(I know, this is also about photographs)
Actually, you can take a good pic of the moon, set your aperture to f11, then your iso and shutter speed to about 200 and 1/200s, try and adjust as needed. Also a decent telephoto lens helps of course.
Idk if you can do that on a phone, but with a “real” camera it can be done for sure and they actually come out pretty OK.
Yep.
I hate it when people say “the human eye is 35mm” or whatever. It is not. It is black magic that paints visualizations however TF it wants, and we’re barely aware of it.
I’d call that the brain, not the eye, but I think that the broader point stands.
This isn’t animated, though if you look at it fullscreen, it will tend to appear to be:
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/943e6298-132d-4206-855f-681e6c047354.jpeg
Is it blue and black or gold and white?
Square A and B are the same brightness:
These lines are straight:
The dress thing is just terrible, probably fluorescent lighting and bad white balancing. I’d bet money the real dress is white, but obviously the picture is blue.
The dress is actually blue and black in real life. I have never seen it in anything other than gold and white, myself.
The Journal of Vision, a scientific journal about vision research, announced in March 2015 that a special issue about the dress would be published with the title A Dress Rehearsal for Vision Science.[45][46] The first large-scale scientific study on the dress was published in Current Biology three months after the image went viral. The study, which involved 1,400 respondents, found that 57 per cent saw the dress as blue and black, 30 per cent saw it as white and gold, 11 per cent saw it as blue and brown, and two per cent reported it as “other”.[47] Women and older people disproportionately saw the dress as white and gold. The researchers further found that, if the dress was shown in artificial yellow-coloured lighting, almost all respondents saw the dress as black and blue, while they saw it as white and gold if the simulated lighting had a blue bias.[36][47][48][49] Another study in the Journal of Vision, by Pascal Wallisch, found that people who were early risers were more likely to think the dress was lit by natural light, perceiving it as white and gold, and that “night owls” saw the dress as blue and black.[50][51]
A study carried out by Schlaffke et al. reported that individuals who saw the dress as white and gold showed increased activity in the frontal and parietal regions of the brain. These areas are thought to be critical in higher cognition activities such as top-down modulation in visual perception.[52][53]
It’s because the actual sky is so large. When you look at the moon in real life, your eye focuses on it so it takes up more of your visual field. Try looking straight up and doing a 360° and you’ll notice just how large the sky actually is.
When you photograph the moon, especially with a wide-angle lense, it doesn’t fill the visual field as much because it maintains the objective proportions of everything within it, and projects that onto a flat image. So when you see it on a screen, it looks smaller because you hadn’t previously noticed how small the moon is relative to the sky itself.
I once shot a wedding that was scheduled around a full moon. I replaced the moon in the photos with a NASA image, color matched it, and made it like 5x bigger than the original.
Nobody noticed.
Not sure if you’re proud or chagrined that they didn’t notice. But you know that’s because you sized it right, because you were there and saw it. You made it look as magical as it felt in the moment.
Meanwhile corpo firms would have made it 50x as big because “bigger = better, right?”
There’s no subtlety in american business culture.
That’s some professional work right there.
Obligatory moon:
Just bring $2200 of glass with you. No problem, bro. (Someone with an even bigger lens will surely show me up on this eventually…)
I managed to snag these back in 2021 with a Nikon P510, a superzoom mfg in 2012. Paid $35 at a thrift store! Good enough for my purposes, I suppose. My dslr is a Canon Rebel XS that I started with and now pair with a Rebel 35mm. Not trying to diminish your shot or anything, just comparing so people can see what you can still manage on a beginner budget
And this was the 2024 Solar Eclipse.
For said budgets, there are also a myriad of well established tricks such as teleconverters, gimcrack homemade contraptions involving cardboard tubes and magnifying glasses, stuffing the objective of your camera into a dime store telescope or… this friggin’ thing.
One of these days I am totally going to pick up an EF/RF mount adapter and one of those just for the yuks. I imagine the optics are godawful, but it still sounds like a good time.
Instead of a link to amazon with no preview image, would you mind including a screenshot for those of us who refuse to give Bezos the web traffic?
Oh hey, I own a XS Rebel digital and film SLR. It’s an amazing beginner camera with the right lens.
These are incredible!
This is the best I’ve got
Best i could get with my Galaxy phone when the moon was just peaking out:
The moon takes about half a degree of the sky’s arc. (So does the sun. That’s why total eclipses are possible.)
Since the horizons are 180 degrees apart, that means you could fit 360 moons in arc overhead from horizon to horizon.
Which looks impossible and demonstrates the optical illusion at play.
I brought a shot glass, but I spilled whisky on my lens
In the realm of hobbies 2200 isn’t so bad. Though I guess if it’s like camera lens it can go to the moon pretty quick.
You still need a camera body to attach it to. But yes, you can indeed spend any amount of money on lenses if you put your mind to it. And if you’ve decided you haven’t spent enough, you can always shoot yourself in the foot by picking up a camera that belongs to a different lens ecosystem than what you’ve already got and then start building up a pile of lenses for that…
it can go to the moon pretty quick.
I see what you did there.
I swear with hills too, I can be standing infront of a thousand foot slope and the camera makes it look like you could throw a rock over it.
It’s ok. The demon that lives in my camera has the same problem.
Why can’t they paint it the way they see it? Usually the issue is photographs never capture what it looks like, but when painting it’s your perception that’s the reference.
I think that’s the joke.
When a life long romantic faces reality they get upset.
When a life long realist is confronted by feelings of real romance, they very well may want to die when they also face the reality of it.
Be happy to be dumb enough to be in the first camp if you are.
