Composite photo: I am playing with composite photos. This image has three shots - the bridge, fireworks at Disney, and the moon from my house. Is the shot interesting or appealing? Is...

DrJoeS Loc: Tampa Bay area (FL)

I am playing with composite photos. This image has three shots - the bridge, fireworks at Disney, and the moon from my house.
Is the shot interesting or appealing?
Is the moon too big?
Any feedback will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

(Download)

Ourspolair

I like it, but think that you should mirror the fireworks and the moon in the water.

DrJoeS Loc: Tampa Bay area (FL)

Ourspolair wrote:

I like it, but think that you should mirror the fireworks and the moon in the water.

I can go back and do that.

ELNikkor

The bridge is pretty stunning as it is. The fireworks look out of place, and the moon looks too obviously pasted in front of the clouds. Would there be any way you could position yourself to actually get the full moon rising behind the bridge?

rvenneman Loc: Yuma, AZ

DrJoeS wrote:

I am playing with composite photos. This image has three shots - the bridge, fireworks at Disney, and the moon from my house.
Is the shot interesting or appealing?
Is the moon too big?
Any feedback will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I love this type of art. It is how you envisioned it to be. The reflections is a great idea and would add to the composite and only if you want it there.
This type of art is the new art added to all that came before us. Some say “this is not photograph because it is not what the camera was intended for and it is not what was on the film.” I say phooey. And they are correct in stating it is not photography in a sense. But photography is the tool for your final work of art.

DrJoeS Loc: Tampa Bay area (FL)

rvenneman wrote:

I love this type of art. It is how you envisioned it to be. The reflections is a great idea and would add to the composite and only if you want it there.
This type of art is the new art added to all that came before us. Some say “this is not photograph because it is not what the camera was intended for and it is not what was on the film.” I say phooey. And they are correct in stating it is not photography in a sense. But photography is the tool for your final work of art.

Thanks for your comments.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

There are thin clouds in the sky, so the moon should be behind those if you are going for more realistic and/or less "pasted in."

Come visit us in Post-Processing Forum:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html

There are many topics with composite work and many tips to learn.

DrJoeS Loc: Tampa Bay area (FL)

Linda From Maine wrote:

There are thin clouds in the sky, so the moon should be behind those if you are going for more realistic and/or less "pasted in."

Come visit us in Post-Processing Forum:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html

There are many topics with composite work and many tips to learn.

Will do. Thanks.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

DrJoeS wrote:

I am playing with composite photos. This image has three shots - the bridge, fireworks at Disney, and the moon from my house.
Is the shot interesting or appealing?
Is the moon too big?
Any feedback will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Looks good. The main thing I see is that it is too busy. Maybe the moon or the fireworks, but not both. Technically very good.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

DrJoeS wrote:

....Is the moon too big?....

It depends what your intention is. If you want to stick to strict realism then yes, it's a bit too big. But it clearly states in the 2020 amendment to the Artistic Licence Terms and Conditions that larger than life moons are acceptable. I believe they made that amendment because of the widely acknowledged desirability of large moons in composites. But don't forget the points pointed out by others concerning clouds and reflections.

DrJoeS Loc: Tampa Bay area (FL)

cahale wrote:

Looks good. The main thing I see is that it is too busy. Maybe the moon or the fireworks, but not both. Technically very good.

Thanks. I was trying to see what I could do.

DrJoeS Loc: Tampa Bay area (FL)

R.G. wrote:

It depends what your intention is. If you want to stick to strict realism then yes, it's a bit too big. But it clearly states in the 2020 amendment to the Artistic Licence Terms and Conditions that larger than life moons are acceptable. I believe they made that amendment because of the widely acknowledged desirability of large moons in composites. But don't forget the points pointed out by others concerning clouds and reflections.

Is there really an Artistic License amendment about moon sizes?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

rvenneman wrote:

I love this type of art. It is how you envisioned it to be. The reflections is a great idea and would add to the composite and only if you want it there.
This type of art is the new art added to all that came before us. Some say “this is not photograph because it is not what the camera was intended for and it is not what was on the film.” I say phooey. And they are correct in stating it is not photography in a sense. But photography is the tool for your final work of art.

It most certainly IS photography, and it isn't new. Photographers have been making composite images since the beginnings of photography, and they have always been classified as photographs.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

DrJoeS wrote:

Is there really an Artistic License amendment about moon sizes?

There is now

.

DrJoeS Loc: Tampa Bay area (FL)

R.G. wrote:

There is now

.

Clever and imaginative