Moon photos!

[Sleepy]

Thought this link might be of interest to you lot:

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/main.html)

1000's of HQ shots from the the Apollo missions.

eg:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/04/1479.jpg

I've heard there are still a couple of Hassleblad's still on the surface (Not sure if you could still get film for them though:D)

[Shonky]

My dad has a Hassleblad... maybe thats where it came from?! :p

[Redback]

Why is it that you don't see stars in all the moon landing photos:confused:

[Mick-Kelly]

Cameras set for bright reflective objects and short exposures. Do the same outside at night here and you wont see stars. You need long exposures to pick up stars but then you get star trails.

[Bushie]

Cameras set for bright reflective objects and short exposures. Do the same outside at night here and you wont see stars. You need long exposures to pick up stars but then you get star trails.

Interesting thought but that photo was taken in daylight (as much as it is on the moon) All ? landings were on the light side of the moon, but as there is no atmosphere there is no blue sky and very harsh shadows ie light or dark. I'm not really sure how that would impact on star visibility.


Martyn

[Mick-Kelly]

Interesting thought but that photo was taken in daylight (as much as it is on the moon) All ? landings were on the light side of the moon, but as there is no atmosphere there is no blue sky and very harsh shadows ie light or dark. I'm not really sure how that would impact on star visibility.


Martyn
The same way, stars are very faint and the only way to catch them is long exposures and usually stacking images. For example if i want to do a widefield star image you would need a tracking mount and long exposures. Even the you get field rotation.

[Sleepy]

You can see with this shot that no stars are visible:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/04/1329.jpg

Shadows indicate the sun is still well above the horizon and very harsh light.

Note: Lunar Rover too.......4wd/4w-steering....:angel:

[Chucaro]

It is interesting that there are not visible the marks of the tyres on the sand. Photo shoped image by NASA :D
Also the win that moove the flag does not afect the loose fabric on the LHS of the uniform of the astronaut :confused::eek:
The win is trong but there are not visible movement of sand near the surface :confused:

The color of the sand and texture changes dramaticly after the spaceship :confused:

On the LHS eg of the spaceship looks like that the Photoshop operator forgot to touch the texture/surface of the sand :eek:

[Mick-Kelly]

There is no wind on the moon :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: wind kinda implies an atmosphere............the flag is held out by a horizontal pole at the top. The different texture is because your looking into the distance and the lunar rover is pointed towards you so the tyre marks are behind it.
So many bored conspiracy theorists out there. Look out behind you on the grassy knoll. :p

[Chucaro]

There is no wind on the moon :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: wind kinda implies an atmosphere............the flag is held out by a horizontal pole at the top. The different texture is because your looking into the distance and the lunar rover is pointed towards you so the tyre marks are behind it.
So many bored conspiracy theorists out there. Look out behind you on the grassy knoll. :p

I did not base my comments on conspiracy bad in what appears as a bad post processing job not to conceal facts but to touch up possible defects on the original before dveloping.
Looks in that way to me.

[vk2icj]

Conspiracy theories abound! hahaha Actually if you look at the front tyre right side below the gold camera you can see a tyre track heading rear and to the left. There is also a horizontal set of tracks between the astronaut and the rover, well behind the astronaut lol. I remember the movie "Capricorn one" and the recent,, well within the last decade,, conspiracy theory about not going to the moon. It does make for good conversation.



It is interesting that there are not visible the marks of the tyres on the sand. Photo shoped image by NASA :D
A

[Mick-Kelly]

I did not base my comments on conspiracy bad in what appears as a bad post processing job not to conceal facts but to touch up possible defects on the original before dveloping.
Looks in that way to me.
Wasnt having a crack at you personally, just one of those broad general things. :p:p:p:p:p:p

[Sleepy]

Yes love good conspiracy.

I have read of amateur radio operators using their gear to listen to the signals from Apollo missions. This requires pointing high gain antennas at the moon. Not much point if they weren't there;)

MMMmm Maybe they had a repeater installed on the moon;)

And back to the thread - there is absolutely 1000's of similar images on that site - so they must have had a big set to fake them all.

As for photshopping this may have been a little difficult in 1972 when that photo was published - perhaps hand painted changes were available but I think that would show.

[djhampson]

Mythbusters did a good show on Moon Conspiracy Theories. They recreated a moon scene to demonstrate how the shadows don't have to be parallel and also why the flag can be seen to wave in some shots.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

forgive my intrusion,,
but in the first shot,
why is the light beam on the right cut off?

[djhampson]

forgive my intrusion,,
but in the first shot,
why is the light beam on the right cut off?
I think its a pano thats been stitched together from several photos.

[Sleepy]

forgive my intrusion,,
but in the first shot,
why is the light beam on the right cut off?

It's a mosiac of a least 2 photos. Probably avoiding pointing lens directly at the sun.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Thanks sleepy!
I'm reading the tech debrief of Apollo13:cool:

[200tdi]

You can see with this shot that no stars are visible:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/04/1329.jpg



How many stars do you wanna see....i see about 50...on each flag:cool::eek:

[Disco]

Thought this link might be of interest to you lot:

I've heard there are still a couple of Hassleblad's still on the surface (Not sure if you could still get film for them though:D)

Of course you can still get film for them, they are a 6x6cm frame size and use 120 format film which is still extensively used in professional photography as well as by amateurs. :D

[Pedro_The_Swift]

There must have been some wind,it's turned the umbrella inside out on the moon buggy.


Please Cooper,PLEASE!

its a lunar ROVER!
:cool:

[Sleepy]

Of course you can still get film for them, they are a 6x6cm frame size and use 120 format film which is still extensively used in professional photography as well as by amateurs. :D



Nice to hear Disco, I wasn't sure whether anyone still uses "real" film .

I once found an old roll of undeveloped agfa slide film and I thought it might be fun to get it developed to see if there was anything of interest on it.(I had no idea what was on it). I was told it would have to go to Germany and would cost me about $100.:(

[Hymie]

Nice to hear Disco, I wasn't sure whether anyone still uses "real" film .

I once found an old roll of undeveloped agfa slide film and I thought it might be fun to get it developed to see if there was anything of interest on it.(I had no idea what was on it). I was told it would have to go to Germany and would cost me about $100.:(

My Dad was a professional photographer, all of the pics taken of me as a young'n are in 120 format.
2 years ago I had some pics developed from the negatives, it didn't cost that much.

[moose]

They tested some lunar landing myths on mythbusters (search youtube!) This clip shows their "final nail in the coffin" of the lunar lander myths, namely pointing a laser at a retroreflector on the moon's surface and getting feedback.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA"][IMG]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA[/IM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA%22%5D%5BIMG%5Dhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA%5B/IM)YouTube - Mythbusters Moon Hoax RetroreflectorsYouTube - Mythbusters Moon Hoax Retroreflectors

[Disco]

Nice to hear Disco, I wasn't sure whether anyone still uses "real" film .

I once found an old roll of undeveloped agfa slide film and I thought it might be fun to get it developed to see if there was anything of interest on it.(I had no idea what was on it). I was told it would have to go to Germany and would cost me about $100.:(

Sounds very much like it was one of the old prepaid Agfa slide films that are now only processed in Germany (or it might be Switzerland). If it was one of the regular Agfa Chrome emulsions any prolab would be able to deal with it.

As for film, I still use considerable amounts of large format film (8x10, 4x5) for outdoor jobs where a digital back isn't suitable. I'd estimate around 15% of my work is still film based.