5-15-13 – Farkstronomy 2

I don’t care if it gets pushed back, I have the shots I’m going to use and I’m not likely to get a chance to get any more.

Ruling? It’s common in the marketplace, at least (and G+, etc.) to marry a foreground onto a stitched or stacked background (you can stack, but the horizon moves, after all). Example, not saying I’d use it or anything. 20+ frames, dark subtraction, but used the first frame in which to backlay the stack (it was rising).

http://fossilspringsaz.com/pics/2013/apr/10/panblend01web.jpg

Ruling 2? And I hate to ask, as I’m giving away one of my better shots (but it won’t be as clean; this has photoshop elements that won’t do even with astrofark guidelines). I ask as it was mentioned about foreground focal points vs. background astrophots.) Is the image more about the foreground and less about the background to rule it out?

https://plus.google.com/107857888121727893520/posts/1oYeiJekfyx

as opposed to this one, where obviously the background is just…a background

https://plus.google.com/107857888121727893520/posts/X1us3jiQjr2?hl=en

#1 – Ask yourself these questions: Did you maintain a constant focus through the exposures? Or are you compositing two separate compositions? Will you feel dirty submitting it?

It’s a single frame, .4 seconds, focus on the cacti. The moon, at this magnification, moves pretty durned fast. Dunno if I think it’s about the silhouette, or about what’s creating the sil. I would’t feel dirty about it, considering it’s not even a stack or anything.

\I’ll continue to mull it over; anyone else have thoughts?

Would a physical alteration to the lens apparatus affecting the astral shot be out?
Like, just putting droplets of colored water on the lens, or blocking out parts with construction paper to spruce up an otherwise mundane picture of light pollution and haze.

But is it in keeping with the theme?