Blood Moonby
genova24Comment by HarveyG: What everyone has glibly missed in the forum Winner vs DQ argument is that this image was taken in the US where the moon eclipsed and
is a representation of an "increase" in dynamic range (starting with the redder eclipsed moon progressing to the bright non involved moon) but because the moons are not stacked over one another it is taken as not a single "view", not stacked? How ironic. Judging by all the justifications going on the forum about the winning image being valid due to the photographers challenge interpretation and this is not; I'd say that's cause for alarm. SC can argue as much as they like "ad nauseum" to copy a phrase but both images are interpretations and on that basis this should then not have been DQ'd. My interpretation of this is a multiple capture (as allowed in advanced editing) showing the change in dynamic range of the moon during shadow obscurity and finally emergence into the sunlight. If
genova24 had for example changed focal length (as allowed in advanced editing?) is this not compositional/framing change on each shot and/or used his cameras multiple shot function to take one overlayed image only, what then? There's a lot of back peddling and justification going on and for one I am very disappointed by photographers contacting me in private during voting about my comments on their image, identifying themselves and their images during voting (seen as vote manipulation, asking me to reconsider my position) as well as the post rollover virtual winner euphoria and justification/vindication. Sad indictment of winning at all costs and duplicitous application and inconsistency by the SC.
(The only valid reason for DQ as far as I can determine is that the individual shots of the moon were taken with camera and lens following the moon across the sky and that the camera/lens were not stationary for the entire sequence (compositional change))
You must:
create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change) (Maning that the lens/camera and the scene of say a mountain does not MOVE in any direction throughout the frame)
How archaic and open to "interpretation"! I could have taken a shot of a cow jumping over an eclipsed moon with 1-10 shots and it was my interpretation and it would have been allowed so long as the camera and the overall scene did not move. How farcical.
Hermann it is possible but the following image was multi-shot not in one image but successive ones as per Expert Editing. I favoured (favourited?) these images years ago.
Message edited by author 2014-05-04 03:56:32. 
Photographer found comment helpful.