>>3639982If you look up at the full moon at midnight with your own eyes you will see a glow around it. that's what I said. Not seeing said glow even if it's small is odd, considering the sky itself is noticeably brighter on nights when the moon is full. You might be confusing glow for lens flare.
>expose correctly Yeah. If by that you mean expose for the moon and everything else is pitch black and severely underexposed. Or are you suggesting that the significant dynamic range advantage your eyes have over a consumer camera is just an optical illusion?
Going back to this post
>>3638344 the way the scene appeared no doubt sat somewhere between the final product and this
>>3638889 . There is no way the moon was just hanging out in the sky absolutely full, without any sort of light around it at all. There just isn't.
