Why no stars in space pictures?

Originally posted by wmd_2008

No the truth is even PHOTOGRAPHERS posting here think what you say is idiotic!
Its not a difference of opinion you just dont have a clue about photography!

I never claimed to be a "photographer"

So far you seem to be the only one who thinks I'm an "Idiot"
I'll consider the source and politely decide not to lower myself to your level and start name calling. I don't take things too personal anymore. I'm getting a little too old to let trivial things bother me as they once did in my youth.

I'm sorry but if that's the best you can do then let me reply with...

YAWN



[edit on 7-6-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Considering the equipment of the period although top of the line back in the day. Still by today's standards left a lot to be desired.

Actually, the camera's are still considered to be very good. Besides the jump from film to digital, not much has changed with camera's themselves. As long as you have good quality lenses and film, regardless of when the camera was made, you'll be able to take great photos.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
The truth is that we have a difference of opinion.

Well your opinion goes against the laws of physics. Star light is extremely faint and requires exposure times in the order of seconds to tens of seconds. The exposure times for the Apollo photos while on the Moon were in fractions of a second.

Do you have access to a digital camera? If so, go and take some photos at daylight settings (say around 1/250 of a second), at night and see what shows up.