Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[Icarus1]

I'm not sure how to proceed here.  I visited a NASA archive.  I looked through a series of images.  I found 2 that were numerically consecutive and of the same subject matter, differing only in angle by a degree or two.

My initial intention was to reveal Stars in the blackness of space.  I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.  I have Photoshop.  I opened these two images in PS (I will either post or link or whatever, later) and increased the Levels to reveal stars in the blackness.  At first I thought 'Great; there are stars'.  However, I overlay the 2nd image and did the same, lowering the opacity to align with the image below it.  Content with the alignment, and selecting between the two images, something was revealed.

Although the images were taken moments apart (evident only by the foreground shadows not changing at all) the stars in the sky were completely different.

To make this more clear as a question, and bearing in mind my knowledge of celestial movement and observation from the Moon's surface is non-existent, would the foreground shadows on the moon (created by the Sun only?) change in angle as the moon travels thru space in a manner that would be easily observed over a very short/immediate period of time?  Would the stars also move so drastically in the same instance?  Is it possible for the foreground shadows to be exactly the same in both images, but the stars be totally different?

My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.  I am left believing that in order for the foreground shadows to be constant and not moving they must be lit by a light source that is in a fixed position relative the object i.e either frozen in a moment of time as in a pic (assuming Sun is light source), or in a fixed position on the ground adjacent to the subject on the same terrestrial plane (Artificial Sun).

Sorry If I've over complicated this.  I do have trouble explaining myself at times.

(struggling to add pics at 192KB!)

[dougkeenan]

"its" as in "first of its kind"

"it's" is used as a contraction of "it is" which doesn't make sense in your usage

[bknight]

When you start tweaking the parameters of an image you get all sorts of compression artifacts, so I've been told.
The "stars" you see may be just that compression artifacts and therefore will change with each image, no conspiracy here.

[Icarus1]

"its" as in "first of its kind"

"it's" is used as a contraction of "it is" which doesn't make sense in your usage

Thank you for taking the time to point this obvious fact out, however I know this.  You've mistaken the error for a lack of knowledge.  My issues are more to do with the speed in which I type and the irrelevance at this early stage to be concise on grammar and syntax.

Do you have anything to add to my post?

Thank you again.

[Icarus1]

When you start tweaking the parameters of an image you get all sorts of compression artifacts, so I've been told.
The "stars" you see may be just that compression artifacts and therefore will change with each image, no conspiracy here.

Artifacts, as you have been told (probably by a Photographer or Graphic Designer who uses Digital Software i.e Myself) occur with an overuse of certain tools in editing.  Without going in to to much detail on the matter, you have dismissed something that you've not actually seen.

Thank you anyway.

[dougkeenan]

Sure I can add more.  I take your obvious lack of knowledge as evidence of a lack of knowledge.  Ignorance is your error not mine.

If you can't get the small things right you aren't going to succeed at the bigger ones.

At what point in your life did you decide an education would not help?  Because there's about nothing about Apollo that you cannot educate yourself in depth.

[Icarus1]

Sure I can add more.  I take your obvious lack of knowledge as evidence of a lack of knowledge.  Ignorance is your error not mine.

If you can't get the small things right you aren't going to succeed at the bigger ones.

At what point in your life did you decide an education would not help?  "Because there's about nothing about Apollo that you cannot educate yourself in depth."

I don't think we have anything more to discuss.  Your time would be better served seeking other Grammatical Errors, though I would suggest this site is not the best candidate.

However I bring your attention to this:

"Because there's about nothing about Apollo that you cannot educate yourself in depth."

I can't make any sense of it.

Regards

[dougkeenan]

Pick any subject about the Apollo program that confuses you.  Go learn about it. 

Ignorant conspiracy theories will evaporate in the sunlight of your education.

Does that make sense?

[Icarus1]

Pick any subject about the Apollo program that confuses you.  Go learn about it. 

Ignorant conspiracy theories will evaporate in the sunlight of your education.

Does that make sense?

Oh dear me; I've managed to find a Troll in my very 1st instance on this site.  Were you born Angry and Lonely or did you work at it?  Congratulations!

Irony abounds.  You pull me up on use of Grammar while completely disregarding my question, yet write sentences like this:

"Because there's about nothing about Apollo........"

Absurd.  Move on please.  You've turned this into a Spelling B contest....!

[Icarus1]

To add, this is not specifically an Apollo question.  This relates to Photography and Stage design.  The use of Apollo photo's brought me here.  They are separate instances while borrowing commonalities from each other to prove or disprove a point.  Namely, the lack of stars in Space/Moon/Orbit photography, and also a reason or attempt, to prove or disprove the Hoax theories of going to the moon.

My main question still stands, but I will amend for anyone remotely interested:

Assuming the moon photo's are legit, would the background stars move noticeably, like they do on earth, and alter the foreground shadows also, assuming the only light source is the Sun?

Thanks

[Kiwi]

My initial intention was to reveal Stars in the blackness of space.  I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.  I have Photoshop...

Apologies for dougkeenan's comments.  Most of us here do not behave like that and are a little more civil.

Ex-professional photographer here, 1970s and 80s. A quick question: Why do you expect to find stars in sunlit lunar scenes? Surely a quick calculation comparing the usual exposures of the two subjects would tell you that it's impossible.

Film usually copes or coped with a light ratio of about 1024:1 (11 Zones in the Ansel Adams and Fred Picker systems), and as this old post of mine at the CosmoQuest Forum
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/6040-Fox-Special-rescreening-in-NZ-24-June-2003?p=102901#post102901
says (fifth paragraph in the list), "Stars didn't show in photos because they are far too faint to register in a photograph of a sunlit scene. To register on film they need at least 30,000 times more exposure than a sunlit object."

The post below that one shows via the maths that an exposure of about 130,000 times more than a sunlit scene would be better for registering stars.

However, do you know that Venus showed up in photos that Al Shepard took of the lunar module during Apollo 14? The first photo of the series is AS14-64-9189 and details are at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/a14Venus.html

(Family commitments might keep me away from here for a few days, but I shall return.)

[Abaddon]

I'm not sure how to proceed here.  I visited a NASA archive.  I looked through a series of images.  I found 2 that were numerically consecutive and of the same subject matter, differing only in angle by a degree or two.

My initial intention was to reveal Stars in the blackness of space.  I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.  I have Photoshop.  I opened these two images in PS (I will either post or link or whatever, later) and increased the Levels to reveal stars in the blackness.  At first I thought 'Great; there are stars'.  However, I overlay the 2nd image and did the same, lowering the opacity to align with the image below it.  Content with the alignment, and selecting between the two images, something was revealed.

Although the images were taken moments apart (evident only by the foreground shadows not changing at all) the stars in the sky were completely different.

To make this more clear as a question, and bearing in mind my knowledge of celestial movement and observation from the Moon's surface is non-existent, would the foreground shadows on the moon (created by the Sun only?) change in angle as the moon travels thru space in a manner that would be easily observed over a very short/immediate period of time?  Would the stars also move so drastically in the same instance?  Is it possible for the foreground shadows to be exactly the same in both images, but the stars be totally different?

My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.  I am left believing that in order for the foreground shadows to be constant and not moving they must be lit by a light source that is in a fixed position relative the object i.e either frozen in a moment of time as in a pic (assuming Sun is light source), or in a fixed position on the ground adjacent to the subject on the same terrestrial plane (Artificial Sun).

Sorry If I've over complicated this.  I do have trouble explaining myself at times.

(struggling to add pics at 192KB!)

You understand that there are many sources for contamination, right? Dust on the moon, blemishes in the film stock, dust on the scanner glass etc. etc.

[Icarus1]

Of course I do and thank you for pointing it out.  I'm realising I need to me very thorough in what I post to prevent further posts like this.  I figured saying I was a Professional Photographer would cover me in every regard considering artifacts, dust and over processing.

I am not here to disprove.  I am here to prove facts!  Facts within the images.  My friend is a Die Hard Conspiracy Theorist.  He believes in Everything alternative.

I have already tried in vain to point out why Neil A is illuminated etc thru reflected light.  He won't have it.  I'm not here for that.

I have a series of images, that I do not believe, in my Photographic Professional Opinion, to be simply glitches, artifacts, or distortion from over processing. 

I also realise that these are Digital Scans, of old school Medium Format negatives/prints.  Therefore, dust, hair, flakes of skin and all kind will be apparent.  Which leads me to my question:

All this as a given, would the shadow stay the same in the foreground, while the stars moved?

First thing I learned at University.  To answer a question, we first need to understand the question.

[Icarus1]

Kiwi, thank you sincerely for that reply.  While I am not aware of the latency of the film used back then, the info you have put forward is useful and I will look into that further.

As a photographer now at 42 I did learn on film.  However I exclusively use Digital now.  What I can tell you for certain that even negatives from 20 uears ago of the night sky can and do reveal stars when digitally processed.  This is proven by comparing an under exposed negative to an over exposed negative from the same place at seconds apart.  Using Photoshop the level can reveal points of light that match in both instances, where the under exposed would only show the most obvious bright stars/planets, and the over exposed a plethora of illumination.

Today using Digital I can achieve excellent levels using RAW format, that I'm sure you're aware of.  The images I mention appear to have Nebulae revealed.  Colours etc. are different in each part.  I have only selected 2 image to look at, but I am currently looking at others now.  Would you care to take a look at them yourself?  I can of course supply you with the link and the specific images; Providing you use Digital Editing of course.

Second to this, I am looking for truth!  Nothing else.

[Abaddon]

Of course I do and thank you for pointing it out.  I'm realising I need to me very thorough in what I post to prevent further posts like this.  I figured saying I was a Professional Photographer would cover me in every regard considering artifacts, dust and over processing.

Clearly it does not. The images you see are scanned from the original. The infamous "C-rock" is an example.

What settings would you use to capture stars? I know the answer, I am curious if you do.

I am not here to disprove.  I am here to prove facts!  Facts within the images.

Which images are you using?

My friend is a Die Hard Conspiracy Theorist.  He believes in Everything alternative.

You might want to think before deploying that well worn tactic.

I have already tried in vain to point out why Neil A is illuminated etc thru reflected light.  He won't have it.  I'm not here for that.

What are you here for, then?

I have a series of images, that I do not believe, in my Photographic Professional Opinion, to be simply glitches, artifacts, or distortion from over processing. 

Yet you decline to identify which images they are and what artefacts you see and why you think they are stars. Let me ask again. If you wanted to photograph stars, what kind of setup would you use?

I also realise that these are Digital Scans, of old school Medium Format negatives/prints.  Therefore, dust, hair, flakes of skin and all kind will be apparent.  Which leads me to my question:

All this as a given, would the shadow stay the same in the foreground, while the stars moved?

What? How fast do you think the stars move? What do you think the exposure time was on the Apollo images?

First thing I learned at University.  To answer a question, we first need to understand the question.

Request a refund.