BOB, thanks! For years I've wondered where the term "Blood Moon originated, other than it's often having a reddish hue, because of refraction of sunlight through earth's atmosphere, as you say. Does anyone know the origin of "Wolf Moon", "Hunter's Moon", and other monthly appellations?I sort of like those names----they seem dreamy and romantic. ---Ed
Welcome! I think you have lots of talent. For me, #4 is best. You (and certainly I) need to learn how to use our cameras on Mode rather than Auto, I think. I still have problems knowing how to do that. My advice is enjoy whatever you love to do, and remember that you've earned it.
Note to elmerviking, wbchinook and other fellow hedgehogs: I believe the main spot on your photos and on Wayne's to be nothing other than the crater Aristarchus, which usually stands out even when the Moon is not in eclipse---except, of course, in the lunar night. ---Ed Greding
Wayne, certain limited areas of the lunar surface reflect light much better then others, and a few very limited area are exceptional (often the floors of certain craters); I presume this to be due to the composition of the material present, and to the angel of incidence of the light reaching these areas. Your photos are taken at low magnification, hence these areas will appear small but bright when compared to the remainder of the moon's surface---whether in eclipse or not. My suggestion (if you are not a frequent moon-gazer via telescope) is to get a lunar map and note especially the positions of the craters Eratosthenes, Copernicus, Kepler and Aristarchus relative to other features, and to each other. Then compare to your photos. I think you will find that the points of light that you have noted correspond to the positions of the craters I have named. By the way, I think your photos are fine; mine are so bad I don't want to show them.--Ed Greding
I think my sister spent a night there once, as an accidental result of being stuck with my other sister. Is there a sign that says, "Watch Out for Snakes", and another (on the restroom door) that says something like, "This park is closed, but it will open as soon as we can find anyone willing
to work here" ??
Knowing but little, I'd say that you are a very adept at getting objects in the foreground lighted suitably, yet at the same time getting the moon in sharp focus, with surface details showing.
Other animals that pollinate (especially trees in the tropics) are bats.
Your images are stunning, especially when compared to what I can see through the eyepiece of my CGE 14".
I've always been a looker and to some extent make pencil sketches. 'Amateur astronomer since 1951, too old to face the steep learning curve of astrophotography today. Still, thanks to others for the dedication that produces such beautiful work.
I was born in 1940. At about age 8 my grandmother gave me some 78 RPM records, some of which I still have, and a player. I later got one that played 33 RPM, and still have a good record player. I must have several hundred 33 RPM records, and enjoy them still. As you say, they bring back memories of a world that has changed so much. Yes, I have cassettes, and CDs, but I'm glad I kept my old vinyls. And for me, music gives life more meaning. I love classical; to each his own. And, I certainly like your writing style. Thank you for a lovely post. Ed G.
Whatever it is, it sure looks broken to me. Did it appear to be alive?
It's a strange thing about being stupid. Some actions, as shown in this post, show that stupidity exists. And yet we have never been able to define intelligence adequately, nor genius, not even what being "smart" means, except partially, and in isolated incidences. I often think that most people who are what is called stupid KNOW that they are stupid. Yet they cannot do anything about it, can they? They can change their actions in order to be less harmful to themselves or others, but still they will be stupid. Maybe we should try,at least to be kinder, and be thankful not to be among the "stupid".
Thanks for your comments. Certainly if driving by I'd notice the fence first, to keep from running into it, or off the road. Then I'd notice the magnificent mountains, and think to myself, can I get a good photo of the mountains without the fence (and without obstructing the road)? I
suppose a careful look would show results of human activity on the lower slopes, but I don't see any. I like your revised version more. Still, "pixbyjnphotos," I regard your image of the legendary Superstition Mountains as a fine piece of work. You have a good day also! ---Ed
This is not a criticism, but rather a question based in perspective and method. If one wishes such a photo to look as "natural" as possible, would it be better to leave the fence out? Depth of field could be achieved if desired by using the tree for foreground, along with anything else not man-made or distracting. What do you think?
The third photo looks to me like all three are looking at the camera. All of them are lovely.