Moon in full color

[o hey tyler]

I was going to say...

Jacking up the saturation on a mostly gray image doesn't give you "full color". But you corrected yourself anyways. As it isn't any more of a "full color" image than what you would get SOOC. But you know that anyways...

 

[Stosh]

Those colors do not exist on the Moon, and are indeed false colors rendered by your post processing.

Just check out all the color images the Apollo astonauts made while approaching, on, and departing from the Moon. Like this famous, public domain, NASA photo made from lunar orbit on Christmas Eve, 1968 (Apollo 8):

Interesting, because jacking up the saturation on this image you posted gives pretty similar results as mine. I would say you inadvertently helped my cause.

With mine I adjusted the color balance first to get my results. So if I adjusted the color balance on the NASA photo before boosting the saturation, I'm sure I could come up with similar results. Of course this isn't fair because NASA didn't have to shoot through miles of atmosphere.

 

[Stosh]

I was going to say...

Jacking up the saturation on a mostly gray image doesn't give you "full color". But you corrected yourself anyways. As it isn't any more of a "full color" image than what you would get SOOC. But you know that anyways...

Yeah, I'm with you Tyler. I was just trying to think of a catchy title. This turned into a science thread instead of a C&C, but then again I never asked for C&C. I probably should have, but assumed that was "understood" in this forum. So now I'm asking:

Is there anything I should have done to make this a "better" or more interesting picture? Certainly an interesting foreground would have helped. Maybe Bitter Jeweler and I can put ours together on his last image?

 

[caged]

but that (NASA) picture is earth... from the moon.

 

[Raian-san]

Those colors do not exist on the Moon, and are indeed false colors rendered by your post processing.

Just check out all the color images the Apollo astonauts made while approaching, on, and departing from the Moon. Like this famous, public domain, NASA photo made from lunar orbit on Christmas Eve, 1968 (Apollo 8):

Very beautiful, I love studying astronomy and the universe. Life is fascinating.

 

[LCARSx32]

The picture of the Earth from the Moon puts into stark contrast just how very small and insignificant we really are. Amazing.

 

[Stosh]

but that (NASA) picture is earth... from the moon.

I agree, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I thought my moon looked strikingly similar to NASA's moon when over-saturated, not NASA's earth.

 

[o hey tyler]

but that (NASA) picture is earth... from the moon.

I agree, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I thought my moon looked strikingly similar to NASA's moon when over-saturated, not NASA's earth.

I think what people are getting at is that if you increase the saturation on any photo (beyond a realistic amount) the colors appear to be less natural and far less accurate. A simple pastel yellow can turn into a a fire hydrant yellow just by boosting the saturation above 70%.

Increasing the saturation can bring out color definition, but it can also hinder the viewer from establishing what they're looking at. Because you bumped up the saturation you got more vibrant colors, but if you were standing on the moon it would be very gray.

Soooo, I am not sure KmH helped your cause... You may have just misinterpreted what he was saying.

 

[PenguinPhotoWrx]

First, awesome picture.

Second, what do you mean by useful? I'm sure NASA has plenty of pictures of the moon, so I don't think they need any...

Since the light falling on the moon is sunlight, I'm guessing the color temp should be standard daylight, which, as you said, produces a lot of red. As soon as you changed the color temp in your post processing to get rid of the red, you altered everything- so the colors you're seeing are definitely not there, IMO. And anything that gets rid of red should be tending toward blue, no?

However, scientifically, they alter color temps all the time to get different results and see different things. This is no less valid.

Another thought... is the moon perfectly gray? Or does it tend towards a particular hue? Maybe that's what we're seeing when you pump up the saturation. I mean, every gray pixel should be made up of several colors, no? They may not be equal.

Like I said, great photo. I used to take pictures of the moon through my 600 mm mirror lens but the results were always mixed. I'd love to get another 600 for my new Nikon and play more with it, now that I don't have to wait for film to be processed.

Excellent shot- blow it up big- that's poster worthy.

 

[Stosh]

I think what people are getting at is that if you increase the saturation on any photo (beyond a realistic amount) the colors appear to be less natural and far less accurate. A simple pastel yellow can turn into a a fire hydrant yellow just by boosting the saturation above 70%.

Increasing the saturation can bring out color definition, but it can also hinder the viewer from establishing what they're looking at. Because you bumped up the saturation you got more vibrant colors, but if you were standing on the moon it would be very gray.

Soooo, I am not sure KmH helped your cause... You may have just misinterpreted what he was saying.

Yeah, does this start falling into the category of how much can you alter a photo and still have it represent something? I guess I interpreted KmH's post as saying those colors were completely fabricated. Is saturating fabrication or exaggeration? Then color balancing - is that fabrication or shifting or altering? If he meant that's not the way the moon looks to us, I'd say that's pretty obviously correct.

First, awesome picture.

Second, what do you mean by useful? I'm sure NASA has plenty of pictures of the moon, so I don't think they need any...

Since the light falling on the moon is sunlight, I'm guessing the color temp should be standard daylight, which, as you said, produces a lot of red. As soon as you changed the color temp in your post processing to get rid of the red, you altered everything- so the colors you're seeing are definitely not there, IMO. And anything that gets rid of red should be tending toward blue, no?

However, scientifically, they alter color temps all the time to get different results and see different things. This is no less valid.

Another thought... is the moon perfectly gray? Or does it tend towards a particular hue? Maybe that's what we're seeing when you pump up the saturation. I mean, every gray pixel should be made up of several colors, no? They may not be equal.

Like I said, great photo. I used to take pictures of the moon through my 600 mm mirror lens but the results were always mixed. I'd love to get another 600 for my new Nikon and play more with it, now that I don't have to wait for film to be processed.

Excellent shot- blow it up big- that's poster worthy.

Thanks for the kind words.
You got me on the useful lol. I should have said something like interesting or different or would anyone get any enjoyment from looking at it.

I admit I'm a little confused about the color temperature myself. When I process the RAW image and specify daylight temperature, it's an orangish-reddish moon. The NASA photo clearly shows a much more neutral gray than I got. Can I assume my reddish color is because to us humans, "white" light is the addition of reddish light from the sun plus blueish light from the scattered light in the atmosphere (blue sky)? So if you take a pic of the sun and expose it correctly, is it red instead of white? I think it must be. This would make sense because a time exposure of a night scene during full moon shows a blue sky just like in daylight. So both moon (and the sun) are reddish by themselves, but when added with blue sky give you white. Therefore I *have* to alter the color temperature *because* I'm shooting through the atmosphere instead of inside it. So am I back to square one? Can I say this is true (but greatly exaggerated) color?

Any other thoughts?

 

[KmH]

I guess I interpreted KmH's post as saying those colors were completely fabricated. Is saturating fabrication or exaggeration? Then color balancing - is that fabrication or shifting or altering? If he meant that's not the way the moon looks to us, I'd say that's pretty obviously correct.

Yep, I'm saying those colors were completely fabricated by the interpolation math the editing software does to boost the saturation, and they don't exist in nature.

 

[Stosh]

I guess I interpreted KmH's post as saying those colors were completely fabricated. Is saturating fabrication or exaggeration? Then color balancing - is that fabrication or shifting or altering? If he meant that's not the way the moon looks to us, I'd say that's pretty obviously correct.

Yep, I'm saying those colors were completely fabricated by the interpolation math the editing software does to boost the saturation, and they don't exist in nature.

I did the processing and I know no colors were fabricated. We could argue and theorize all day or we could do a quick internet search and as expected, I'm not the first person in the world to do this. There are many examples like mine, but here is an article from Sky And Telescope:
SkyandTelescope.com - Celestial Scenes - Color Moon

The Moon shows it's true colors! If our eyes were color sensitive enough, this is how we would see the Moon. So the Moon has colors even if they are subtle. The diffences are mainly due to different mineral composition of the Lunar regolith. For example, mares (lava fields) rich in titanium are blue while titanium-poor lavas are red. Also note the different (reddish) color of imapact melt around major craters, in particular Tycho (bottom center).

 

[robitussin217]

moon with makeup

 

[PenguinPhotoWrx]

Well, so there you have it- the Sky & Telescope guys seem pretty definitive about the cause.