Digitalization is both a power and and a curse. Who can tell what effort the photographer exercised in the field to get his fabulous juxtaposition of elements? Or did he just do some manipulations in the computer?
If the digital foolery is artful, it merits praise, as does Ansel Adam’s darkroom dodgery. Usually less praise is due for the post-facto indoor electronic manipulations than the physical/geometrical/timing tricks in the field. But in the end, one must rely on the honesty of the photographer, who must tell us exactly what he did.
Mohamad Soltanolkotabi, the author of that wonderful picture, seems to be a quantum-optics physicist based in Tehran, Iran. At least that is my best guess. How many M. Soltanolkotabi’s can there be in Tehran? (Well, there is also a Mahmood Soltanolkotabi, but I can’t figure out where he is.) So M’s job as an optical physicist makes it likely that he is good with computers and could have fudged that shot, but the number of scientific papers he has written may rule out fudging. (Assuming I have his identity correct.) Maybe we should just ask him (his email address is available).
I didn’t at first notice “#1, #2, #3, #4, more” at the link. Having seen them, I feel VERY sure that Mohamad Soltanolkotabi did not digitally juxtapose things in his photographs. But perhaps it would be more fun to look at a site plan and the archetectural drawings for the mosque and work on the moon’s altitude at the time when Venus had just come out from behind it that night. A summer project? No.
Jennifer, I was thinking along the same lines. One could simply find out if the orientations of the statues and the mosque are eastward facing, which would make the shots possible, since Venus and the moon were in the west.
The mosque seems to be lit from at least two directions, probably from spotlights that are high above the ground.
Perhaps like the artificial illumination of the pyramids in Egypt, these lights are turned on by the city fathers to bring in tourists. But is there something else about the lighting that I’ve missed? Something that suggests electronic manipulation?
You’ve missed nothing and in fact have identified the reason for my suspicion — any structure artificually illuminated is orders of magnitude brighter than the moon or a planet, so I would think it would show up very overexposed in getting a crisp image of the celestial bodies like that. At the very least I figure it’s a double exposure (no harm there, though … ).
Interesting. I’m going to try shooting the moon and our house illuminated at different levels, just to see that effect. It’s obvious with bright clouds and dark land. If you expose for the clouds, the land is too dark, and if you expose for the land, the clouds are saturated. (Hence Ansel’s need for darkroom dodging of his fantastic clouds.)
Well the results of my test shots seem to argue against the need for a double exposure in Soltanolkotabi’s Mosque-Moon picture. My first shot is of the moon over our dimly lit front porch, no flash. The moon appears blurred due to being heavily overexposed. This suggests that with dim lighting of the mosque, Soltanolkotabi could have made his shot without finagling. What about with stronger lighting? My second shot is with the flash, which slightly over exposes the front porch, and the reduced camera exposure is just right for the moon. This argues even more strongly that Soltanolkotabi didn’t even need dim lighting of the mosque, and also that no double exposure was needed.
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
Subject: Moon and Venus
Sent: 6/25/2007 10:12 AM
The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
msoltanolkotabi@gmail.com on 6/25/2007 10:10 AM
You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, contact your system administrator.
MSEXCH:MSExchangeIS:/DC=com/DC=symphonysv:PALSTGDC01
I humbly withdraw my doubt … Hat’s off to both of you for the legwork I was too lazy to undertake myself. In my defense, I made no accusation of fact, just raised a suspicion (though one apparently unwarranted … ).
The first one is impressive, but so are many of the others. A 630mm lens with a 2x extender gets one might close to the moon.
Makes your yearning for a 500mm quite modest, doesn’t it? The lead-in mosque image seems all but impossible without digital intervention, though …
Digitalization is both a power and and a curse. Who can tell what effort the photographer exercised in the field to get his fabulous juxtaposition of elements? Or did he just do some manipulations in the computer?
If the digital foolery is artful, it merits praise, as does Ansel Adam’s darkroom dodgery. Usually less praise is due for the post-facto indoor electronic manipulations than the physical/geometrical/timing tricks in the field. But in the end, one must rely on the honesty of the photographer, who must tell us exactly what he did.
Mohamad Soltanolkotabi, the author of that wonderful picture, seems to be a quantum-optics physicist based in Tehran, Iran. At least that is my best guess. How many M. Soltanolkotabi’s can there be in Tehran? (Well, there is also a Mahmood Soltanolkotabi, but I can’t figure out where he is.) So M’s job as an optical physicist makes it likely that he is good with computers and could have fudged that shot, but the number of scientific papers he has written may rule out fudging. (Assuming I have his identity correct.) Maybe we should just ask him (his email address is available).
I didn’t at first notice “#1, #2, #3, #4, more” at the link. Having seen them, I feel VERY sure that Mohamad Soltanolkotabi did not digitally juxtapose things in his photographs. But perhaps it would be more fun to look at a site plan and the archetectural drawings for the mosque and work on the moon’s altitude at the time when Venus had just come out from behind it that night. A summer project? No.
Jennifer, I was thinking along the same lines. One could simply find out if the orientations of the statues and the mosque are eastward facing, which would make the shots possible, since Venus and the moon were in the west.
I shouldn’t try to speak for Adam, but I suspect his comment had more to do with the quality of the photo, as in the perfect exposure of the mosque.
The mosque seems to be lit from at least two directions, probably from spotlights that are high above the ground.
Perhaps like the artificial illumination of the pyramids in Egypt, these lights are turned on by the city fathers to bring in tourists. But is there something else about the lighting that I’ve missed? Something that suggests electronic manipulation?
You’ve missed nothing and in fact have identified the reason for my suspicion — any structure artificually illuminated is orders of magnitude brighter than the moon or a planet, so I would think it would show up very overexposed in getting a crisp image of the celestial bodies like that. At the very least I figure it’s a double exposure (no harm there, though … ).
Interesting. I’m going to try shooting the moon and our house illuminated at different levels, just to see that effect. It’s obvious with bright clouds and dark land. If you expose for the clouds, the land is too dark, and if you expose for the land, the clouds are saturated. (Hence Ansel’s need for darkroom dodging of his fantastic clouds.)
Well the results of my test shots seem to argue against the need for a double exposure in Soltanolkotabi’s Mosque-Moon picture. My first shot is of the moon over our dimly lit front porch, no flash. The moon appears blurred due to being heavily overexposed. This suggests that with dim lighting of the mosque, Soltanolkotabi could have made his shot without finagling. What about with stronger lighting? My second shot is with the flash, which slightly over exposes the front porch, and the reduced camera exposure is just right for the moon. This argues even more strongly that Soltanolkotabi didn’t even need dim lighting of the mosque, and also that no double exposure was needed.
Kinda what I thought all along, but I’m a more trusting soul.
I asked him. I’ll let you know what he says when he responds.
How rude…
Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
Subject: Moon and Venus
Sent: 6/25/2007 10:12 AM
The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
msoltanolkotabi@gmail.com on 6/25/2007 10:10 AM
You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, contact your system administrator.
MSEXCH:MSExchangeIS:/DC=com/DC=symphonysv:PALSTGDC01
Oh well, it was worth a try.
I humbly withdraw my doubt … Hat’s off to both of you for the legwork I was too lazy to undertake myself. In my defense, I made no accusation of fact, just raised a suspicion (though one apparently unwarranted … ).
No need to be humble. In fact your suggestion caused me to learn a little more about my camera and photography in general!