I think the shot I sent you was around 9:30 PM Eastern. At 10:30 it was still a clear sky, but the moon wasn't red.
Well, I'm all confused. I thought the red was from the preumba. If the moon was in our total shadow, then I don't see how any light red or not got to it. Anyway, reguardless of how it happens, it didn't happen in my sky at the first half. I watched the whole time and the red was only at the very end for me with the clouds in the way.

If there is anyone who can explain why some see red and some don't, or why the first part wouldn't be red, but the second half is, I be interested in knowing.

Well, I'll have to read up on this, but if somehow our atmosphere bends the light to hit the moon while it should be in our shadow, that would explain it. But, you would think I would have heard that before.


>Well, looks like I was just a teeny bit wrong about penumbra vs umbra, according to this website:
>
>http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEmono/TLE2004Oct28/TLE2004Oct28.html
>
>The penumbral phase of the eclipse is very hard to see, so the red color that you see is totally the result of the moon passing through the umbra (that's the part I got wrong ... I thought you could see the penumbral phase as well). Totality (when the entire moon is in the umbra) started here on the West coast at 7:23pm (that would've been 10:23pm for you ... how was the weather for you at that time?) Totality lasted until 8:45, so the picture that you saw from Seattle had to be somewhere within that time frame or possibly 5 or 10 minutes earlier (since it looks like the top part may not be quite all in the shadow). That puts it much higher in the sky than you thought, and so it's quite possible for it to have been in the proper position in respect to the Space Needle.
>
>I've seen several total lunar eclipses in my life and the color varies for each one ... from a really deep, blood red, to a more pale orange. To be honest, I missed most of this one (only caught the very beginning and then the tail end of it, when it was already past totality), but when I saw it, it looked pretty red to me.
>
>So, yeah, the picture that you emailed me does not look very red at all. At what time did you take it?
>
>~~Bonnie
>
>
>
>>I'm pretty sure I have this right. The photo does look like to me what you described in the parenthesis - AKA 6:49
>>
>>The umbra is the dark part (total shadow) and the preumbra is the red lighting. I got the 6:49 PM time from the umbra blocking out what looked to be the same amount of moon in Starry Night. And Starry Night is always right on the money.
>>
>>However, I must confess, I don't know everything there is to know about this. There were no clouds at the beginning of the eclipse here in Savannah, GA. The moon did not turn red. It looked kinda sepia. We took some pretty good digital photos too. (I'll email you a copy) Then at the end of the eclipse it did turn red. But by then the clouds were in the way - no shots of that. I'm sure there is a logical reason for the color difference for the coming in and going out of the umbra / preumbra, but right off hand I don't know.
>>
>>
>>>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?