Debunking A Fellow Photographer’s “Moon Eye”

To see the image we’ll be debunking, go to the original post on Instagram here. I’m linking to it as opposed to displaying it here because I know the artist would object to it being used here for debunking.

First and foremost, while the image we’ll be examining bears an uncanny resemblance to the “Moon Eyes” I’ve previously shared (see below for comparison), this one is actually not mine.  It belongs to the talented fine art photographer Elliot McGucken.  While he should certainly be applauded for the Photoshop skills on the image, I think viewers that have praised the planning and patience to get the shot deserve to know the truth, which is that it is a composite.  Not only did the moon not pass behind the arch from the photographer’s position, but that day it was a crescent moon, which would have set already on the opposite horizon, and only at a fraction of the size as it appears in the image.

Not to be confused with the image being discussed today, these two “Moon Eyes” are mine. On the left, a single photo. On the right, an in-camera double exposure. You can find the full story and additional information about these here.

While McGucken includes “Fine Art Landscapes” in his Instagram bio, he seems to enjoy the fact that most people are not aware that means that many of his moon images are not photographs as most of us would call them, but rather composites, where two separate images have been merged.  Questions in comments regarding the nature of these are usually left unanswered, but if you’re lucky, you might get some heart emojis (see below).  I’ve also noticed he’s deleted some comments mentioning that it is not a single photo. Questions about prints however, tend to get quick responses, directing commenters to his site where prints can be purchased.

A typical response from Elliot McGucken to commenters wondering if his moon composites are real or not.

I always feel the need to make it clear when this topic comes up that I have no issues with composite images, nor any level of Photoshop use, etc.  When creators intentionally mislead viewers to believe that what they are sharing is a photograph though, when it’s actuality something else entirely, then I’ll happily point out the truth.  For more on my thoughts on honesty in landscape photography, see this article.

I originally captured what I called the “Moon Eye” in 2020, and have shared a photograph, as well as an in-camera double exposure image of it.  As with all of my moon images, I included the details and full specs in the caption, and I’ve told the full story as part of my Behind the Shots series.  So, having taken photos of the phenomena and knowing that it’s something that actually happens, why would I question the authenticity of McGucken’s image?  Some other photographers have pointed out that given the apparent use of a wide angle lens, the moon couldn’t appear so large within the frame, and there are other elements that viewers see as indicators that it’s fake. Even though I may have a good eye for identifying fake moon images, for me these aren’t good enough reasons when explaining it to others, so let’s examine a few other things.

This is metadata behind the image which includes a date taken. Knowing that, we can immediately see that on that day, it was a crescent moon.

Metadata, which is information about images stored within the file itself, indicates it was taken on June 7th, 2021.  That’s my birthday, what a cool coincidence! A planning app that I frequently use for moon photography, TPE, can quickly tell us a few things about the moon on that date:
1) On that day, the moon was in its waning crescent phase, at about 5% illuminated.
2) At the time, the crescent moon would have already set, and on the opposite horizon.

These two things immediately tell us that the moon and the landscape could not have been captured on the same day, or even close to the same day.  But, perhaps the date on Elliot’s camera wasn’t set right?  Though extremely unlikely, this is a valid question, so let’s take a different route and use some math to leave us without any doubt the image is faked.  I won’t go into the nitty gritty on how this works, but if you’re curious, I dive into using math to determine the moon’s apparent size in a previous debunking.  There, I explain how we can calculate the moon’s relative size as long as we know the photographer’s position, the size of something in the photo, and distance to it.

Using a photography planning app, we know that at the time the landscape photo was taken, the moon was actually in its crescent phase, and had already set on the opposite horizon. The direction is indicated by the blue line going straight West (left) on the map.

Photographer’s position: So, how did I know the photographer’s position, indicated with the red pin on the map above? Being quite familiar with the area, I already had a pretty good idea of where the landscape exposure was taken from, but one day when I was in the neighborhood I figured I’d take a photo to confirm. I took the photo below at exactly the same spot. Instead of pointing out things that indicate I was in the same position, I’ll just say this: If you analyze my photo below alongside McGucken’s image, you’ll quickly realize that my camera had to be within inches of where his was.  If I were to move to the left or right, higher or lower, etc., you wouldn’t have the same alignment of bushes, branches, and rocks.

Distance to the arch: Since we know the photographer’s position, it’s easy to ascertain the distance in Google maps.  The camera is about  817 feet from the arch. This is also indicated by the planning app.

Size of the arch:
Multiple online sources put the height of the arch at about 50 feet, and I was able to confirm that using the 3d mapping available in Google Earth, which typically uses LIDAR to build terrain accurately in a digital form.

A photo I took from the exact same spot McGucken took his landscape exposure. If you compare alignment of bushes, branches, and rocks, it’s easy to tell the camera couldn’t have been anywhere else.

So, now we have all of the pieces to be able to calculate the relative size of the moon compared to the arch.  In other words, even though it didn’t actually pass behind the arch from the photographer’s position that day, what size would it have appeared if it did?  I commonly use an online size calculator in planning moon photos that will help us here.  You simply input your distance to the subject on the ground, the angular size of the moon (0.5 is a good average), and it will give us the “Physical Size”, which we can then compare to the arch. 

The result is that the size of the moon relative to the landscape, is a little over 7 feet.  If there were any people in the image, we could say the moon would be a bit “taller” than them, but since there are no humans visible for comparison, we’ll use the arch.  Given that we know the arch has a height of about 50 feet, it’s safe to say that from the photographer's position, the moon’s diameter would be approximately 1/7th the height of the arch (50/7.1 = 7.04).  This is regardless of the day of the year or the moon phase.  The camera sensor, lens, and potential cropping also have no relevance to this, since the relative size of things, whether on the ground or in the sky, do not change with those.  On the same day I went to McGucken’s shooting position, the moon was in the sky and over 80% illuminated. I took an in-camera double exposure to reposition the moon in the arch, but kept the same focal length for both exposures. This is good way to see the relative size of the moon accurately, without even having to do any math, and it corroborates what the size calculator told us.

While at the photographer’s position, I took an in-camera double exposure, without changing my focal length. It’s not a full moon, but this portrays the moon’s size accurately, even though the day McGucken’s landscape photo was taken, it was a crescent moon and never actually passed behind the arch.

My purpose in doing these debunkings is not to speak negatively about others’ work, but to reveal the truth when deception or lying is involved. I also hope to encourage other photographers to be honest when what they are sharing has left the realm of what we could truthfully caption with, “Here’s a photo I took”, since that is generally implied when photographers share their work. Furthermore, it’s a way to learn about different aspects of moon photography, as a lot of elements that I use to debunk images are the same ones I use in planning and executing moon photos. If you have any questions or comments on any of this please let me know below and I’ll respond as soon as possible!