What's the secret?

>>2965218
You can make the moon look bigger with the foreground in focus by using a longer lens, but it could be edited. Results are inconclusive with this low quality JPEG.

>>2965222
>You can make the moon look bigger with the foreground in focus by using a longer lens

How? With my 18-135mm lens, if I have the foreground fully focused like that, the moon comes out like a dot.

>>2965231
You have to back up more. Standing farther away from your foreground subject will help compress the distance between the foreground subject and moon for the lens.

>>2965232
yeah telephoto compression dude

>>2965222

Lmao, it's obviously shopped.

>>2965238
Can you prove it though? Because I can't. It's fishy at the very least since you would need more telephoto compression than a measly iPhone would allow, but it might not have been taken on an iPhone.

>>2965242
Not him, but the wide angle suggests a telephoto lens was not used, and sky suggests this was taken some time in the late night/early morning, where the moon would be higher in the sky and not very large looking.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brunkfordbraun/7001166088/

It looks remarkably similar to this photo of the 2012 supermoon.

Now, it's exactly it since the Facebook photo has some bright spots on the lower right and upper left that aren't present on the Flickr photo, but the rotation is almost exactly the same.

For 2016's supermoon, would the orientation really be exactly the same? I'm no astronomer so I'm not sure, but I suspect not.

I bet the Facebook photo is just some composite using a 2012 supermoon.

>>2965258
*not exactly it

>>2965258

This guy posted it, he's even selling prints lol

facebook / photo.php?fbid=795637707242326&set=gm.10153937290421957&type=3&theater

>>2965258
Nevermind, looked at some other photos of 2012 and 2016 supermoons, doesn't look too far off.

>>2965264
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/supermoon-over-bear-rocks-jason-funk.html "The image is 2 seperate exposures set at different shutter speeds, edited in LR and processed in PS."

I mean he doesn't outright say it's a composite but it probably is.

>>2965218
The clouds are behind the moon lmao, of course it's shooped

File: 1479220490236.jpg (145KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 640x960px

>>2965218
YOU MUST GO DEEPER

File: DEEPER1479220490236.jpg (160KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 640x960px

>>2965280
>DEEPER
Psh. Amateur.

>>2965242

I can prove it because there's no telephoto compression of the foreground, especially enough to make the moon that big.

Plus, and I mean come on now, the clouds are behind the moon.

there is a simple proof for the shop: a full moon like this would be bright as a duck. Tho there are stars visible in the sky. Waaaay to near to the moon to be visible at all. Most likely in this shot there was no moon at all. Case closed.

>>2965399
>Tho

eww

>>2965401
Don't be pretentious.

File: Untitled-1 copy.jpg (156KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 640x960px

>>2965287
Uh oh, went to deep.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:20 20:48:36
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	640
Image Height	960