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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 331
377
<< 328  329  330    332  333  334 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



but we would always be ready to quickly shoot from the hip - no raising the camera or using the viewfinder - just see some candid moment, point and fire. And I can't recall any shots like that I missed due to poor aim - it's EASY.


I guess we all should just wonder why the camera companies bothered with all them strange dials with focus etc, or even why waste the expense of a viewfinder to look through..

We all should have just shot from the hip with no worries about settings..

Perfect.:


Though I doubt you can prove it...




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

For whatever reason they couldnt superimpose a starfield with the horizon.


You really dont have a clue about photography do you?

Go and do a simple experiment, try and take a photo of a very faint object with a very bright object dominating the field of view and let us know how you go. Say perhaps the night sky with city lights along the horizon of the photo, its a reasonably similar condition.

Seriously after that statement i doubt you have ever taken a photo...



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I guess we all should just wonder why the camera companies bothered with all them strange dials with focus etc, or even why waste the expense of a viewfinder to look through..

We all should have just shot from the hip with no worries about settings..

Perfect.:


Though I doubt you can prove it...


I learned a lot about photography shooting at various shows, where you often have to frame a photo very quickly because of crowds (ie spot a gap, get your shot). You pretty quickly gain enough experience to frame and shoot without looking at a viewfinder and you get very few wasted shots. After years worth of doing it its instinctive.

You're arguing a strawman about the settings; chrlz isnt saying he didnt change settings (ie that the dials are useless), he is saying that he could set the camera up quickly without using meters or anything complicated. Its a very different point. Given a camera as relatively simple as an Apollo hasseblad and a few weeks of practice (esp with a diagram to help) it'd be trivial to set up for lunar photography.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
After all we've gone over about photography, you're expecting to see a star field and landscape in one photo?


Yes.
If they could accomplish this kind of photo:

Exposed for the ground, exposed for the shadow side of the LM, good framing, good focus no use of bracketing.
they could accomplish horizon and stars in the same picture.
I still wonder what settings was used for that photo....
No fill in flash... while your taking a picture up sun...





Originally posted by FoosM
Make up your own mind, watch some photo shoots, in a controlled environment, for example:

Do you understand the difference between artistic photography and documentary photogrammetry? There's nothing particularly artistic about the Apollo photos. But for their location and subject matter, they'd be in the bottom of a shoebox somewhere based on their artistic worth.



I beg to differ, see
spaceflight.nasa.gov...


There is another question I have about that photo, and others...
How do astronauts managed to close the LM hatch on the way out?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Exposed for the ground, exposed for the shadow side of the LM, good framing, good focus no use of bracketing.
they could accomplish horizon and stars in the same picture.
I still wonder what settings was used for that photo....
No fill in flash... while your taking a picture up sun...


Crushed blacks.
Wrong lens choice IMO for the type of photo. (artistic choice I guess)
Bringing it up it would be completely over exposed ... bring it down and you lose even more detail. It looks like they got it in a general range but yes, lots of bits lost.
A professional would have balanced the light sources with studio light before snapping.
Framing is cutting off part of the subject.

It's okay. You could upload it to Deviant Art or something and it wouldn't look out of place. I think you're exageratting though.

Aside from the fact it's on the moon it looks no different to a shot one could take at the park with a swing set without much planning. The astronauts did have some training with cameras, and they knew the environment they were going to. No different from shooting anywhere else with a bit of information prior.

There's a big difference between shooting to document a location or event and professional shooting. A pro would want those shadows lifted so they could be color timed in post. A pro would want to keep as much detail as possible. A pro might also want to throw on an ND filter or something. Not sure - like I say photography isn't my main area, but I know enough that this isn't particularly special.

Side note ... if you look at the linked version rather than the compressed on stored in this thread there's some wonderful looking artifacts there too that wouldn't be acceptable in a professional shoot IMO.
edit on 27-1-2011 by Pinke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Yes.
If they could accomplish this kind of photo:

Exposed for the ground, exposed for the shadow side of the LM, good framing, good focus no use of bracketing.
they could accomplish horizon and stars in the same picture.
I still wonder what settings was used for that photo....
No fill in flash... while your taking a picture up sun...




Re a previous comment you made MOST professional photographers would have learned photography using a MANUAL camera I know my first SLR was that when I bought it in 1979.

We have explained YOU dont have to focus but YOU just keep ignoring the fact,only ONE light source on the Moon and that is the Sun so exposure for film speed can be worked out in advance.

The fill in light has been provided by the surrounding surface reflecting the light.

As the exposure was set up for SUNLIGHT their is NO WAY stars could be exposed under the same settings.

The standard lens on a Hasselblad is usually around 80mm focal length on the Moon its 60mm so that provides a wider field of view.

Oh and re the compostion of the picture one of the lander legs is cut off so its not perfect!

So once again YOUR TOTAL LACK OF KNOWLEDGE RE PHOTOGRAPHY SHOWS UP AGAIN



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by FoosM

For whatever reason they couldnt superimpose a starfield with the horizon.


You really dont have a clue about photography do you?

Go and do a simple experiment, try and take a photo of a very faint object with a very bright object dominating the field of view and let us know how you go. Say perhaps the night sky with city lights along the horizon of the photo, its a reasonably similar condition.

Seriously after that statement i doubt you have ever taken a photo...


I was more thinking of this situation:


Or do you think the blinding reflected light off the mountain and terrain would hamper a few seconds to a minute worth of an exposure?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



but we would always be ready to quickly shoot from the hip - no raising the camera or using the viewfinder - just see some candid moment, point and fire. And I can't recall any shots like that I missed due to poor aim - it's EASY.


I guess we all should just wonder why the camera companies bothered with all them strange dials with focus etc, or even why waste the expense of a viewfinder to look through..

We all should have just shot from the hip with no worries about settings..

Perfect.:


Though I doubt you can prove it...


If YOU actually bothered to look at links posted YOU would find out how it is done.

Read this link and educate yourself a little

en.wikipedia.org...

A few members on here are very keen amatuers or even pro photographers, posts like yours give us a good laugh.

You mention strange dials they may be strange to you but again that just proves you do not have a clue what you are talking about!

Got my first SLR in 1979 I will have a guess and say that the camera is older than you, fully manual the best way to learn about photography!

Oh LOOK at my sig for some good advice before you get taken in by people like JW, Foosm etc.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
We have explained YOU dont have to focus but YOU just keep ignoring the fact,


Oh so they didnt take close-ups with the same magazine and camera?
One focus setting fitted all the situations?




only ONE light source on the Moon and that is the Sun so exposure for film speed can be worked out in advance.

The fill in light has been provided by the surrounding surface reflecting the light.


So what was the exposure set for, the fill light (shadow side of the LM) or direct light, from the Sun?
And what settings would you have used?




As the exposure was set up for SUNLIGHT their is NO WAY stars could be exposed under the same settings.


Are you 100% sure about this?
You want to rethink that for a moment?
What was the recommended setting for up sun pictures?




Oh and re the compostion of the picture one of the lander legs is cut off so its not perfect!


So because the leg is cut-off you say the composition of the picture is off.
Right....
Because in school you were taught that the everything had to be in the frame?
I wont be hiring you anytime soon.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I guess we all should just wonder why the camera companies bothered with all them strange dials with focus etc, or even why waste the expense of a viewfinder to look through..

Sorry, BiB, but ..what??? How is that relevant - it has nothing to do with my point. IF they could have used viewfinders/screens, then yes, it might have been a little easier. But they COULDN'T, so they were trained in how to point them - it's NOT rocket science (pun intended). You would know this if you had been around such cameras.. in fact you would know this if you had ever actually experimented a little with wide angle lenses. It's easy. TRY IT.

In simple terms, the Hasselblad was a very good choice for their needs at the time. Big, so easily handled and high resolution (for the day). Reliable and tough. Easily interchanged high capacity magazines. Easily adjustable as necessary (I gather you didn't read the bits where I explained how we used those dials in our work, even when wearing gloves..yes, inside a church is quite different to outside..)

Using your logic about no dials, I guess they should have taken up Instamatics? No? Silly suggestion, isn't it...

To people who understand photography, there are quite a few things to consider, and you work out the best possible compromise. I'm sure you, and FoosM think you know better, but.... No. You don't.

Indeed, may I ask you to make a better suggestion - what should they have taken, and how would you have modified it?


We all should have just shot from the hip with no worries about settings..

Do you know how street photographers often work, and why the Leica's used to be the camera of choice? But they didn't take Leica's because different situations require different techniques and equipment, even though some techniques (like shooting without using a viewfinder) can be found in a wide range of photographic circles. The point is that if you don't understand the environment, the scene, and the available equipment you will make a bad choice.


Perfect.:

So feel free to actually demonstrate your knowledge and work through the issues instead of sniping. Indeed, may I ask why you are being so cynical and sarcastic? After your comments of a few pages back, it's rather ironic.


Though I doubt you can prove it...

?? Prove what? What EXACTLY are you disputing -what would you like me to prove? Be specific, and stop the handwaving. Do you wish to discuss exposure issues? Focus and depth of field at various aperture settings? What settings were available and recommended and why? What the field of view for a 50mm (or 80mm) lens on MF is, how that compares to modern cameras? How accurately a half decent photographer can point and level a camera without using a viewfinder? Why the Hassleblad lenses flared so badly at times? The dynamic range of Ektachrome?

You name it - [wallace voice]Photography is my speciality[/wallace voice]

If anyone else has any questions or still doesn't 'get it' (cept you Foosm) - ask away...


edit on 27-1-2011 by CHRLZ because: mynah spelin erur



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Hey who here was the one that said dust doesn't blow on the moon?
Or that the descent engine wouldn't whip clouds of dust?
Was it you Weed?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Nataylor, could you please show how this was possible, sources if possible.
edit: this should include all the items you listed below. Not just one or two of them.


Originally posted by nataylor
They could tell at any time what their shutter speed, aperture, and focus, and depth of field was.


Also, I have to agree with Foos here in that I doubt they could have felt the 'notches' in their added 'paddles' on the camera.

We just have to look at this photo to realise how ludicrous the concept was that they could 'feel their way' through the various settings with those big pressurised gloves against that tiny, tiny paddle.



Image source A16-110-18019





edit on 27-1-2011 by ppk55 because: added: this should include all the items you listed below. Not just one or two of them.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Hey who here was the one that said dust doesn't blow on the moon?
Or that the descent engine wouldn't whip clouds of dust?
Was it you Weed?


Nice try at deflecting. No-one ever said that dust "doesn't blow on the Moon." That doesn't even make sense. Everyone but you has pointed out that the descent engine wouldn't whip clouds of dust, because of the vacuum. As has been shown time and again, the dust was displaced laterally. (That means sideways.)

Now that you have educated yourself enough to understand the concept of exposure, please explain why no stars are visible in this picture:




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Also, I have to agree with Foos here in that I doubt they could have felt the 'notches' in their added 'paddles' on the camera.

We just have to look at this photo to realise how ludicrous the concept was that they could 'feel their way' through the various settings with those big pressurised gloves against that tiny, tiny paddle.


Thank you for finally proving that you're smarter than FoosM. Yes, there were "paddles" stuck to the rings at the prescribed aperture and speed settings. They could set up the shot visually, using this as a guide:




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Btw, I have already said this once. You also have to take into account that shooting film is double exposure. Apollo crews could easily mistake their settings +/- few EV's for exposure and it would still be a good shot. Exposing the paper allows you to compensate for that. As long as the shadows/highlights aren't clipped it's good.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I was more thinking of this situation:


Or do you think the blinding reflected light off the mountain and terrain would hamper a few seconds to a minute worth of an exposure?
Assuming that photo was taken at 1/250th of a second, a 1 minute exposure would be 15,000 times more light than what you see in the photo. Yeah, it would be completely blown out and overexposed.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Nataylor, could you please show how this was possible, sources if possible.
edit: this should include all the items you listed below. Not just one or two of them.


Originally posted by nataylor
They could tell at any time what their shutter speed, aperture, and focus, and depth of field was.


They could tell just by looking at lens. It would look something like this:



With just a glance, you can see the camera is set at 1/60th shutter speed, f/8 aperture, focus is set at about 18 meters, with a depth of field covering from 7 meters to infinity.
edit on 27-1-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You just dont flick your finger to adjust aperture and speed settings and hope the dials rotates to the correct exposure like you are playing roulette. And again, he will have to know his last settings. He would also have to assume that he didnt accidentally move the settings while he was conducting other experiments.


Interesting. You seem to think that operating a camera is terribly complicated, especially under adverse conditions. How do you explain this photo:



The photo is properly exposed and in focus, yet it is clear that the photographer was pre-occupied with more pressing matters than using a light meter. Do you think this photo was taken on a sound stage? Does it prove the Second World War was a hoax?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


This is a poor example to use in this context as many war photographers were not only battle hardened but trained soldiers. Hell in the Australian Navy there used to be a specific category just for photographers.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 


Exactly; they were trained and experienced. So were the astronauts.




top topics



 
377
<< 328  329  330    332  333  334 >>

log in

join