That would appear to include Marcus Allen. I demonstrated at the beginning of this thread how long it takes to expose stars, and you agreed it would take tens of seconds. That's how weak starlight is. Yet Allen claims you should see stars in Apollo photographs at much shorter shutter speeds.
You asked about Trevor Weaver t'other day asking for his credentials:
No, I didn't.
No.
How, exactly? Is starlight so much brighter as seen from the Moon that it can be photographed using only a small fraction of a second for the shutter speed?
Sunlight falling on the lunar surface is utterly irrelevant to the question of how bright the stars are and what it takes to photograph them.
Irrelevant to whether it has already been done using film.
The stars are not significantly brighter on the Moon.
There is no pretence.
Absolute nonsense.I honestly think it is a moot point talking about what shutter speed is needed. Yes, it might take 'tens of seconds' to photograph weak starlight from UK Home Counties in the nighttime. That is not like for like for the Moon. There are parts of the Moon that have never seen sunlight. Ever. That would not be a case of 'weak starlight' and I believe a lunar South Pole PSR expedition is scheduled soon, so there's the opportunity to do so with digital equipment. Good job we have no Apollo starry skies to compare it to.
That's being very uncharitable. There's plenty of evidence that Vixen is being sincere here.
So much straw in one short paragraph.You asked about Trevor Weaver t'other day asking for his credentials:
I honestly think it is a moot point talking about what shutter speed is needed. Yes, it might take 'tens of seconds' to photograph weak starlight from UK Home Counties in the nighttime. That is not like for like for the Moon. There are parts of the Moon that have never seen sunlight. Ever. That would not be a case of 'weak starlight' and I believe a lunar South Pole PSR expedition is scheduled soon, so there's the opportunity to do so with digital equipment. Good job we have no Apollo starry skies to compare it to.
At this point, I think the question of earnestly vs. pretentiously stupid arguments is what most people are especially curious about.
Stands to reason, guv. You're about a quarter of a MILLION miles closer to the stars on the Moon. Obvi they'd be brighter.
But you would be about a quarter of a million miles further away from some of them. Mange tout?
Just turn around and take a picture of something else.
It takes tens of seconds to expose visible stars on a film camera anywhere. Which is why we know you were lying about having "easily" (or was it "no problem") photographed stars in a manner that proved that the Apollo photos should have had stars in them.
So now you're turning 180° and going back to claiming that you can photograph visible stars with a film camera using 1/125 sec. exposure time, because of some magical quality possessed by the moon to reveal stars to silver halide crystals?
That is irrelevant. Sunlight doesn't "soak in" to parts of the moon that are exposed to it. There is no difference between a deep polar crater that's always in shadow and the night side of the moon. In fact, those low areas shadowed from direct sunlight will still get a little bit of reflected light from the rims of the craters, and be technically still brighter than the night side of the moon when the earth isn't in the sky, even though that part gets ≈2 weeks of sunlight. It's not like the sun goes down on the moon and someone says, "If you think that's dark, just wait ten or twelve days".
Starlight isn't appreciably brighter from the moon that it is under excellent viewing conditions on earth. And you've already been informed that modern CCDs are enormously more light sensitive than film, so what would photographing stars with a digital camera prove about the Apollo photos?That would not be a case of 'weak starlight' and I believe a lunar South Pole PSR expedition is scheduled soon, so there's the opportunity to do so with digital equipment. Good job we have no Apollo starry skies to compare it to.
How strange. It appears you imagine cameras adapt to the dark like human eyes and become more sensitive. Or you believe stars shine more brightly on dark places. Neither of these is true. Starlight may be slightly weakened by being seen through Earth's atmosphere but not multiple f-stops weaker.
Damn it! Now I have Total Eclipse of the Heart stuck in my head.
Better that than In the Year 2525, which that Denyer person has saddled me with
