The moon turns pretty red when it's in the umbral shadow (don't know if I spelled that right). This was taken a lot later than 6:49 (at 6:49, most of the moon was only in the penumbral shadow and the umbra was just beginning to show up in the bottom left hand portion).

I think that this photo might have been possible with a long lens ... and the exposure might be ok too. Remember that when the moon is eclipsed like this, it's definitely not going to be as bright and exposing for the Space Needle might actually be about the right exposure for the moon too (notice that the moon *is* a bit dark).

IAC, I think it's a pretty cool shot!

~~Bonnie


>AP has this photo that is supposed to be from the lunar eclipse
>http://apnews.excite.com/image/20041027/LUNAR_ECLIPSE.sff_WAET104_20041027235431.html?date=20041028&docid=D860GT3G0
>
>I saw that and felt the photo had to be a forgery. I simulated the Seattle night using Starry Night Pro and now I feel even more strongly it's a fake.
>
>For the moon to look like it does in the photo, the photo would have to been taken no later than 6:49 PM 10/27/04 Pacific. I don't think the sky in Seattle would be that dark.
>
>I don't think the moon would have been that red either.
>
>The moon would have been only at an 8 degree altitude at that time so photographing it with the Space Needle would require you to be pretty high up and the needle part of the photo shows the photographer is looking high up.
>
>If you did get the two objects in the same camera frame, the lighting of the Space Needle and the moon would be so different that no one photo could get the right exposure.
>
>If my suspicions are correct, and AP is willing to pay photographers for shots like this, I just might have to show them the shots I have of the moon with rainbow stripes.
>
>Anyway, I was wondering if any of you folks out there are in or near the Seattle area and saw the eclipse and what do you think of this photo?