It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I don't get it

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Ok, every time I see a picture or a photo of say, a man walking in space, or a picture of a planet, or a shuttle in space, you name it......

What I don't get is why there are no stars involved in pictures and photos? Just all blank like it's a only a black background in photoshop and planet has been designed and pasted on it?

Such as this...

fogonazos.blogspot.com...

apod.nasa.gov...

bp2.blogger.com...



If anyone could explain this to me, that would be greatly appreciated.


This one has stars.....pretty legitimate pic


chamorrobible.org...

[edit on 20-9-2007 by TheoOne]

[edit on 20-9-2007 by TheoOne]




posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Why can't you see stars in the daytime on Earth? They are still there and as you can see them clearly at night, it isn't the air that is blocking your view. It is because the light overpowers your ability to see them. This is much like what happens in Space as well. The sunlight overpowers the meager light coming from Stars. Just because Space looks dark, does not mean that it is dark.

That is more or less the answer you seek. If you look, you can find a more detailed scientific answer online. Ask the Experts



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Distant stars are a couple of million/billion times dimmer than our star, the Sun, and cameras are very finicky pieces of equipment. The sensors on modern digital cameras can only handle about 12 to 14 stops of light, and that number is even less for film. Those dim stars you see, compared to the astronaut or space shuttle, are perhaps a million stops away from the exposure that would be needed to get a good pic of the astronaut. They are FAR to dim to show up in the photo.

It's pretty much just trick photography, those pictures you see of the sky filled with stars. Like a real-estate agent leaving the shutter open a bit longer to make the picture of a dingy, dark room seem brighter. If you want to get a good picture of the night sky, you some very expensive equipment that actually moves the camera in relation to the stars, because the exposure needed is so long that the stars move. It's the same reason you can't see stars at daytime; it's too bright for your eyes to see them. Same with cameras.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
The cameras are set up to take pictures of a brightly-sunlit Earth, sunlit space station, or sunlit astronaut -- the exposure settings will not let enough light in to the camera to see the stars.

If you took your camera, set it up to take pictures in daylight or in a brightly lit room, then tried to take pictures of even the most spectacular star-lit night sky, you will see that possibly only the brightest stars will appear in the picture...the shutter was set to open and close too quickly to allow the stars to appear in the picture.

Conversely, if you used the same exposure settings that would allow you to see the stars, and tried to take a picture of a sunlit astronaut using those settings, the astronaut would be over-exposed -- and look like a big white blob.


EDIT: watch-the-rocks beat me to the "exposure" explanation

[edit on 9/20/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Thanks for your responses. I feel I understand a bit much more now.

It's sorta strange though to see a picture of a planet without any stars, even astronaut standing on the moon, you name it.

Your reponses has led to a question, will there be a better equipment to use in future to catch stars, then? So, the photos wouldn't look strange, after all...

If we were to genetically modify our eyes, we'd see a lot better then


Thanks for the link, Terapin.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by TheoOne]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Remember people sometimes unwittingly mix up two different things.

-Seeing- stars, as in, being in the capsule looking out with your eyes is different than what you'll get at any particular film setting.

With film you can do a time-exposure and catch lots of stars, or you can stop up or down and perhaps use blocking to mask the earth in the foreground -- OR -- you can do it in the developing studio - it's called 'pushing' the film, iirc.

Depending on the glare and the angle the eyes will be able to see stars because the eye is more adaptive than a specific film. (I'm not a photographer, so bear with me on the terms).

There are several reports of Astronauts talking about seeing a very dense and spectacular star field - perhaps out the Shuttle window pointed away from the earth - or when going through the dark side.

Good question, though! HTH.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
The floodlights drown them out from the ISS. If they went to total darkness it would be star city. Just saw a question from a third grader on that very subject on last mission to the teacher on NASA Tv. Cams are very sensitive to light. That's why Hubble focuses for days or weeks on distant target objects.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I'm glad someone finally posted about this, i have been thinking about it for sometime now! Finally an answer!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join