Super Moon

[Frequency]

another from yesterday

#############################################################################################################################

Such a beautiful image; this should have posted separately to get special attention, i feel; are you not the one who posted "Malaysian Las Vegas? distinction is very apparent !!! :thumbsup:

 

[480sparky]

............Maybe you should share your theories with NASA. .........

"According to Jeff Chester ," "Says Chester".

Sounds like NASA is parroting information as well. At least they should try to get the correct orientation of the moon as well instead of showing it upside-down.

 

[Conner41]

All are great shots. I was cloudy where I live so I couldn't take any decent photos.

 

[quiddity]

shot early evening from back porch last weekend
300mm with kenko 1.4 tc


super_moon by tshesse, on Flickr

 

[reedshots]

Just thought I would throw my 2 cents in.
over the millennia the moons size has not changed, but it has and is still decreasing in VISUAL size as seen from the earth as it moves farther away from the earth. It will appear smaller every year as time goes on.

 

[Fern]

It appears bigger and brighter the longer you WAIT for it to show up!

 

[Buddy Thomason]

From Denver, Colorado USA
We had (for Colorado) a fair amount of moisture in the air and a thick layer of low-lying clouds on the Eastern horizon. The moon, very big and orange, rose through the soup (even marginally sharp images not possible) and only then did it become fairly crisp. Maybe it didn't live up to the hype. That doesn't concern me because it's always special when I get to watch the full moon rise! Besides, the full moon is a photographer's test piece - to get a decent shot (by design, not accident) one must have, at a minimum, grasped the manner in which the three main variables (shutter speed, aperture, ISO) interact to produce the optimum exposure. Plus, to get an above average finished image of the full moon, one needs to know about digital noise and how the editing software works to tame it. Some would way a solid working knowledge of sharpening is equally important in this situation and I would agree.

Canon 1DMKII, 500mm f5.6 L lens with 1.4 extender = 910mm
ISO 200, f5.6, 1/30s, mirror lock-up w/ 2 sec. delay
Arca Swiss ball head w/ Wimberly Side Kick
Processed in Adobe PSCS5

 

[OrionsByte]

Above: Perigee moons are as much as 14% wider and 30% brighter than lesser full Moons

These tell me that this was yet another astronomical story that was only partially reported by the media, which leads to misinformation.

What NASA says: a full moon at perigee (it's closest point to Earth) appears 14% bigger and 30% brighter than a full moon at apogee (it's farthest point from Earth).

What the media says: the super moon will appear 14% bigger and 30% brighter.

What the public assumes: the super moon will appear 14% bigger and 30% brighter than normal.

There's a big difference between the first statement and the last. Not every full moon occurs at apogee either (in fact, the next full moon at apogee won't be until October). So while the media's statements are partially true, they're leaving off some crucial bits of information that make people misunderstand the facts.

Also, in regards to the comments earlier about the moon not changing brightness - there's a difference between photographic brightness and astronomical brightness. When they say the moon will be 30% brighter they're not talking about its reflectivity; they're talking about it's apparent brightness, just like they're talking about apparent size. If you take a desk lamp and use it to light a scene, and then move that lamp closer to your subject, the lamp will not have changed brightness, but you will also need less exposure on your subject because the light will appear to be brighter to that subject (inverse square law). Same principle. Astronomical objects are measured on a magnitude scale that have to do with how we see them, not what their actual brightness is.

This reminds me a little bit of the email hoax that went around a few years ago that said that Mars was going to be the closest to Earth it had been in years, and that it would look as big as the full moon to the naked eye. At least, that's what people thought it said. What it actually said was that it would be the same apparent diameter through a small telescope as the moon is to the naked eye. Sometimes people hear what they want to hear.