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.
The articles aren’t super clear, so I’m just speculating, but the photos where the moon is huge appear to use the same lens for the arch as this one, plus he made a big deal about planning on being there at exactly the right time. If he was just going to shoot the moon then shoot the arch separately, he could do it at any full moon
37
u/Caville Verified Photographer Aug 13 '21
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.