This was shot with a tripod mounted Olympus E10 with the kind assistance of my daughter hand holding a ten inch telescope sun filter before the lens. In the mean time I was holding a pair of 20x binoculars between the camera and the filter so that one tube was aimed at the sun. The exposure was determined via several previous trials.

I would think that the light comes from heated particles that melt off of the body, as it traverses the atmosphere. I once witnessed such a train following a "shooting star" through a telescope, and it gradually dimmed out disappearing rather after the unaided eye could detect the glow. It was much like the after glow of burned out filaments of a light bulb.

In daylight a large specimen sometimes leaves behind a smoke train that dissipates in a while.

Rocar, if you would exclude the detailed areas in a selection, then you could have the best of both worlds.

The visible "other half of the moon" is being lighted by the earth rather than shadowed. That's earth shine you see lighting up the moon's shadowed half, shadowed by it self. If the moon can shine on us, then we certainly can shine the moon up.

Looking closely as I can at your picture, I see no area that looks in focus. To me this suggests that camera motion is at play. You may have exposed at too slow a shutter speed for hand held shooting. I don't think it is so much a matter of putting your red dot out of place or that your lens is at fault, as shutter speed and/or unsteady camera.

The bug is only wierd for the uninitiated, it is as common as dog hair in a kennel. The insect order is hemiptera meaning half winged as the top wing covers are not complete revealing the true wings underneath. The common name of the bug is stink bug. Indeed they do stink. The hemiptera are known as the "true" bugs among other insects, that sometimes are also improperly called bugs as a generic term for insect.

Over exposure happens at the shutter click. It is the settings on the camera that are involved. Shutter speed vs the F stop. You may be using automatic camera determination for the settings. If you still have the camera manual, that is a good place to start reading. It is probably available on line if you have misplaced it.

In automatic mode camera light meter results are used by ain in camera computation to do the settings. Here it is important to know how the camera light meter operates in order to have some influence on its setting functions.

As you noted, you are a rank beginner, and that is the time to dig in to learn camera fundimentals.

Exposure is affected by the size of the hole in the lens that lets the light in, and by the speed that the camera shutter opens and closes again. You can control these factors. Relying on automatic exposure mode to do it all does not cover all situations. So, to do better exposures more of the time, you need to know more about those sorts of things, especially as it pertains to your particular camera.

Ok, it is a commericial print, done by CVS Pharmacy. Yes, there is a whole world of photographic lore waiting for you to learn. Keep it fun, and keep at it.

I think you have more picture there, than you give yourself credit for. As is, it looks a little overexposed, but not badly. Is this a commercial print?

Here is a download version for you.

Look up, "Gladioli in the spotlight" The link failed for
me too. Here it is again.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-62267-1.html

I believe that your flower photograph would benifit from including areas of deeper tones. Here is what I mean:http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-62267-1.html.

I did not find that the white was blown out. Testing by darkening that area revealed lots of detail and color.

Thanks for the info update. It was a recient clip.

Indeed, I was just addressing a topic of interest your hello included. I did note both the distinction and the corresponding agreement. Don't worry about controversy- - -, it'll come looking for you regardless. It loves opinions. Translation, opinions = target. We all know what bit of anatomy is likened to opinion and the universality of that anatomy.

In an entirely different direction, I found a Kiwi military funeral as shown on Youtube fascinating. The inclusion of a strong dose of Polynesian warrior culture in the proceedings spoke clearly that that heart still beats. I also thought I saw in the physiognomy of many of the soldiers Polynesian traits. The figures carved on cemetery gate also did. As I recall, the European intrusion was stoutly resisted by those already present.

Well here is perhaps the longest welcome to the old Hog the site has seen. You think you are long winded! Regarding your interesting philosophical thoughts here is a further development.

The philosophical point is all about honesty. I'll go for that. And, I can see two aspects at either end of a communication, keeping intentions honest and expectations honest.

Being honest at the input-intentent location is what we have with the expressed philosophy. Understanding that is not difficult, don't lie. At the other end there is some responsibility too. An unlabeled picture is just that, a picture.

Don't have expectations and assumptions that it is a photograph. It may look like one, it may be based on photographic technology, but it is not a photograph for the viewer until it somehow labeled as such. Dare I say that there is something dishonest in having false expectations?
The unlabeled picture may well be truly photographic, but there is no way of knowing or being sure. The error of false assumption attaches to the viewer.

There is a problem to be dealt with in determining whether an image is a photograph or a mere picture. The crux of it is not so much a matter of alteration as degree. It is a rare image that is formed as an exact replica. So just how far from the original can we go and still have a photograph instead of merely a picture?

How many ways do images acceptable as photographs deviate from the original? Some common deviations are size, coloration, amount of exposure and representation of the range of light values present, and lens distortions. Then there are the artifacts of mechanical processing including the presentation medium. In the old days one chose the kind of print paper. For a transparency there was projector and projection surface to be considered. Today our cameras have electronic processing to introduce departures from the original image, though they may be attempting to match that. Even the fundamental camera RAW image represents the interaction of camera, sensitive surface, and the electronic translation of that into a stored file.

So, when we get an image out of a camera it is something far from the original image. This is also the case with the eye. Right off the inverted image gets converted to upright in the brain. Then only a slice of the color spectrum is represented. If we have cataracts, we have a yellow filter working on the image.

Yet we are willing to enter into a common sense agreement with others, that in an acceptable sense, what we most commonly get out of a camera is an honest image; that is mainly due, I think, to the intent of being a representational
product. We are willing to overlook certain deficiencies.

It is not too different from testimony. We accept as true statements that are essentially true rather than completely true. Completely true statements would be loaded with information of no interest; indeed it is impossible to manage a complete description of some object or circumstance just as a camera is limited in what it is able to resolve.

In producing a photograph for presentation human manipulation is introduced into the process. Even if completely managed mechanically by an automatically performing machine, the human element has set the machine to perform to some specification according to some set of intentions. Therefore, we may ask just what point does manipulation convert a photographic image into a mere picture; if we are accepting as a valid photograph something of less than complete accurate representation, where is the line drawn dividing the two concepts of image?

It is an interesting question, one that may seem to submit easily to some common sense, but just how much in common do we sense this matter? Individually it is an easy answer; it is answered as one pleases. But, to gain an answer that better satisfies a larger, better fitted sense, where does one go? Where is the line between?

I am glad you found something here worth further effort.

Do you feel that the false HDR result is a better rendering? Does seeing every shadow brightened to full noon time values improve a sunset picture? Do you get more detail this way with out distorting other important features?

I feel that, if you like this result better, then you might consider, that it was not the best time to go for this picture. There is not much point in capturing the subtleties and dramas of sunset light, then going for a noon light PP result.

It may be observed that tastes in photographs vary and that one is as valid as another, as long as there is an eye to find it pleasing.