Saw some neat mist in a field but it got dark by the time I got the picture... kind of a moody feelling.

Misty Field at Night

Nice! I like sunsets over the ocean, especially with astronomical phenomena.

Could you mark the spot with an X or a circle? Which two craters? I'll walk over and check it out while I am here!

I'll test it as soon as get a beach or some snow...could be a while.

Sorry. I did run across some interesting blurring techniques you may or may not be awaremodern of. I wasn't. See if this url works:https://plus.google.com/u/0/103899043917116388673/posts/718NmYqobS9
I read further, he, Bob Hemingway, says the lens he uses is a: "Nikon 105mm f/2 DC. Much of the softness is because of intentionally abusing the DC (de-focusing) control, which adds spherical aberration. That's my favorite lens..." I checked on that lens, it is quite expensive, a little over my head right now. I will try to attach one of his photos.

Not bad for a point and shoot. I took some quick photos with my Canon XTi, and a Tamron Zoom 28-300 set on 300,and I like yours better.

I used a tripod too. I should try again sometime.

Ok, here is my moonshot, top this!

I don't understand that, are you sure you got it right? A dark shot needs more light and vice versa.

That photo of the light reflected on water at night was in the middle of winter, the water was frozen...that is an icy surface...you are correct, it was cold and devoid of life! My fingers were numb and my nose hurt by the time I got this photo. I am trying to get into using the blur more in photography because I like other peoples' use of it, especially with the macro shots, or like the one with mist that was on the forum the other day, but my own style is minute detail with perfect depth of field from foreground to background.

And if you showed a photo of the Washington Monument to an ancient Egyptian, he would say: "So it's a picture of an obelisk, so what's the big deal?"

After more pondering on this event, I have decided we are a bunch of frustrated and jealous photographers. We should be thankful that there are people out there who will pay money for art photography, it is a difficult field. We should all be inspired by this event, that big money can be made. Ok, back to reality; this happened it Europe, where I hear there is still a big appreciation of art, unlike the US where we have the kind of reaction from most people that we have seen in this forum. Here, galleries that show art and photography, and stores that sell photo supplies and art supplies are going out of business. Art has been taken out of the public school systems, and now the term "Artist" is used in the media as a term for musicians, not 2D image makers, like painters and photographers. Artists are portrayed on TV as buffoons. At least in Europe people still have some sense. Art is the highest attainment of Man.

I was wondering if Holograms would come up. 30 years ago I did a school project with a Hologram, it was on a transparent plastic sheet and came with World Book Encyclopedia's Science Yearbook.
It was truly a 3D image, with a magnifying glass in front of a chess piece on a chessboard. By moving your head to the side of the image you could look around the side of the magnifying glass and see the chesspiece normal. Moving your head again to the center of the image and you were seeing the chesspiece through the magnifying glass. I was fascinated, what would this mean to the future of art and photography? Credit Card security logo's, 30 yrs later, thats all. As for my reservations about this new fascinating development, you won't be able to crank one out on your printer any time soon!

We only see a 72 dpi screen image. We cannot really judge it untill we stand in front of the original. There may be something to the size, for instance if it is very large the effect will totally change, like looking a small Jackson Pollack reproduction cannot prepare you for seeing a real one in musem. The printing technique may be very high end with fantastic detail, we don't know. I always though it was ridiculous the Baltimore Museum of Art paid $750,000 for an Andy Warhol print "The Last Supper" (I live in Baltimore). It was just a photo of Da Vinci's original. Warhol didn't even paint it himself. However, when I saw the actual piece in the museum I was really impressed. It was rather stunning. It was very large, like 50 ft long, and was a double image, printed twice next to each other. The image was made in newspaper style half tone dots! Sounds strange, but the effect was amazing! As you stand close the dots are quite obvious, and to see them coalesce into the image is like an optical illusion, or like a Liechinstein painting, which enlarged the dots used in comic book to make a large painting of a cartoon. I just googled an image of the Warhol print and it looks totally unimpressive on screen, totally unlike the real thing.

Yes, but it would have to be a digital screen hanging on the wall. and you would need interactive devices to move a cursor. A print on paper or canvas cannot be interactive, and that is what this is all about.; Once you get a screen on the wall, you have to have software to hold the file information, and you have to consider a power supply just to see the image. File information is just digital. it can be lost(unless you forget where you put it!) Once that happens the image is lost. I have a whole bunch of images on zip discs. Once that technology changed, I lost a lot of images, because computers nowadays do not have slots for zipdiscs. A print on paper cannot be lost. There was a lot of new art done on floppy discs and stored by museums, but they don't have equipment any more to access it anymore. The art was lost. Remember 8 Track music cassettes? I though they had a better sound, but nowadays they are useless. I have a vast VCR library that will go extinct since the technology is switching to DVD. There is no replacement for a permanent, made of solid matter art, that when made with archival materials and a little care will last centuries. Can you imagine digging up a Michaelangelo on a plastic disc in a future which may not use plastic discs anymore?
However, I do like this new stuff, I think it is neat! Maybe someday they will dig up thin archival plastic sheet with archival solar panels, when light hits it a photo appears, you touch it and it zoom into focus on a detail....but I am also a big science fiction fan, most of that stuff never happens.

I too like to get into night photography, but to me it can be frustrating. I would like to see more detail, more pickup of light on the form without losing the darks and 'overexposing' the night. I think you can do better. It is going to take a lot of trial and error, but don't give up. I too think there are great possibilities there if you can get around the problems. My biggest enemy in night shots is the noise accumulation from long shutter times. Here is one of my attempts.