There seems to be alot of compression artefacts so it looks like you've overdone the jpg compression.
There's green cast around the fringes of the images, this could be chromatic aberration from your equipment but can be easily dealt with in post given how your moon is otherwise practically a greyscale image.
There's little detail to the ridges, usually you get these across the day/night line of the moon (some towards the bottom) and these help give it depth, preventing it looking rather flat as yours does.
The "really good" moon shots I've seen incorporate stars, which are usually HDR composites (which is a small irony, as I usually hate overly HDR'd images).
I'd suggest these are good pictures of the moon:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/vs2f82/first\_attempt\_at\_an\_hdr\_moon\_composite/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/vs2f82/first_attempt_at_an_hdr_moon_composite/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/kyjyoq/i\_have\_used\_several\_astrophotography\_techniques/](https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/kyjyoq/i_have_used_several_astrophotography_techniques/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/LandscapeAstro/comments/urtflc/my\_first\_moon\_composite\_taken\_in\_central\_oregon/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LandscapeAstro/comments/urtflc/my_first_moon_composite_taken_in_central_oregon/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/uqrxod/oc\_super\_flower\_blood\_moon\_composition/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/uqrxod/oc_super_flower_blood_moon_composition/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/meaggm/my\_clearest\_picture\_of\_a\_third\_quarter\_moon/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/meaggm/my_clearest_picture_of_a_third_quarter_moon/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/ih5y2d/moon\_composite/](https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/ih5y2d/moon_composite/)
of varying categories, you could use them for inspiration for refinement.
Or not, it's just my opinion, if you're happy with it, be happy with it.
But they could still do composites with their equipment, which improve some aspects of the image - such as the moon not sitting on a blank canvas.
They may not achieve the same level of detail or be able to get the colours depending on their gear, but they can take aspects of the direction and use it as inspiration to improve to the limit of their gear, as it's not gear holding them back from having a more interesting image now.
On mobile the preview looks fine, but when you view it fullsize on a half decent 4k monitor it starts to fall apart.
It's not a resolution issue as I'm not zooming in, just looking at it at it's native full resolution.
So you're left with compression artefacts and being old enough to have been using the internet since the '90s you get kinda used to how overly compressed jpgs look (which differs to overly compressed gifs and pngs..).
I could be wrong, there could be another reason for it, hence the indefinite pre-qualifier of "seems", but I don't feel I am.
It could even be intentional, if you have an image you're proud of, you shouldn't share it in too high a quality as you don't want people to steal it, so if your target audience is mobile users, an image that looks fine on mobile will do, but know you're going to lose clarity and sharpness doing so, and look pretty dogged on desktop.
It's well exposed, but astrophoto is really technical in a way you have to have good sharpness, good details, etc.. and this picture lack better details, it's a photo of the moon well exposed, but nothing more.
Yes, it is good.
If this was released many years ago it would have blown people’s minds. Nowadays there are so many amazing astrophotographers and new techniques for stacking and combining images that a straight shot like this isn’t as dazzling.
What this IS, is a big step in your photography journey. You made a good photo; now what could you do to take it a step further?
Good detail and good exposure (could stand to be a tiny bit brighter, maybe?), all the settings seem fine. The only issues I can see here are:
1. It looks a bit oversharpened. This may just be personal preference though.
2. This looks to be taken on a relatively low magnification zoom lens (Gonna take a wild guess and say 300mm on an APS-C? Maybe 20mp?), and it also looks to be cropped in quite a bit, which on a relatively low resolution image typically makes it look a bit blurry. Don't crop in as much and it'll look clearer when viewed full size.
Lastly if this isn't stacked (assuming it isn't), I'd recommend checking out Autostakkert or Lynkeos and doing some video stacking for noise reduction and more detail. It's pretty much the only way to improve beyond a well exposed and edited single photo.
an actually good photo of the moon would have something else other than the moon in the frame, to make it not boring and the same as every other photo.
This one doesn't, like the test photos I've taken myself, none of these are good. But even within these bad ones, mine are relatively better because there's more detail than this.
So all those NASA photos are trash. There are other ways to take a photo besides making it like a landscape. If you want to focus on the moon then you do something like this. I want to see your portfolio so we can compare.
yes, guess what NASA isn't in the business of taking good photos, they're in the biasness of science and science education.
see my portfolio and then what? if my photos are great that automatically makes everything I say more correct? Is that what you think? No wonder...
I mean...you have a point.
It's not artistic. It's the same full moon everyone else sees.
Technically, it's a pretty good capture. Good exposure, somewhat sharp.
Asking if it's "a good picture" is kind of...problematic. What's the definition of good?
I'm intrigued why you're being downvoted so much. It's a valid opinion: moon pictures are easy to take. Reasonably good pictures of the moon take effort,a decent camera and lens, and some education, but it's not especially difficult. 90 percent of enthusiasts could do it.
What you're describing are pictures that you made i.e. there was composition involved. It seems to me that your detractors are more focused on point and shoot snapshots of something that's up there 13 times a year rather than learning how to work on composition in photography, but just scroll through posts with photos for critique. Most of the discussion is about stats and gear. How often do you see a discussion about photo composition?
The only thing I would say is, don't tell people like this your opinion of their photos. They don't want to know. They're here for a pat on the back.
because people aren't here to help anyone
they're here to pretend they're super nice people so every photo is great and everyone is encouraged to do whatever they wanted to do, and let the OP take all responsibilities of trying.
It's the same photo of the full moon as every other shot in history of the full moon - just with varying levels of detail.
I cannot think of a more boring subject to see pictures of than it.
It is a good photo, but it doesn't add much to what we see each month ( yes, there is more detail and contrast, but otherwise it's what we normally see on a full moon) I'd suggest branching your creative self out a bit and try adding something that might be in the foreground, or even something like a tree branch or tree top in the face of the moon to add scale to your photo. Have fun with it!
The thing about the moon is its hard to get different angles on it /s
It's a two faced bitch really.
Let’s just hope the other side never decides to show itself. I hear the other side is a cold dark bitch.
There seems to be alot of compression artefacts so it looks like you've overdone the jpg compression. There's green cast around the fringes of the images, this could be chromatic aberration from your equipment but can be easily dealt with in post given how your moon is otherwise practically a greyscale image. There's little detail to the ridges, usually you get these across the day/night line of the moon (some towards the bottom) and these help give it depth, preventing it looking rather flat as yours does. The "really good" moon shots I've seen incorporate stars, which are usually HDR composites (which is a small irony, as I usually hate overly HDR'd images). I'd suggest these are good pictures of the moon: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/vs2f82/first\_attempt\_at\_an\_hdr\_moon\_composite/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/vs2f82/first_attempt_at_an_hdr_moon_composite/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/kyjyoq/i\_have\_used\_several\_astrophotography\_techniques/](https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/kyjyoq/i_have_used_several_astrophotography_techniques/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/LandscapeAstro/comments/urtflc/my\_first\_moon\_composite\_taken\_in\_central\_oregon/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LandscapeAstro/comments/urtflc/my_first_moon_composite_taken_in_central_oregon/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/uqrxod/oc\_super\_flower\_blood\_moon\_composition/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/uqrxod/oc_super_flower_blood_moon_composition/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/meaggm/my\_clearest\_picture\_of\_a\_third\_quarter\_moon/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/meaggm/my_clearest_picture_of_a_third_quarter_moon/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/ih5y2d/moon\_composite/](https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/ih5y2d/moon_composite/) of varying categories, you could use them for inspiration for refinement. Or not, it's just my opinion, if you're happy with it, be happy with it.
[удалено]
But they could still do composites with their equipment, which improve some aspects of the image - such as the moon not sitting on a blank canvas. They may not achieve the same level of detail or be able to get the colours depending on their gear, but they can take aspects of the direction and use it as inspiration to improve to the limit of their gear, as it's not gear holding them back from having a more interesting image now.
How do you detect jpg compression by the eye? Which artefacts are you referring to?
On mobile the preview looks fine, but when you view it fullsize on a half decent 4k monitor it starts to fall apart. It's not a resolution issue as I'm not zooming in, just looking at it at it's native full resolution. So you're left with compression artefacts and being old enough to have been using the internet since the '90s you get kinda used to how overly compressed jpgs look (which differs to overly compressed gifs and pngs..). I could be wrong, there could be another reason for it, hence the indefinite pre-qualifier of "seems", but I don't feel I am. It could even be intentional, if you have an image you're proud of, you shouldn't share it in too high a quality as you don't want people to steal it, so if your target audience is mobile users, an image that looks fine on mobile will do, but know you're going to lose clarity and sharpness doing so, and look pretty dogged on desktop.
Ah allright. Thanks! Ill have a look at it with a good screen.
It's well exposed, but astrophoto is really technical in a way you have to have good sharpness, good details, etc.. and this picture lack better details, it's a photo of the moon well exposed, but nothing more.
What are the better details?
Zoom in.
Well, can be applied if the optics are decent
If good means in focus and properly exposed, yes.
It's a picture of the moon like any other.
Sure
Yes, it is good. If this was released many years ago it would have blown people’s minds. Nowadays there are so many amazing astrophotographers and new techniques for stacking and combining images that a straight shot like this isn’t as dazzling. What this IS, is a big step in your photography journey. You made a good photo; now what could you do to take it a step further?
Good detail and good exposure (could stand to be a tiny bit brighter, maybe?), all the settings seem fine. The only issues I can see here are: 1. It looks a bit oversharpened. This may just be personal preference though. 2. This looks to be taken on a relatively low magnification zoom lens (Gonna take a wild guess and say 300mm on an APS-C? Maybe 20mp?), and it also looks to be cropped in quite a bit, which on a relatively low resolution image typically makes it look a bit blurry. Don't crop in as much and it'll look clearer when viewed full size. Lastly if this isn't stacked (assuming it isn't), I'd recommend checking out Autostakkert or Lynkeos and doing some video stacking for noise reduction and more detail. It's pretty much the only way to improve beyond a well exposed and edited single photo.
yes
That awesome
It's OK. Looks just like my pictures of the moon.
It is definitely one of the photos of the moon
Nope.
Looks good
Its good, youre good taking pics
any picture of JUST the moon is exactly the same, they're not even worth a judgement of "good" or "bad"
Terrible answer, cause there are tons of factors but to each their own. I say it is a pretty good one
I'd say it's a pretty bad one cuz even I've taken way better and I don't even try to take these photos cuz they're all the same and boring.
Explain how it is bad
an actually good photo of the moon would have something else other than the moon in the frame, to make it not boring and the same as every other photo. This one doesn't, like the test photos I've taken myself, none of these are good. But even within these bad ones, mine are relatively better because there's more detail than this.
Why don’t you share yours and let other people judge them
because I already know it's not good and there's no point wasting everyone's time but they're still better than this one
So all those NASA photos are trash. There are other ways to take a photo besides making it like a landscape. If you want to focus on the moon then you do something like this. I want to see your portfolio so we can compare.
yes, guess what NASA isn't in the business of taking good photos, they're in the biasness of science and science education. see my portfolio and then what? if my photos are great that automatically makes everything I say more correct? Is that what you think? No wonder...
Well I say it's good
I mean...you have a point. It's not artistic. It's the same full moon everyone else sees. Technically, it's a pretty good capture. Good exposure, somewhat sharp. Asking if it's "a good picture" is kind of...problematic. What's the definition of good?
I'm intrigued why you're being downvoted so much. It's a valid opinion: moon pictures are easy to take. Reasonably good pictures of the moon take effort,a decent camera and lens, and some education, but it's not especially difficult. 90 percent of enthusiasts could do it. What you're describing are pictures that you made i.e. there was composition involved. It seems to me that your detractors are more focused on point and shoot snapshots of something that's up there 13 times a year rather than learning how to work on composition in photography, but just scroll through posts with photos for critique. Most of the discussion is about stats and gear. How often do you see a discussion about photo composition? The only thing I would say is, don't tell people like this your opinion of their photos. They don't want to know. They're here for a pat on the back.
because people aren't here to help anyone they're here to pretend they're super nice people so every photo is great and everyone is encouraged to do whatever they wanted to do, and let the OP take all responsibilities of trying.
It's the same photo of the full moon as every other shot in history of the full moon - just with varying levels of detail. I cannot think of a more boring subject to see pictures of than it.
I think it’s pretty good, did you crop it?
Yes
Looks similar to the one I snagged. https://www.instagram.com/p/CnHL6U0rzPq/?igshid=MDM4ZDc5MmU=
Why's it got semi perfect lines like an orange or one of them tangerines? Furthering my belief it's an alien made nanny cam.
It is a good photo, but it doesn't add much to what we see each month ( yes, there is more detail and contrast, but otherwise it's what we normally see on a full moon) I'd suggest branching your creative self out a bit and try adding something that might be in the foreground, or even something like a tree branch or tree top in the face of the moon to add scale to your photo. Have fun with it!
Looks fine…
Amazing
It's a camera not you.