I have been trying myself at composites of the milky way, out of necessity because the available angles here are mostly quite light-polluted or boring (or at least unknown to me).
Now here is my question: when working on the composite, I had to make quite a few sacrifices to astronomical and even technical accuracy. Would you consider that acceptable if in favour of plausibility to the eye of the general public ?
In this example, I used a (sunny) daylight photo for the foreground and the lake. And I didn't want to completely dampen it as that would have taken away much of the effect. That's why I needed a plausible reason for there to be light reflections other than the milky way reflection on the lake, which only leaves the moon.
Curious about your points of view.
2
The crescent moon doesn't seem to work for me in #1, there's too many overlapping twigs. Also I understand it's a composite, but the moon is too big, you can see a crescent moon and milky way at the same time, but their relative sizes are way out in this image.