Here is a higher quality version of this image. Credit to the photographer, Zach Cooley (aka zachcooleyphoto on Instagram). Per that source:
Utah, USA
Happy Halloween weekend! I planned an entire vacation mostly around the fact that the moonrise would align with this arch and I could get something resembling a spooky eye on the week of Halloween. Over two nights I got some single shots and double exposures, I thought this one was best for the eye look, what do you think? Can't wait to share more with you all!
In-camera double exposure
Moon: 🔹550mm🔹F/9🔹1/160sec.🔹ISO 160
Arch: 🔹250mm🔹F/9🔹1/5 sec.🔹ISO 160
"That image, as I shared in my original post, was an in-camera double exposure - two consecutive photos merged together in-camera when taken. I wish that information was always shared, but I understand why it isn't always passed along.
"One fascinating thing to me is that for the most part the premises for people guessing that the image was fake are completely false. The top two reasons are something along the lines of 'The moon is never that big', and 'The moon never has that alignment'.
"To help set the record straight I wanted to share this series of photos, all of which are single exposures, taken the night after the moon eye image.
I get what he's saying about the in-camera double exposure and people saying it's fake.
But it is fake. Sure, it may have had zero maniplation in post, and that the digital negative is exactly what is seen in the image.. but it's a double exposure. You take one exposure at 200mm, then you point at the moon and zoom to 600mm, line up the previous exposure so it lands in the 'eye', and take that exposure to seal.
It's stretching the truth. It's simply a different kind of fake to the others.
Was Star Wars: A New Hope digitally animated? No. But did it put cameras in space and make little ships fly around a giant space station? No. "Fake" can be accomplished with manual methods or digital methods, and I fully agree with you, this is a stretch for the photographer to claim this isn't "fake" just because he combined tricks in front of the glass as opposed to in front of the screen.
The only difference, and why this is notable, however, is the photog demonstrated impressive skill from in front of the glass where many would be far more lazy and do it all from in front of the screen.
Why? They used tricks that involved both pre and post production but no "Photoshop" to make clearly unreal "fake" things look real. This image is clearly unreal but the photographer is saying that its not "fake" because he didn't use photoshop.
Like I said in the original comment, it’s a different kind of fake.
Is it real? No. Same as your Star Wars analogy. I get what you’re saying, I really do, but something being ‘fake’ can still be ‘fake’ without digital manipulation.
33
u/Spartan2470 Aug 13 '21 edited Aug 13 '21
Here is a higher quality version of this image. Credit to the photographer, Zach Cooley (aka zachcooleyphoto on Instagram). Per that source:
Here he elaborates: