|
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?
|
|
Poster Handle
|
ToSeek |
|
Post Content
|
The photographs that they said were taken on the moon, are all the proof one would ever need, to know it was all faked.
That is if people knew a bit more about photography.
Go find the National Geographic issue from December 1969 and check out the photo printed there. A very famous, well known image. Everybody's seen it.
Note there is no depth of field in that image. Which means the lens is wide open, or very close to wide open. Probably about f4.5 or f5.6. The film was 160ASA Ektachrome. The setting is supposedly in bright sunlight, since that is the only source of light they said they had.
Highest shutter speed on the old Blad was 1/500th of a second, so such a wide aperture would have way overexposed the film even at that speed --- but it didn't.
There's the proof right there and don't give me any shit about low angle of the Sun and so on.
There are quite a few other things about that image that are wrong too, but that lack of depth of field proves it's faked all by itself.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77354587 Are you talking about THE photo? As in this one: [ link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)] There's plenty of depth of field in the image, from the bottom of the photo to a little behind Aldrin. If it doesn't seem that way in the National Geographic version, it's because they cropped most of the foreground at the astronauts' feet. And for everyone who says how could the photographs all be so perfectly framed, note that Neil Armstrong just barely avoids the duffer mistake of cutting off the top of his target's head. (Most published versions of this photograph add a whole lot of black at the top that isn't there in the original.) (And if you're not talking about this photo, please describe the one you are referring to so I can try to track down the original and see what it looked like before National Geographic's photo editors got hold of it.) I meant the cover photo of that issue. I should have mentioned that. Yes the image is cropped in reasonably tight. That has no effect on the depth of field. If one googles images of that issue there are plenty of large scans to look at. Depth of field is progressive. The wider the lens aperture, the more that becomes apparent. There is only one plane of critical focus visible in that photo. That is just in front of the subject's boots. Anyone who studies it will see that. From there - the image starts to soften, so that even the astronaut is just out of critical focus - and it softens progressively as one looks deeper into the field. When we talk about depth of field, it doesn't mean from the bottom to a little behind the subject. You're actually describing a shallow depth of field there. An appropriate aperture for sunlit exposure would have rendered the scene sharply - well beyond the astronaut (without hotspots). That would be good depth of field. The lens was wide open and would have blown the film out if that was a sunlit scene. No way around it I'm afraid. I might pass these comments along to some folks who know more about photography than I do, but what occurs to me first are two points: 1. There's no atmosphere on the Moon. On a sunlit day on Earth you're going to get a lot of light from atmospheric scattering. There's none of that on the Moon. 2. The lunar surface has an albedo of 0.12, about the same as worn asphalt. So all in all if you're going to duplicate this scene on Earth, you can't do it in the daytime. You'd need to do it at night in an old parking lot with a bright point source off to one side. If I get further input from more knowledgeable folks, I'll try to let you know, but I daresay they'll say something similar to what I said.
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for copyright violation:
|
