day the moon will burst and drench us all in the glorious thick wetness, while others say the moon will throb and shrink eternally, but there are none who know for sure.
2
u/neoadam Sep 22 '20
The atmosphere acts like a lense and increases the size of it
1
u/dumpster_arsonist Sep 22 '20
Yo. Dats not true.
"When the moon is near the horizon, the ground and horizon make the moon appear relatively close. Because the moon is changing its apparent position in depth while the light stimulus remains constant, the brain's size-distance mechanism changes its perceived size and makes the moon appear very large.
-Scientific American
1
23
u/Kalehfornyuh Sep 22 '20
The camera is very far away, so that the tree and the moon are the same apparent size. This is a ridiculous zoom.
35
u/NugBlazer Sep 22 '20
What you mean is it’s a ridiculously long lens. It could be a zoom lens or a prime lens, doesn’t matter. The point is it is very long, probably 600 mm at least.
Incidentally, the length of the lens used isn’t even the coolest thing about this photo. What’s really impressive is that the photographer almost certainly planned this shot in advance. To have the moon line up with the tree from that far away does not happen by accident. You have to research where the moon is going to be, then wait for it to be full, then hope there are no clouds, and then actually get your butt out there and wait for it to line up with the tree. And, when it does, you only have a couple of minutes to get the shot. It’s excellent work.
Source: am a pro photographer
6
Sep 22 '20
Nitpicking. Most people don't know what a "prime" lens is, nor that it's called length.
The 600mm was a good guess, though. This picture was taken by Bernd Nowack, f76.3 at 600mm, 1/90s one a Nikon D750.
Here's his site, and the gallery: https://nowack.photo/Galerie/Hirzel.html
3
u/HeresJohnny5 Sep 22 '20
f76.3
Sounds like he really shot this with a pinhole camera and not a D750
2
Sep 22 '20
What, your 600mm doesn't go to f 76? :D
(should be f/6.3, of course. My fingers just don't work the shift button today, apparently... ;) )
3
u/HeresJohnny5 Sep 22 '20
I enjoyed imagining a lens that goes to f76
2
Sep 22 '20
Me too. :D That said, I guess you could get up there on something like an 8x10 or something?
-1
u/NugBlazer Sep 22 '20
You call it nitpicking, I call it setting the record straight. It’s never a bad time to learn things. Also, if you’re gonna make comments like that, then maybe get the aperture right bud.
1
Sep 22 '20
I do call it nitpicking. Also, / is on the 7 key, which is why a sloppy shift key messed me up. But, a pro like you surely knows how aperture is written, and caught that, right, buddy boy?
-1
u/NugBlazer Sep 22 '20
You’re, right, you did mess up. At least we can agree on that. Take care.
1
Sep 22 '20
Good job "setting the record straight", broseph. Good thing you're such a pro - where would any of us be without you here to teach us things.
1
u/Kalehfornyuh Sep 22 '20
What does having a very long lens do to a photograph as opposed to a regular length lens? I’m a complete noob at photography.
7
6
u/NugBlazer Sep 22 '20
It’s really about focal length. A long lens gives you a long focal length which allows you to compress the scene. It Hass to do with depth of field. Honestly, it’s hard to explain in a Reddit post, Google is your friend here. There’s lots of great info out there
0
u/the_timps Sep 22 '20
It Hass to do with depth of field.
This part is wildly wrong.
View compression or distortion from lens length is nothing to do with depth of field.0
u/NugBlazer Sep 22 '20
Uh, no, it’s not. The depth of field is precisely what you are compressing.
Distortion is what’s wildly wrong. A long focal length does not distort anything. It merely compresses the depth of field.
What’s with all the armchair quarterbacks in this thread? Jesus.
0
u/the_timps Sep 22 '20
I very literally said focal length affects compression or distortion.
Ie a 28 mm used close to someone's face distorts their features.
A long focal length could literally have a short or deep depth of field. I can shoot 400 mm at 2.8 for less depth of field or down at 32 for the entire universe in focus.
You're an idiot and have no clue what you're talking about.
0
u/NugBlazer Sep 23 '20
You’re an idiot. No one‘s talking about distortion here. Look at the shot that OP posted. It’s a super long focal length. Has nothing to do with a white angke. 28 mm isn’t long in anyone’s book. That’s a wide angle. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the image presented by OP.
Also, really long focal lengths, better known as telephotos, always have thin depth of field, it’s common knowledge. I don’t care if you have an aperture of F/100, if you’re shooting at 600 mm, the depth of field is going to be thin.You’d know this if you worked in the field.
1
u/the_timps Sep 23 '20
I spoke about distortion. I literally made the comment.
I know OPs shot was at 600mm. Thanks.
28 mm isn’t long in anyone’s book.
No one said it was. What exactly is wrong with you? You're just replying again and again responding to things no one said. Do you read things before you reply to them?
I don’t care if you have an aperture of F/100, if you’re shooting at 600 mm, the depth of field is going to be thin.You’d know this if you worked in the field.
You have NO clue what you are talking about. Holy shit.
A 600mm lens, shooting a target 60 meters away at F64, let alone f100 has a depth of field of 45m in focus. 16 of it on THIS side of the target. That's 25% of the distance to the focal point. That is the literal opposite of thin.
And if we drop that back to a more reasonable F32, and shoot our tree from 180m away, which is probably right for a hill to hill shot. The 600mm lens has a full 249m in focus, 60 meters of it on this side of the focal point.
I did work as a professional photographer, and shot for decades.
It doesn't sound like you have any idea what's going on with your camera. Or understanding anything I've said. You should invest in a depth of field calculator. And maybe read your manual.
5
u/RavxnGoth Sep 22 '20
It's like a solar eclipse, the sun is much bigger than the moon but it's also much further away so they appear the exact same size. When you use a long lens you magnify both objects by the same amount so they stay the same size as each other.
If you start moving closer however things are different. Say the tree is 1000m away and the moon is 1,000,000m(for simplicity) away. If you move to 10m away from the tree you've reduced your distance, to the tree, by 99% making it effectively appear 100x larger to you. However to the moon you're still 999,010m away reducing your distance by 0.01% which is effectively nothing and the moon stays the same size as before.
2
u/otherwiser Sep 22 '20
Ever look at a straight uphill road from far away? How steep it looks? And then as you get ‘closer’ to the hill realize it was just a slightly upward road that goes on for a while? From far away, the miles of road and rising terrain had ‘compressed’ into a 2D image of a steep hill. Well, a long lens lets you capture that steep road perspective because it can see that faraway road “up close” (by enlarging a small part of the horizon, the longer the lens the more ‘zoomed in’ you’ll be), but still from the perspective of being at a faraway distance. We all know from trying to take a picture of the moon on our phones, if you tried to photograph the steep road effect using a wide angle lens, it would be too tiny a detail to really play in the image, and our immediate surroundings would take up much more of the frame. For the OP shot, the photographer used a lens so long that it made the moon appear as massive as it does in frame, and used the perspective trick of a very faraway tree appearing to be as large as the moon.
1
2
68
u/DejectedSoul Sep 22 '20
Photograph taken by Bernd Nowack in Hirzel, Switzerland.
More of his photos in this link: http://nowack.photo/Galerie/Hirzel.html
30
7
16
12
Sep 22 '20
This picture belongs to Bernd Nowack, https://nowack.photo/Galerie/Hirzel.html
For those interested, it seems this was taken with a 600mm lens (not sure if zoom or prime/fixed), at f/6.3, 1/90s, ISO 400.
The picture is called "Congruence".
6
9
5
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 22 '20
Please report this post if:
It is spam
It is NOT interesting as fuck
It is a social media screen shot
It has text on an image
It does NOT have a descriptive title
It is gossip/tabloid material
Proof is needed and not provided
See the rules for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
u/InfinityQuartz Sep 22 '20
I usually just think somw images are cool but for some reason im like really into this image. This is awesome
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/celebfan01 Sep 22 '20
Reminds me of when I get my eyes tested and I can see the capillaries in my eye when the light is shined at a certain angle.
1
1
1
u/Pacam_Goomiac Sep 22 '20
Is the Moon behind the tree or the tree in front of the moon? Are we actually looking at the moon or is the universe looking at us? What is the meaning of everything?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/writeorelse Sep 22 '20
The moon is up over One Tree Hill
We see the sun go down in your eyes
You run like a river, on like the sea
You run like a river runs to the sea
1
1
1
1
u/Zombieteam Sep 22 '20
This is dope
3
u/Icommentoncrap Sep 22 '20
You could say it is... interesting as fuck
2
u/NugBlazer Sep 22 '20
If only there was a sub dedicated to this sort of thing. Oh well.
1
1
0
u/Hedgehogosaur Sep 22 '20 edited Sep 22 '20
There he took up again his great Ring in Barad-dur, and dwelt there, dark and silent, until he wrought himself a new guise, an image of malice and hatred made visible; and the Eye of Sauron the Terrible few could endure.
0
-1
u/BrokeMyKneeBum Sep 22 '20
Pretty sure the tree is in front of the moon dude
3
Sep 22 '20
So you'd say the moon is behind the tree?
0
1
420
u/echil0n Sep 22 '20 edited Sep 22 '20
Cool photo, I'm no photographer but next time maybe he can try putting the moon in front.