| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/11/2007 7:51 PM
 | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Not the least of which **IT WAS FREEKIN DAYTIME, and nearly ALWAYS IS when you're in space.**
They weren't in Earth's shadow, the sun was UP the entire trip except where Apollo was behind the Moon -- and maybe not even then, depending. There's tis big ball of light, all the time. Sure, it isn't diffuse, as it is on Earth, but it's there and bright and constant.
It isn't like nightime on Earth, when the Earth is conveniently in the way of the Sun. It doesn't work like that hen you're not on the Earth.
Sheesh. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 262563
Light is only diffused in space with no atmosphere when it is in the direct sight of something, if the Apollo 11 window is on the opposite side from where the sun is, only the direct light coming from any stars would be observed and received by any human eyes or camera lens. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3222
10/11/2007 8:05 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Your reply is pure and utter bullshit, and you know it. Quoting: SpaceCadet
Go take some pictures of stars one night.
Then come back and be the "expert". |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/11/2007 8:13 PM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Go take some pictures of stars one night.
Then come back and be the "expert". Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3222
A/C-3222's post above sounds like it is coming from a distressed and upset man!
 |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/11/2007 9:23 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Excuse me, how slow do these cameras take pics? and whats the shutter speed here? Were talking way less that 1 second, for taking pics of very, very bright stars! Quoting: SpaceCadet
Hang on. In your previous post you said:
The lights inside Apollo 11 could have been turned off, then a multitude of stars should have been seen, and also able to be photographed in all of their shining glory, however not 'one' pic was taken of this beautiful heavenly site. Quoting: SpaceCadet
So which is it? Are they supposed to be taking a short exposure of the brightest stars, or one that shows all the stars in their "shining glory"? A one second shot capable of showing just the brightest stars would be nothing to write home about, you could take one from your suburban back yard. It certainly wouldn't be the awe-inspiring shot you seem to think they were avoiding.
As far as exposures go, the following table shows times to capture star images for various focal lengths:
[link to www.nightfolio.co.uk]
You couldn't do much with an exposure of "way less than one second".
And just why would a slow "roll of the craft" affect the taking of any star pics? Quoting: SpaceCadet
Because of the long exposure times. The stars would be trails, not points. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/11/2007 10:04 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Professor Lindenbrook's famous words in the 1959 film, "Journey to the Center of the Earth," ought to apply to NASA, whose original higher-resolution footage of the Apollo 11 moon walk has "oddly" gone missing:
[link to www.script-o-rama.com]
---
A scientist who cannot prove what he has accomplished has accomplished nothing.
I have no records, no shred of evidence.
I will never embarrass this distinguished university by asking that it take my word.
--- |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/11/2007 10:33 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I love how the HBs keep insisting that the missing Apollo 11 video tapes are "high resolution", as if they expect it to be 1080p widescreen. If it is found, it will only ever be the resolution of the camera, namely 10fps slow scan black and white. Yes, it is a little bit better than the existing footage, but it is still very low resolution, certainly nothing compared to the photos or DAC footage.
There is plenty of evidence. Just because you choose to ignore it is no reason everybody else has to. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3222
10/11/2007 11:53 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
A/C-3222's post above sounds like it is coming from a distressed and upset man! Quoting: SpaceCadet
Yawn.
At least you've (so far) given up the IDW style ranting and cursing. That's a plus. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311276
10/12/2007 5:38 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I love how the HBs keep insisting that the missing Apollo 11 video tapes are "high resolution", as if they expect it to be 1080p widescreen. If it is found, it will only ever be the resolution of the camera, namely 10fps slow scan black and white. Yes, it is a little bit better than the existing footage, but it is still very low resolution, certainly nothing compared to the photos or DAC footage.
There is plenty of evidence. Just because you choose to ignore it is no reason everybody else has to. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
"If it is found"? Could you be more oblivious? Its "lost" because they want it lost. Material like this is never "lost". There is a custody chain, big guy. Its not like you just walk in NASA an check it out like a library book.
So you admit its better, but then say, "well, those films really wont help your case". Sure.
This is obviously Barls' religion.
Otherwise he wouldnt be here. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311300
10/12/2007 8:05 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If they couldn't see stars up there then how did Aldrin & Lovel use stars to dock their spacecraft that time when the navigational computer(casio wristwatch :D )wouldn't work? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/12/2007 8:20 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I have little to add, but about the stars:
How long should the shutter speed have been in order to capture the stars? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 297306
10/12/2007 8:43 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Maybe the missing boxes would include photos/videos of a visible flame coming from the ascent engine. Even the shuttle's thrusters show exhaust. I would expect more than a few sparklers from a 3500lb thrust engine. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/12/2007 10:04 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Maybe the missing boxes would include photos/videos of a visible flame coming from the ascent engine. Even the shuttle's thrusters show exhaust. I would expect more than a few sparklers from a 3500lb thrust engine. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 297306
We cannot see any flames from the lander takeoff from the moon because the lander rockets used a combination of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide.
These substances burn with practically an invisible flame in a vacuum. So no flame would be seen.
STARS...
Theres really no different between the sky on the Moon and the sky DURING DAY TIME on Earth. The fact that the sky on Earth is blue because of the atmosphere and it is black on the Moon makes no difference. You cannot see stars during the day.
The lunar surface is very bright. Brighter than the brightest day in the hottest part of the world. This is obvious when you think about it. There are no atmosphere or clouds on the moon. In comparison to this bright surface, the stars are VERY dim.
Not that they were on the moon to look at the stars...But I think its safe to say that if the stars would have been as spectacular as they are on a cold and clear winter night ON EARTH they would have seen them,and remembered it forever.
Clearly that is not the case on the moon,in daylight. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/12/2007 10:19 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I have little to add, but about the stars:
How long should the shutter speed have been in order to capture the stars? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
The Apollo astronauts took around 17,000 photographs on the lunar surface.
Theres plenty of not-so-great photographs that NASA simply have never publicised. Over or under exposed, quint angles, accidental exposures.
But those that the public are most familiar with are the best ones.
As most of us know, the longer the shutter interval, the more light falls on the film. Photographers state shutter speeds in fractions of a second, in daylight, such as about 1/250/S.
The Hubble space telescope needed hundreds of hours of exposure for the classic "deep field" picture.
With the Hasselblad camera the astronauts used, if longer exposure, in daylight, the film would have been o
verexposed. Useless. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311276
10/12/2007 4:13 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"""The Apollo astronauts took around 17,000 photographs on the lunar surface.
Theres plenty of not-so-great photographs that NASA simply have never publicised. Over or under exposed, quint angles, accidental exposures.
But those that the public are most familiar with are the best ones."""
He knows. They told him so. Nothing to see here, move along. The greatest achievement ever, of mankind, and they, well, just chose not to publish the photos.
I'm starting to smell baloney tits.
 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 297306
10/12/2007 4:34 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Maybe the missing boxes would include photos/videos of a visible flame coming from the ascent engine. Even the shuttle's thrusters show exhaust. I would expect more than a few sparklers from a 3500lb thrust engine.
We cannot see any flames from the lander takeoff from the moon because the lander rockets used a combination of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide.
These substances burn with practically an invisible flame in a vacuum. So no flame would be seen. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
..but doesn't the shuttle use the same combo, and exhaust can be seen from it's thrusters.....????? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/12/2007 4:57 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I have little to add, but about the stars:
How long should the shutter speed have been in order to capture the stars?
The Apollo astronauts took around 17,000 photographs on the lunar surface.
Theres plenty of not-so-great photographs that NASA simply have never publicised. Over or under exposed, quint angles, accidental exposures.
But those that the public are most familiar with are the best ones.
As most of us know, the longer the shutter interval, the more light falls on the film. Photographers state shutter speeds in fractions of a second, in daylight, such as about 1/250/S.
The Hubble space telescope needed hundreds of hours of exposure for the classic "deep field" picture.
With the Hasselblad camera the astronauts used, if longer exposure, in daylight, the film would have been o
verexposed. Useless. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
I know all, but that is not an answer to my question at all. All I did was ask what the shutter speed needed to capture stars would be. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/12/2007 6:25 PM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I know all, but that is not an answer to my question at all. All I did was ask what the shutter speed needed to capture stars would be. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
The problem here is the hoax debunkers are being very deceptive about taking simple, quick photographs of stars in the middle of space.
Of course the exposure time is longer for taking pics of the stars at night on Earth, and also on the Moon, bacause of the clash of 'other' light sources.
However very quick shutter speeds are all that is required when a pic is being taken of the stars through the window of any of the Apollo's on the way to and from the Moon. This of course is when the Sun is on the opposite side of the any of the Apollo ships from where the window is. The Earth & Moon also not being in the view from any of the Apollo ships window. Also with the lights turned off inside the Apollo ships.
The only light being received through the Apollo ships window would be coming from 'Any' stars. A very quick shutter speed, way less than a second would have catched 'Alot' of light coming from these very, very bright stars.
No clash with any other light source would occur as on Earth or the Moon. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311276
10/12/2007 6:34 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hazzard, the OP said..."Debate!
And not just the old ad hominem."
I am thinking Hazzard didnt expect the responses he got on this thread.
He started this thread in the way a 3rd grade teacher talks to her young students. (Debate, kids"!)
As if they were stupid, and he was all knowing.
A part of me thinks Hazzard and Barls realizes their position is not tenable. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311276
10/12/2007 6:47 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hazzard wrote ..
"The Apollo astronauts took around 17,000 photographs on the lunar surface. "
I wonder how they had the time to do the lunar dune bug driving and then play golf on the moon, and then collect rocks,,,while taking 17,000 photos?
And ya gotta wonder how that film held up so well in those Hasselblad cameras in that 250 degree heat.
But, alas, its the moon. That magical place where everything is in slow motion, and dust is dust until we want it to be "regolith". Which, is hard.
Its all very Peter Pan.
No stars.
You see cables holding up the astronuts? Dont worry about it. Thats how things are on the moon.
A camera follows the moon lift off? No problem, they practiced that.
The horizon disappears on the moon? Heck, thats how the horizon is on the moon. Sure it looks like a bad movie set, but its the moon.  |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311547
10/12/2007 8:20 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Conspiracy theorists claim that the shadows are in fact caused by studio lighting, either by a light source which is relatively close and/or by multiple light sources. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
Obviously, people at NASA are not that dumb to use multiple light sources.
The truth is that converging shadows are a well-know optical phenomena in photography. There is nothing mysterious about it, in fact you can easily replicate this effect yourself.
No, they are not. Show us a natural picture with converging shadows, please.
This effect is caused by several factors including perspective and the way the surface is inclined relative to the camera and light source.
There is no inclination in most pictures with non-parallel shadows.
A light source placed close to the objects would not create converging shadows - it would create diverging shadows.
Oh, please. The shadows are indeed diverging, i.e. as they run away from the light source, they are diverging. When we say 'converging' shadows, we consider the opposite direction. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/12/2007 8:41 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
He knows. They told him so. Nothing to see here, move along. The greatest achievement ever, of mankind, and they, well, just chose not to publish the photos.
I'm starting to smell baloney tits. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311276
Why do you think they didn't publish all the photos? Have you ever lifted a finger to find out for yourself?
Go and look at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Or, even better, go and check out the archive here:
[link to eol.jsc.nasa.gov]
Every roll of film is there. You will see many, many shots that are poorly framed, overexposed, sunstruck, and so on. The poor photos didn't get published in National Geographic because they wouldn't have looked appropriately spectacular. That doesn't mean they don't exist or have been hidden. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/12/2007 8:43 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I know all, but that is not an answer to my question at all. All I did was ask what the shutter speed needed to capture stars would be. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
Here's a table of exposure times for various focal lengths.
[link to www.nightfolio.co.uk]
I note that SpaceCadet, true to his taunt to never read what I write, has chosen to ignore this information which I have already provided. Quelle surprise. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/12/2007 9:39 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hazzard wrote ..
I wonder how they had the time to do the lunar dune bug driving and then play golf on the moon, and then collect rocks,,,while taking 17,000 photos? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311276
Because one astronaut was doing those activities while the other took photos.
And ya gotta wonder how that film held up so well in those Hasselblad cameras in that 250 degree heat. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311276
The ground temperature never got higher than 80 degrees celsius during the mission, and radiative heat transfer can be almost eliminated with a high albedo coating.
dust is dust until we want it to be "regolith". Which, is hard. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311276
I haven't been able to post for a few days, so I've seen this one mentioned a few times. I may as well answer it here.
You obviously don't pay much attention to stuff here on Earth if you find it odd that a hardpan surface might be covered by a loose dust layer. I spend some time driving on gravel, and what you get is a compressed bed that is very hard, with an agitated layer of loose gravel and dust on top. The same thing happens on the Moon - impacts and vibration compact the regolith, and dust thrown up by crater formation forms a looser layer a centimeter or two in depth on top.
You see cables holding up the astronuts? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311276
No. Got an example we can examine together?
A camera follows the moon lift off? No problem, they practiced that. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311276
Yep. Do you have a reason you can give that would show that this is impossible?
The horizon disappears on the moon? Heck, thats how the horizon is on the moon. Sure it looks like a bad movie set, but its the moon.
No, you've lost me here. What are you talking about? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 264194
10/13/2007 2:58 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
hazzard and barls seems to be the "real deal".
locical,scientific and to the point.
all i hear from the rest of you is just pure ignorance,wining and bad attitudes.
these two have repetedly answered all your questions,and still you ignorant fools keep throwing shit at them.
this is one sad bunch of hoaxbelievers,and i have seen a few. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/13/2007 3:01 AM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
hazzard and barls seems to be the "real deal".
locical,scientific and to the point.
all i hear from the rest of you is just pure ignorance,wining and bad attitudes.
these two have repetedly answered all your questions,and still you ignorant fools keep throwing shit at them.
this is one sad bunch of hoaxbelievers,and i have seen a few. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 264194
Ok, I guess if you say they are 'locical', they must be I suppose, thanks for setting all us very many others right, we were so lost and deluded without your help, compliments.
Now wheres my bottle of pure 'wining' so I can get totally drunk,
 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311276
10/13/2007 4:16 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
""
""You see cables holding up the astronuts?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311276
No. Got an example we can examine together?""
[link to youtube.com]
We will not be examing it together, as I already have seen it.
This shows several clips from several "moon missions" where one can see the wires.
Pay special attention to the seen with the 2 astronauts with the golf club.
More lens flare, I'm sure.
 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 264194
10/13/2007 4:56 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
hazzard and barls seems to be the "real deal".
locical,scientific and to the point.
all i hear from the rest of you is just pure ignorance,wining and bad attitudes.
these two have repetedly answered all your questions,and still you ignorant fools keep throwing shit at them.
this is one sad bunch of hoaxbelievers,and i have seen a few.
Ok, I guess if you say they are 'locical', they must be I suppose, thanks for setting all us very many others right, we were so lost and deluded without your help, compliments.
Now wheres my bottle of pure 'wining' so I can get totally drunk,
if i knew there would be a spelling contest i would have tried harder.
but thanks for proving my whole point.....another useless ad hominem,instead of the real debate that hazz and barls are running here.
as long as these two,and others like them,are here i will keep comming back.
not that i dont like the way the make the rest of you pseudo fools look:-)
i learn something new about optics,astronomy..etc,every day.
guys like this are the sanity in this fringe,filled to the rim, nut house |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/13/2007 5:07 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
We will not be examing it together, as I already have seen it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311276
And I've seen it too. Now let's look at what the clip actually contains.
For a start, in the Apollo 14 footage the really bright glint above the backpack is the radio antenna. It was shaped like a tape measure, so it was easier to see from some angles.
If you want to argue that it is a wire, you need to answer several questions.
Firstly, where is the wire attached? The glint is clearly above the backpack, but if it is attached there, then it is really poroly placed with respect to the astronauts' centre of gravity. If he was lifted by a wire anchored there, he would pendulum forward to a quite noticable degree. Get a little model astronaut, attach a thread in the manner you propose, and try it for yourself.
Secondly, it's a really bright flash. Quite noticeable, isn't it? No mistaking that there is something above the astronaut's head. Clearly quite silvery in colour, like a metal antenna, rather than painted black, like a stage wire rig. You do know that they paint the wire black when they do that sort of stuff, right? I mean, why wouldn't they? The whole point of hanging people from wires is to convince you that they aren't hanging from wires. So you do everything you can to hide them. So, to support your theory, you need to explain why the wires were a bright silvery colour rqather than a more sensible, and industry stadard, black. You also need to explain why whoever directed the hoax footage would allow such a 'giveaway' into the released footage.
In a later clip you see a flash right at the top of the screen, supposedly another wire glint. Again, you come up against the same question as to why the wires were non-industry standard metallic, rather than black. Additionally, at the same time as you see the 'glint', there are other bright flashes elsewhere on the screen, eg beneath the astronauts' backpacks. Are these evidence of rocket thrusters in the backpacks providing some additional help in creating the low-g effect, or are they both video artifacts created by a transmission glitch? |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/13/2007 5:14 AM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
if i knew there would be a spelling contest i would have tried harder.
but thanks for proving my whole point.....another useless ad hominem,instead of the real debate that hazz and barls are running here.
as long as these two,and others like them,are here i will keep comming back.
not that i dont like the way the make the rest of you pseudo fools look:-)
i learn something new about optics,astronomy..etc,every day.
guys like this are the sanity in this fringe,filled to the rim, nut house Quoting: Anonymous Coward 264194
Whatever you say AC, if it comforts yourself, your words of advice must be doing its job somewhere I'm sure.
"ad hominem"-marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
You should know AC, I didn't start it, AC do you know what the word 'hypocrite' means? Look it up.
Also read the words at the top of the page by GodLikeProductions, it says this site is for- 'UFOs-Conspiracy Theorists-Lunatic Fringe', so which one are you in that lot AC?
Your simple-minded ad hominem words as quoted above only sway the simple minds of people in the caliber of Barls & Hazzard,.....Myself, I just find it mildly amusing. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/13/2007 7:31 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Of course the exposure time is longer for taking pics of the stars at night on Earth, and also on the Moon, bacause of the clash of 'other' light sources.
However very quick shutter speeds are all that is required when a pic is being taken of the stars through the window of any of the Apollo's on the way to and from the Moon. This of course is when the Sun is on the opposite side of the any of the Apollo ships from where the window is. The Earth & Moon also not being in the view from any of the Apollo ships window. Also with the lights turned off inside the Apollo ships. Quoting: SpaceCadet
Utterly untrue. The exposure time needed to capture something depends on the brightness of it. Excluding any bright planets from the view of the cameras doesn't make the stars more bright; they're just as faint as always. The difference is that the stars are relatively more bright (all of the other factors that make the stars relatively dim are excluded). However, the most important thing to know that "relatively more bright" means nothing for a photo camera.
Just to explain: if you make a picture of a plant lit a certain way with a dark background, the plant can look very bright. However, if you take a a picture of the plant (with the light setup), only this time with a very bright background, your plant would be just as bright as before on a camera (using the same exposure settings), but it would be relatively far less bright. That's the difference.
(BTW, I took my plant example from this video: [link to www.youtube.com] ) |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
