Kat has talked about that, we would like to do that with the moon and clouds.

If I'm understanding you correctly, that's a very different kind of photocompositing. What I suggested was a technique for capturing a wider dynamic range, but would result in a picture of what was actually there. You are just compensating for the camera's limitations, to make it look more as it looked to you, at the scene.

That's different from creating a montage, a photorealistic scene that combines several nonsimultaneous elements, to create a fictional scene that never existed outside of imagination.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it borders on being a different art form than photography. You're not making a light recording, you're making a photo-based and photo realistic drawing.

WD,

Do you use a Mac or a PC?

Oh. I misunderstood.

By the way, you do not need a long exposure for the moon. The moon is in direct sunlight, and it is fairly bright.

You need a short exposure for the moon, because it moves quickly, and if your exposure is too slow, it will be motion blurred (unless you are tracking it).