Supermoon from Belle Isle, photo by Alanna St. Laurent Photography
On Saturday night the Super Moon took to the skies. While it didn’t appear to be the biggest moon I’ve ever seen, it was definitely very impressive. You can still check it out pretty big tonight if it’s out.
Check this out bigger and see a couple more in Alanna’s Detroit Slideshow.
There are a bunch more shots of the Super Moon over some familiar Michigan scenery in the Absolute Michigan pool on Flickr – add your own if you have them and settle back for the Super Moon slideshow!
More about the Super Moon on Michigan in Pictures and check out the Super Moon slideshow from the Absolute Michigan pool!
Michigan in Pictures 
That is a horribly photoshopped picture.
LikeLike
It’s actually not photoshopped. It’s a stacked HDR I believe. I never understood the impulse that drives people to be mean and angry online.
LikeLike
I agree that if you don’t have anything nice to say then just “shut up”!
LikeLike
Actually Ted Fines, its not that I don’t have anything nice to say, its that I don’t want to be lied to in a picture.
There are many things that lead me to say that in this picture, including how it is an extended exposure so that the water, skyline, and other items are blurry, and the lights have a star burst effect coming off of them. That moon is too crisp to be from a long exposure. If anything, its a stacked picture of a zoomed up picture of the moon overlaid on the extended exposure picture.
You can also see the star burst effect coming off the real size of the moon which is behind the bigger overlaid version.
LikeLike
Too bad the cutline doesn’t indicate which two lenses were used in this image…one wide for the landscape, and one long telephoto (400mm?) for the moon?
LikeLike
Turns out I was wrong and it is the result of two shots.
http://alannastlaurent.com/2011/03/super-moon-is-super/
I still maintain that I’m really tired of people treating the internet like it’s life or death. So, good call Blogger, but bad manners.
LikeLike
Blogger: I got a chuckle from your comment “you do not want to be lied to in a picture”. If you had read my blog, which you obviously did not, then you would have seen that I explained that the photo was photoshopped and even explained how I did it. I find it more funny that you must think that so many photos that you see online, in magazines, etc. have NOT been manipulated in some way (aka “lying to people”). In fact, I would like to see how many great photos come out of your camera without ANY processing whatsoever. I think photos can be made even better than what the camera is able to capture by the use of post-processing software, and whole industries revolve around photographers learning how to do this. Maybe you might want to take this up with them.
LikeLike
Part of this is my fault for not realizing that you had manipulated this. You kind of have to with a picture like this to get the actual effect that you see with your eyes.
This is a good point for a rant from one of the world’s leading photographers, Ken Rockwell about filters and such:
I have always found “blindly Xeroxing nature” to be an apt description for people who are trying to get the “purity” of a photograph taken with cameras which are, in the end, entirely artificial vision systems. There’s times when HDR meets my tastes and times when it doesn’t, and the same holds true with anything.
Camera, lens, film, software – all are tools that have a place.
LikeLike
Thanks Andrew for the reply and I did read Ken’s post as well. This experience made me realize I should add more detail to my Flickr photo descriptions so people know how the photo came about. Live and learn :)
LikeLike
I don’t know that it’s the duty of an artist to explain their work. (although it would probably help me interpret photos)
LikeLike