Destroyed Planet (EN)
by.Maxim
2_5384425178430200406.jpg
1.9 MB
Original with processed version.
by.Maxim
by.Maxim
🌚2
Got a new feature on google photos. And immediately tested it on my recent photos.
With the magnification of the moon the program coped perfectly, the fact of magnification is not conspicuous. 3 photo
And with the transformation of the photo of the Milky Way automation turned out to be extremely interesting. At magnification you can see that the program worked (barely noticeable rhombuses). 4 photo
In general, the tool is cool, I will use it sometimes.
by.Maxim
With the magnification of the moon the program coped perfectly, the fact of magnification is not conspicuous. 3 photo
And with the transformation of the photo of the Milky Way automation turned out to be extremely interesting. At magnification you can see that the program worked (barely noticeable rhombuses). 4 photo
In general, the tool is cool, I will use it sometimes.
by.Maxim
👍3🤡1
I think to post my last year's work (photos). After all, the channel needs to be saturated with content.
So I start a 7-day marathon with my past works and stories about how I did them.
by.Maxim
So I start a 7-day marathon with my past works and stories about how I did them.
by.Maxim
👍2🤡1
(Day 1).
Usually in astrophotography one does not like to shoot the Moon with stars in one frame.
All because of the fact that the Moon in night shooting gives more light than the Sun, because in order to see the stars you need to raise exposure, shutter speed and ISO. And at parameters when the stars appear the Moon, as an object of higher brightness, just f*cking illuminates half of the photo.
The only thing the moon does useful is light up the sky. Mostly on a moonless night, the sky in the photos is dark, maybe a little dark blue, and closer to the horizon yellow-orange (if there is a nearby object of light, like a city). The moon makes the sky blue, like in the daytime. As a result, we get a picture with sky like daytime, but with stars. And it looks just f*cking great!
by.Maxim
Usually in astrophotography one does not like to shoot the Moon with stars in one frame.
All because of the fact that the Moon in night shooting gives more light than the Sun, because in order to see the stars you need to raise exposure, shutter speed and ISO. And at parameters when the stars appear the Moon, as an object of higher brightness, just f*cking illuminates half of the photo.
The only thing the moon does useful is light up the sky. Mostly on a moonless night, the sky in the photos is dark, maybe a little dark blue, and closer to the horizon yellow-orange (if there is a nearby object of light, like a city). The moon makes the sky blue, like in the daytime. As a result, we get a picture with sky like daytime, but with stars. And it looks just f*cking great!
by.Maxim
👍2🤡1
(Day 2)
Weather events, I mostly don't take pictures. First of all, I don't know how to take such pictures. Secondly, the region where I shoot is poor for such natural wonders. And thirdly they do not attract me, the same astrophotography is much easier for me to do. Perhaps when I move to more beautiful places and get good equipment I will more often make photos of weather phenomena.
by.Maxim
Weather events, I mostly don't take pictures. First of all, I don't know how to take such pictures. Secondly, the region where I shoot is poor for such natural wonders. And thirdly they do not attract me, the same astrophotography is much easier for me to do. Perhaps when I move to more beautiful places and get good equipment I will more often make photos of weather phenomena.
by.Maxim
👍2🍓1