I used to think of 400 as fast back when I was dabbling with film photography in the late '70s. These days, on digital, I rarely go below 1600 (but I am usually shooting in poor light).
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk
- Thread starter Vixen
- Start date
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It was fast. I started out on ISO 64.
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
But what if she waited until Swedish midnight?
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,417
I know, I did O level physics. In Middlesex. Same as you.
I then went on to do A level physics, (+maths and chemistry) a degree in astrophysics, a postgraduate certificate in education, a PhD in astrophysics, and I have worked as a research astrophysicist, a high school teacher, and a very successful private tutor.
I have taught physics at every level from 11+ to postgraduate.
I know what topics should be studied at any age, and what level of understanding students should achieve for every qualification, including some qualifications you haven’t even heard of.
So when I say that your understanding falls short of that needed for a grade 5 at GCSE, I do so from a position of qualified authority.
Last edited:
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
Whippersnapper. When I got my first good camera in 1971, I think Kodachrome was ASA 25 or so. None of this fancy ISO stuff!
Ektachrome 64 or some such. TriX 160.
But I had an f1.4 lens, which helped.
All 55 years ago, memories may be faulty.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
So a slow one that could only take a photo every 1.4 seconds?!?!
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Circa 1976, I shot Panatomic-X, ISO 32 while learning the new zone system from Minor White. For color, I shot Ektachrome 64.
This is a low-resolution scan of a black-and-white photograph I took, developed, and printed back then:
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Just don’t use red-eye reduction when photographing mars…
Reformed Offlian
Illuminator
If I use a flash the stars always close their eyes.
All this talk of camera settings is really irrelevant. The basic fact is that the dynamic range possible on any film is just too low to be able to record sun-lit objects and stars at the same time. The camera settings are used to favour one or the other.
By dynamic range I mean the span between the darkest and the brightest amount of light that can be recorded. I don't know if modern digital media has the dynamic range that makes it possible to record faint starlight and a bright scene at the same time, but I doubt it.
By dynamic range I mean the span between the darkest and the brightest amount of light that can be recorded. I don't know if modern digital media has the dynamic range that makes it possible to record faint starlight and a bright scene at the same time, but I doubt it.
threadworm
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,096
Difficult to believe that someone claiming expertise in photography can't accurately describe what circumstances would allow the photographing of stars, what camera settings would be needed, and that somehow taking a lot of photographs in a continuous sequence can't be done in so that other tasks can be done in the time available, or that those tasks can't be done while someone else documents them.
Also difficult to believe that someone professing some kind of in depth knowledge of the Apollo missions doesn't know that stars were photographed in lunar orbit, cislunar space and the lunar surface, and that specific equipment, film, and procedures were available to do that.
Almost as if they didn't have the expertise and knowledge claimed and were entirely reliant on the grift and ignorance of others to prop up their ignorance rather than actually using the wealth of information freely available to enlighten themselves.
The whole "where are the stars" garbage is one of the first grunts that appear on any social media posts about Apollo photographs, and it says all we need to know about the quality of argument that we're likely to get from someone.
Take some star photos Vixen. Tell us what settings you needed to use. Tell us if the sun or moon was out.
Also difficult to believe that someone professing some kind of in depth knowledge of the Apollo missions doesn't know that stars were photographed in lunar orbit, cislunar space and the lunar surface, and that specific equipment, film, and procedures were available to do that.
Almost as if they didn't have the expertise and knowledge claimed and were entirely reliant on the grift and ignorance of others to prop up their ignorance rather than actually using the wealth of information freely available to enlighten themselves.
The whole "where are the stars" garbage is one of the first grunts that appear on any social media posts about Apollo photographs, and it says all we need to know about the quality of argument that we're likely to get from someone.
Take some star photos Vixen. Tell us what settings you needed to use. Tell us if the sun or moon was out.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
That would mean being exactly half way across the Baltic.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
And then use those same settings to take some photos in daylight.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
That doesn't mean your claim that your 13-year-olds have a better understanding of Physics than myself is the slightest bit accurate. I just sneaked a look at my school report for that age (these were all people who passed the 11+ [so top 20 percentile of all the pupils in that age group and then top 25 percentile in the academic stream = top 5% overall). So, I was first in English and French, second in Biology. Chemistry, Physics and Music; third in German. Top six in everything else. So your claim my understanding falls short of your 13-year-old's is just a cheap insult. I would guess that this is because you haven't grasped the point being made.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You haven't grasped that daylight on Earth is different from daylight on the Moon.
We're talking about your understanding now, as demonstrated by your own utterances, not what it may have been six decades ago.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I didn't claim 'expertise', more of a hobby at the time. You may remember the Apollo 11 press conference in which they were asked by Patrick Moore about what stars they saw and Armstrong replied, "I don't recall". Collins also said something about spotting Venus.
How can you not notice it? When I was on holiday some years ago near the Tropics, one glance at an incredibly starry night sky completely took my breath away. It's understandable you call any question about the photography outrageous because you have bought in to the dream and the consequent hero-worship. I can see nothing wrong at all with people wanting to understand how it all worked, without silly 'debunking' videos with youtubers in spacesuits mucking about with harnesses and gushing about reflectors.
You, fine, you are happy with what you are told with no curiosity to know anything deeper. I get it. It is a mix of patriotism and inculcation, just like Brits believe the Royal Family are better than us. As a kid we had to stand up for the National Anthem at Saturday morning pictures at the Odeon...doesn't mean it means anything important and must not be questioned.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Given these were astronauts primed by precise astronomical detail, it could be said filming the stars would be of keen interest, so the fact the skies appear blacked over and the crew of three avoiding the question, is understandably seen by those interested, as a deliberate policy, to avoid star-spotters from identifying exactly where the photography was taken. So I am curious to understand this, too.
Last edited: