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.
An important principle of exposure is reciprocity. If one exposes the film or sensor for a longer period, a reciprocally smaller aperture is required to reduce the amount of light hitting the film to obtain the same exposure. For example, the photographer may prefer to make his sunny-16 shot at an aperture of f/5.6 (to obtain a shallow depth of field). As f/5.6 is 3 stops "faster" than f/16, with each stop meaning double the amount of light, a new shutter speed of (1/125)/(2·2·2) = 1/1000 is needed. Once the photographer has determined the exposure, aperture stops can be traded for halvings or doublings of speed, within limits. A demonstration of the effect of exposure in night photography. Longer shutter speeds mean increased exposure.
The true characteristic of most photographic emulsions is not actually linear, (see sensitometry) but it is close enough over the exposure range of about one second to 1/1000th of a second. Outside of this range, it becomes necessary to increase the exposure from the calculated value to account for this characteristic of the emulsion. This characteristic is known as reciprocity failure. The film manufacturer's data sheets should be consulted to arrive at the correction required as different emulsions have different characteristics. Digital camera image sensors can also be subject to a form of reciprocity failure.[10]
Originally posted by korath
One of my arguments about the moon landing being real is there's no stars in the photograghs . Recently I came across some thread [I don't remember which], Showing pictures of Jupiter. It showed the planet in all it's glory, but I noticed there weren't any stars in the back ground. Just the picture if the planet.
If I take a picture of the earth at night the stars show up. Why not when a NASA probe does it with another heavenly body? Whoops, I meant Saturn.
[edit on 28-6-2009 by korath]
Originally posted by Sentry-
I haven't read through the posts in the thread, so I am sure someone has already gave you this reason, but I will state it anyways..
Originally posted by korath
...If I take a picture of the earth at night the stars show up. Why not when a NASA probe does it with another heavenly body? Whoops, I meant Saturn.
Originally posted by ahnggk
Originally posted by Sentry-
I haven't read through the posts in the thread, so I am sure someone has already gave you this reason, but I will state it anyways..
It would've been better if you actually read the other posts before replying. Because IMO, you are basing your opinion on visual observations and you might just confuse the OP. Although I'm not saying you're completely wrong.
Others gave a much better answer based on photographic observations. It's a different thing. You don't actually see this 'washed out' effect on pictures except on 'over exposed' images which are normally discarded, and never makes it to publication.
[edit on 29-6-2009 by ahnggk]
Originally posted by Sentry-
I am just giving the general point on why if you were on the moon you might not necessarily see every single star out there. When I say washed out I simply mean the stars are not as visible due to another source over powering that light. Again, sorry to upset you, but there are various factors in why the photos appear the way they are, and what I said is one of the reasons.
Originally posted by pluckynoonez
reply to post by korath
Where is the stars? Where are the stars? I do not know. Up, maybe?
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Here is the Higher Res version - Note the 'star' in the top left corner, which was absent from the lower resolution version
Does anyone notice anything strange about the earth in this image?