November 01, 2007

By the Light of the Silvery... Moon?

Not to be hyper-critical, but is this supposed to be a photo, or a photo-illustration?


I only ask because the object in the sky in this photo is as seems as bright as the sun, and yet, the soldier is clearly looking through a nightvision monocular mounted to his helmet. I suspect that NVG would do him very little good if the sun (or moon) was a bright as the picture suggests.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at November 1, 2007 12:50 PM

Looks like the moon.
I think that's just a longish exposure used to capture some detail of the soldier in available light.

Posted by: iamnot at November 1, 2007 01:36 PM

The cars have their headlights on. The shot is clearly time exposed at night. If it were daylight, the soldier would not be silouhetted.

Posted by: Paul Dirks at November 1, 2007 01:48 PM

It's swamp gas.

Posted by: Rounin at November 1, 2007 02:14 PM

Long exposure time most likely, it is night (lights on). It is also consistent with a good digital camera too.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at November 1, 2007 02:48 PM

Yeah, I am betting it's a long term exposure, tho how they got the soldier to hold still for that long is a good question.

Another possibility is that it's just got the aperture wide open for a fast shot... that's actually more likely, now that I think about it.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 1, 2007 07:13 PM

It's a UFO ... better call Kucinich!

Posted by: 57chevypreterist at November 1, 2007 08:33 PM

Also, he'd still need the NV if he was looking into shadow, moonlight provides more contrast between lit areas and shadowed areas in my experience. Anything in shadow in that sort of situation would be next to impossible to see unassisted.

Posted by: Elydo at November 2, 2007 04:54 AM

Note also that the illumination of the soldier's face is coming from the side away from the moon, indicating either another ambient light source or some clever use of fill-flash. (Clever because his face is well-illuminated while the rest of his body remains in shadow.) But would a soldier consent to the use of flash which would ruin his vision for many minutes?

Posted by: pst314 at November 2, 2007 06:58 AM

Good point, PST.

Okay, so it's not a long exposure. Most likely, then, it's the second option I named, the camera aperture is wide open and therefore gathered in all the moonlight it could.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 2, 2007 08:05 AM


Posted by: Tincan Sailor at November 2, 2007 11:14 AM

As someone who tried lunar photography in time for the total eclipse a few weeks ago, I can say that photographing the moon isn't as easy as people tend to think. The moon is almost as bright as the sun, as far as the camera is concerned. If you want to catch any aspect of the lunar surface, you pretty much have to use fast shutter speeds. To get details like the soldier's face, etc, then you'll end up with the moon overexposed. Otherwise, everything else will be too dark.

Posted by: JC at November 2, 2007 12:55 PM
Not to be hyper-critical

That ship has sailed, my friend.

Posted by: nunaim at November 3, 2007 06:21 PM