We were very fortunate to see the lunar eclipse on the morning of March 3rd, especially considering how cloudy it has been this winter.
I have included another photo from that night. Photographing the moon can be difficult. If you expose for the moon, the landscape often turns out very dark. If you expose for the landscape, the moon becomes completely blown out. I have always preferred photographing the moon in a blue sky at dusk or dawn. Doing so allows you to choose an exposure that works for everything in the frame.
I try to keep my astrophotography simple. Most of my images are single exposures. Occasionally I will take multiple images to create a panorama when I want to show more of the scene than a single frame can capture.
During this eclipse, however, I did something very common in astrophotography: I took two exposures of the same scene—one exposed for the moon and one for everything else. This allowed me to capture detail in the moon without it being blown out. I achieved this by adjusting the ISO and shutter speed between shots. In Photoshop I stacked the images and used masking to combine the best parts of both exposures. It is a bit of a trick, and I admit I feel somewhat guilty for doing it.
This method is widely used. Photographers often take many exposures of the sky to reduce noise, along with separate exposures for the landscape and the stars. The images are then aligned and processed in Photoshop to create a polished final photograph. The Milky Way can really pop when this technique is used.
However, this approach isn’t really for me—not because I believe there is anything wrong with it, but because it requires more concentration and planning than I enjoy when I’m out photographing. I prefer to roam around with my camera, capturing single shots as I go.
There are also many photographers now using AI in astrophotography. For me, these images are usually easy to spot and make up a large portion of astrophotography found online. They can be striking, and again, there is nothing inherently wrong with these methods. I know of several landscape photographers who place the Milky Way above well-known mountains in directions where the Milky Way never actually appears. The images sell well for them—and why not?
Perhaps it is because I grew up in a newspaper shop that my instinct with photography is to document. I try to make the best photograph I can with the equipment I have, paying attention to composition, colour, and the rule of thirds. But in the end, what I am really trying to capture is a place, a moment in time, and an attitude—something that may not exist in quite the same way in the years ahead.
Palliser Pass 
Carol A. Hand
Such an interesting discussion of photography and philosophy, Bob, interweaving your wry sense of humor and your nonjudgmental perspective toward other’s choices. .
LikeLiked by 2 people
mountaincoward
Thanks for the explanation of the double exposure thing as I’ve never used it. I do a very little occasional post-processing in my Canon version of Photoshop (Photostudio) but only really use it if an image isn’t sharp enough or something. But I try not to post-process at all as, like you, I want my photos to document something – usually the conditions at the time – so I just want them to look in the photo how it looked to me when I was out there. Often people say some of the shots are dull and drab looking – but that’s because that’s how the landscape was looking when I was there!
LikeLiked by 2 people
underswansea
I am in agreement. I really like your photos done on film. There is something about film. However, like you said getting good processing can be a challenge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
mountaincoward
Some of my photographer friends over here are saying that film may be making a come-back (a bit like vinyl records) and that they think the processing is starting to improve. I hope they’re right!
LikeLike
underswansea
I hope they’re right as well! I recently looked online at a few rolls of bw 120 film rolls and couldn’t believe how expensive it was. I think I have a few rolls tucked away. Of course it would be old. No telling what kind of results it would produce.
LikeLiked by 1 person
mountaincoward
I’ve just been using up all my late mother’s 35mm film – it was 2008 – I compensated by one notch lighter (apparently it becomes less sensitive to light) and most of the photos came out fine.
LikeLike
Jim R
I like your final paragraph.
LikeLike
underswansea
Thank you Jim!
LikeLike
Julie@frogpondfarm
You have a passion and an amazing eye! I clicked this shot to enlarge … a stunner! Clever you
LikeLike
underswansea
I upload low resolution shots onto the blog. The hi resolution really shows detail, unfortunately I can’t upload them as they are too big. Thank you for your, always, kind words.
LikeLiked by 1 person