One thing I enjoy about photography is it is a merger of details from two different disciplines. First, there are the details that come in taking a shot - how it is envisioned, framed, and captured. Second is what is done with the picture in the post processing - what digital adjustments can be made to it to enhance an effect I am looking to achieve. The above shots are each examples to those two separate disciplines I continue to practice and refine.

The one on the left was about technical execution - working with the ISO and F stop settings on my DSLR to get the shutter timing and exposure just right to capture the moon. I have admitted before this type of detail work is not my favorite because I have not found an explanation of the Exposure Triangle that I can confidently understand...too many of them quickly dive into correlating seemingly confusing numbers with overall effects on a shot that seemingly need a ton of adjusting before clicking the shutter. I recall it taking me a solid 10 minutes to get things set up properly on my tripod and camera settings before I got what I wanted.

The one on the right was about post processing. While I did make a few generalized adjustments to my iPhone's camera to capture it, I also took it knowing there was more going on around the moon I wanted to incorporate - the clouds. But, to get there, I needed to sit for awhile with Lightroom and adjust the noise, texture, clarity, etc. before landing on something I liked (the moon has cloud trail effects that look like its in motion).

My diligence and patience with Lightroom over the camera may be rooted in the fact I am computer nerd and graphic designer at heart, because I know I spent more time working with it than I did when I was cursing and swearing when an ISO setting I made didn't net the effect I had hoped for.

And maybe that's really the point - there is no single path to achieving great shots. It's up to the photographer to decide what he or she wants to do to create what they envision.

The Internet is chock full of photography websites that often overreach to be unique in explaining all of the ins and outs of what affects the out come of a shot. And, if you aren't careful, you'll be lulled into the idea that anything written is the GOSPEL - an unwavering authority that certain aspects are good or bad.

Take "noise", for example. A simple search put this site at the top of the results, with the following open salvo of comments on it - "Noise is a grainy veil in a photograph, obscuring details and making the picture appear significantly worse. In some cases, photos can be so noisy that they are essentially unusable." With writing like that and as an amateur photographer, it's harsh enough to make you think if your photos have noise, you might as well give the hobby up and take up something more appropriate like hitting yourself in the head with random objects.

I disagree - photography is an art, which means any element in its creation is fair game to be leveraged if it creates the result I want. Including noise. This shot is an example of where it works - an eerie, out of focus shot of beach houses captured at night - it reminds me of one of the creepiest album covers I saw when I was younger...Black Sabbath's self titled first album.

I mentioned earlier that I have a fancy DSLR camera with all kinds of lenses and buttons, but it is an unrealistic expectation to lug it around everywhere I go. First, it's not very convenient and second off - I don't want to be that weird, lurker looking guy you see sometimes at places that make you wonder why he's holding a fancy camera and milling about creepily.

I am more than happy to let my phone's camera pick up the slack of not having a more "formal" device handy when I see a shot a like...especially with night shots. My iPhone's lenses and ability to automatically lock in all of the settings that you need to think about WHILE IN THE DARK really takes the guesswork out of capturing low light scenes. Is it a novice move to do that? Does it matter?