Lunar Landing Pics Compendium (help)

Friends,

in the course of our discussion of all things lunar and what not, there have been a few excellent links to hi-res scans of various pictures related to lunar landings. I can't find these because unfortunately, I forgot who posted those.

It would be good for the past, present and future discussions if a few high quality links are accessible with relative ease. So if you know good locations, please post it here (with comments if you like).

Many thanks!

JSC Gateway to Astronaut Photography
ASU Apollo Image Archive
LPI
Apollo 15 image library
LPI Apollo
Massive .PDF Library
Apollo Metric Camera preview


[edit on 6-12-2007 by SpaceMax]

USGS Lunar Orbiter Digitization Project

Collection of Stereo Lunar images

USGS Astrogeology Projects page

Landing site QTVR Panoramas

More Apollo QTVR Panoramas





[edit on 8-12-2007 by SpaceMax]

Space Artist Don Davis notes on planetary color

More stereo pictures
Crosseyed and anaglyph (red/blue)

Originally posted by SpaceMax
Space Artist Don Davis notes on planetary color

The True Color of Mars



So this bastion of main stream science links is in the John Lear Conspiracy forum and not "Space Science" because?

I expect you two will shortly present the conspiracy related to this post?





[edit on 9-12-2007 by zorgon]

Mods,
Can this thread be moved to the Space Exploration Forum?
As suggested, that may be a better place for it.
Thanks

Not sure if anyone has said this in the million differnt thread about this subject on this website, But in the 100's of photo i've looked at about the lunar landing...I don't see one star in the backround...you would figure since these photo's and and video are taken in outer space and on a moon that has no atmosphere the star filled universe would photgraph really well..

Originally posted by Ophiuchus13
Not sure if anyone has said this in the million differnt thread about this subject on this website, But in the 100's of photo i've looked at about the lunar landing...I don't see one star in the backround...you would figure since these photo's and and video are taken in outer space and on a moon that has no atmosphere the star filled universe would photgraph really well..

Against the glare of the sun on the surface of the Moon stars wouldn't show in a photo. Not a mystery, just the way film works.

reply to post by Ophiuchus13


Ophiuchus, it would be easily explained with a little lesson in photography.

You know how a camera works, right? (talking about the older ones, before digital). There's the lens, the shutter, the aperature, and the film. The exposure on the film depends on the size of the aperature and the length of time the shutter is open.

If your subject is well-lit, then you control exposure by 'stopping down' the aperature (making it smaller) and increasing the shutter open time, or vice-versa. Depends on what effect you want...good depth of field, or a sharp subject in the foreground and a blurred background. A portrait, for instance, with the trees or mountains blurred behind, makes your subject stand out.

For Lunar pics, the Hasselblad was semi-automatic...Astronauts turned a ring estimating the distance to the subject, the F-Stop and shutter speed would adjust to get the best possible, using the available light, and the best depth of field as well. The sunlight was just too bright for the stars to be visible, because they are comparatively so dim.

This helps, I hope. But, just in case, something else to ponder: Even on a clear night on Earth, if you want to photograph stars, you need a large aperature and a semi-long exposure time...problem is, as the Earth rotates, the stars will blur....UNLESS you have the proper device mounted on your tripod, so that it moves the camera to compensate. AND, of course, the 'speed' of the film is a consideration....'faster' film takes light faster, but is more 'grainy'. Slower film provides sharper images, but needs longer exposure times.....