Having read quite a bit of RH, on and off over the last couple of years, I do agree with this.

Usually it's not his own work that he 'reports' anyway, and the conclusions he draws are often not valid - based either on what the 'studies' actually did, or indeed on what they should have done, since they are usually riddled with flaws as well.

They are invariably wrapped up in pseudo-scientific language, full of apparent authority, but proving nothing.

Sadly, studies that do not show what they are claimed to show are rife, and many people read them far too uncritically.

Sorry for the rant, but I abhor bad science - and there's a lot of it about.

I agree.

I did mean in the 'Your Photos' section - sorry for not making that clear. If a mod has time to edit the OP to reflect that, it's fine by me.

When someone's posted a picture, in 'Your Pictures', I tend to wonder about the etiquette of downloading it, editing it in some way, and then reposting it, in order to illustrate some discussion point.

I'll usually post the edited version as a [link], not an [IMG], since I tend to feel that it's potentially a bit intrusive to post another immediately visible picture on someone's thread, but I'm not sure if I'm concerned unnecessarily.

The trouble is, we can't stop the world changing around us.

Sometimes, we have to find another home. That's just the way it is.

I like the second one best. Clean lines, geometric shapes, a passing bird giving a hint of life.

If you'll forgive the liberty, a hint of sharpening improves it, giving it a touch more dominating clarity. Any more, I found the halos started to intrude; maybe even this is too much.

If you'll forgive the greater liberty, here's one I did earlier from a different viewpoint.

I just try to do the best I can with any photograph I take, whatever the circumstances, whatever the camera.

Gradually, on average, they improve.

It's certainly not crappy. What lens were you using? If it's not long, and optically very good, that might be the best that's achievable, and choosing a smaller size will make the most of a shot that isn't as good as it might be in other circumstances.

Always best to give the EXIF, camera and lens details to make the most sense of pictures like these.

It is curious - that area does look blown to me.

Compare it with this wikipedia photo - there's a lot more detail visible there.

Blown highlights have nothing much to do with PP.

If they're blown, they're blown, and there's nothing you can do to get back the detail that's been lost.

The best you can do is expose so that the highlights are at the far right of the histogram, but no further than that.

After that, it's about adjusting the contrast so that you pull as much out of the shadows as you can, while still maintaining the dynamic range.

Experiment with the shadow/highlight tool if you have PhotoShop. Just make sure that you adjust the midtone contrast too, if you go this route, since it's very easy to merrily boost the shadows, pull back the highlights, and get a result that looks vile.

My most useful PP technique is to do the very best I can, then save it and leave it alone till the next day. I often see things I missed.

Just out of interest, did you let the AF take care of it, or did you focus manually?

Quite possibly, I'd been away from the forum a lot until recently.

I think evaluating moon shots is a lot easier than many other types of photography, since it mostly boils down to:

- Is it sharp?
- Is the fine detail visible?
- Can you still see detail in the shadow and highlight areas
- Are there any aberrations (usually seen as coloured lines on the periphery)?
- Is the colour pleasing?

Only the last of these is subjective, so assessing it isn't very hard.