Are All Those Super Moon Pictures Really That Super?

The "Original"

I have been perusing the various "super moon" pictures on Facebook and Reddit.com from last night.  Some are spectacular - how did they get the moon soooo BIG?

I suspect that a little Photoshop might have been in play.  Not for all, mind you, but some of us did not have the good fortune of having a shot that brought the moon under perfect atmospheric conditions.  The full moon looks lovely and large when it is rising and setting - how often have you been driving and have suddenly seen it "peeking" from behind a building or tree, and wondered at its beauty?  

As it climbs, it grows brighter but gets smaller.  It's still lovely to behold, but I suspect a lot of people, armed with point-and-shoot cameras, took a picture and were disappointed to see a solid white ball in the shot.  The full moon high in the sky is bright and when a camera like that is aimed at it, it wants to compensate for the dark around it, causing the moon to be blown out to solid white.  You can get the same effect with a digital SLR if you do not set your exposure correctly.  And, of course, regardless of your skill or equipment, there are limitations, since the human eye is far more sensitive to light, whereas even with High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography, a camera just cannot compete with it.

The picture above was shot just after the moon started rising . . . where I was.  And where I was meant Ms. Moon (I'll adhere to the gender classification of Greek/Roman mythology) had to rise above the horizon obscured by these trees (and even if they were not there, the Smokies in the distance).  Which meant that she was already well above the true horizon by the time she rose over my horizon - rising fast, and growing smaller and brighter quickly.  So, as you can see from the picture above (as well as the one in the blog post below this one), it was pretty, it was "big," but probably nothing like some of the ones you have been seeing on line, showing a giant orb hovering over the great Pyramids/New York City/tropical beach.

The "Fixed"

So why not allow Photoshop to help?  Okay, I hear the chorus of purists now:  because it's "faked."  Really?  Since when is any photograph "reality?"  When a photograph is produced for documentary purposes, then should be the time to wonder about "photoshopping" (congratulations, Adobe, you have made a verb) since the intent is to provide an accurate and true reproduction of what was occurring when the photograph was produced.

Compare when a photograph is produced with an editorial or artistic intent.  If I wanted to illustrate, say, the problem of obesity in American youth, I would photograph an overweight teen with a wide angle lens to achieve distortion and shoot from an angle that emphasizes a portion of his or her body, like the derriere.  The teen is not as large as the camera makes them look, but I am not taking a "before" weight loss picture to later compare with an "after" weight loss picture for their medical records.  I am, with my camera, editorializing.  Likewise, shooting a landscape at sunset, perhaps there were some thin clouds diffusing my light source (the setting sun) so that I did not get the rich, warm tones I wanted.  My intent is to have a pretty landscape - and so, I use Photoshop to "warm it up."  And now I have a pretty picture to hang on the wall and make me feel good when I look at it.

Imagine if the owner of that nice lake house above had hired me to take a picture of the super moon of May 5, 2012 rising above his or her property.  Which photo are they more willing to pay me for?  That the bottom one is not "true" is irrelevant - it makes the memory for the homeowner, and frankly, we tend to have subjective memories anyway depending on the emotion of the moment.

So as you see pictures and marvel at the size of the Super Moon, also look at its position in the sky.  It may well just give you a clue as to whether some magic pixel dust was sprinkled on it in the digital darkroom.

Suggested reading:  Believing is Seeing (Observations on the Mysteries of Photography), by Errol Morris.  Reading it now and enjoying the forensic aspects of it.