Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[Zakalwe]

I will simply say, I am not a Conspiracy Theorist on this matter, and I'm really tired of explaining this over and over again. I will also say, since the advent of Digital my practices in Film no longer apply to me; nor is my memory of them.  The knowledge i didn't have was what film iso etc. was used and how it reacted in space.  As we've arrived here in an inquiring manner, you might have figured that I've already covered this in earlier posts.  You have, like others, assumed too much of me and my supposed ignorance.

Well, you sure act like a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps you should look at that before ranting at strangers?

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

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.

Assuming the moon photo's are legit

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!

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).

^^Your words, within the first handful of posts.

[JayUtah]

Why am I still debating this to people like you?

Because you're making mistakes and saying things that a real professional photographer would not make or say, and now trying to back away from them as if you hadn't made them.  No, Adobe Photoshop is not "just like using a darkroom."  I agree, when someone says he's downloaded digital photos from convenience sources on the Internet and thinks that fiddling with the sliders in Photoshop is equivalent to operations like pushing photochemical photography to reveal details in the latent image, that's just nonsensical.  And when he's talking about "stars," when the very first thing he should be thinking of is encoding or compression artifacts/noise or contamination of the dupe master, that's a very tell-tale thing around here.  As I said, you're not the first person to play this game.

Are you a failed Photographer?

Actually I'm a frequently consulted expert on the subject of Apollo photography.  I did a television show on the subject for Channel 4 back while you were still in school.  While I don't currently make my living by photography, I have in the past.  I also taught computer graphics at the University of Utah.  You may have heard of them -- most of the people who wrote Adobe Photoshop went to that school and are my friends.  My work on Apollo photography has been published in Science.  You may have heard of that too.  If paulknowlesphotography.com is your web site then it says you're a self-taught amateur who is turning his hobby into a business.  That doesn't impress me.  I did a stint as a wedding photographer.  I studied full-time for a year and apprenticed full-time for two more years with a credentialled professional before even attempting to practice it for pay (on film, using cameras that cost more than your car), which I did while I was studying engineering and computer science.  I later went on to design a few optical assemblies for scientific and medical photography.

You do not have the qualifications to analyze photography as you have attempted to do.  You are a self-taught amateur who has not been able to display the appropriate knowledge and background to understand why your original post is so very laughable.  Don't just stomp and whine because you got caught.  My advice to you was to not put on airs and listen carefully to what the well-trained and highly-experienced people here were telling you.  Instead you chose to double-down on your "expertise."  Your frustration is entirely of your own making.  Had you taken my advice, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

[JayUtah]

Agreed, hence me posting here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to see if there was anything on what I thought i had found!

But your questions were based on assumptions that a professional photographer would not make.  You volunteered that you were a professional photographer, which has turned out not to be true.  You may earn you living by using a camera, but you lack the knowledge that has at least previously characterized the professional practice of the art.   And more importantly, what you're trying to do is more properly termed image analysis, and that is a scientific and mathematical field.  Nothing in your hobbyist experience prepared your for that.

[Abaddon]

And for your information using Photoshop is the SAME as using a Dark room, only for different material!  You can reveal info recorded faintly in an image.  Digital negatives OF COURSE are NOT FILM!!!!  I know what A Jpeg is!!!! Jeeeeeeez.

Yes, you can sometimes use Photoshop to reveal faint images. What you can't do is use it to reveal images too faint to have been captured in the photograph in the first place

Agreed, hence me posting here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to see if there was anything on what I thought i had found!

There quite clearly is not anything in it. You have agreed that there is not anything in it. Far as I am concerned, that ends the matter with the exception of any other technical enquiries you might have. 

If you have any such enquiries, the membership here can likely provide references aplenty and are happy to do so.

Can we consider the stars in Apollo photographs answered to your satisfaction and move right along to the orbit questions? Or do you have remaining photography questions?

[Icarus1]

Conspiracy Theorists are not all un-educated idiots.  You say you're an amateur Photographer?  Well I'm a Professional, and I think you may know less about Photography than you actually think you do.  I make around £1000 per week as a Freelancer and I've been Self Employed since 2005.  This alone gave me reason enough to take a closer look at 2 images.  Digital/Film makes **** all difference!!  I learned on Film from an early age.  I even had my own Dark Room.  My Photography got me to University where I studied Film and Media.  I am an Amateur Film Maker and and Entrepreneur.  Being an amateur Film Maker also allowed me to research the the moon landing.  I've defended certain areas of the moon landing against the Conspiracists.

Being an amateur filmmaker doesn't qualify you to understand better than 90% of the issues.  Heck, it doesn't even require you to understand the physics of film!  I'm sure we could both name plenty of professional filmmakers who are quite clearly clueless.  And, yes, you pretty much do have to be uneducated to be a conspiracy theorist, because the small amount of effort it would take to actually educate yourself would lead you to say, "Oh.  I was wrong about that."

Don't talk to strangers like they're children.!  The amount of accusation and assumption in here is astounding! You have absolutely No Idea who I am!  This shows the ONLY lack of intelligence in here; the lack of intelligence and rapport to treat and regard strangers with courtesy.

You're right; I have no idea who you are.  So I start by attempting to educate at a very basic level.  You're claiming to be a professional photographer.  Would it stun you to know that we get a lot of people in here making obviously false claims about their expertise in things?  You have shown, by your own posting, that you are not inclined to being told you're wrong even when you are, because you don't believe you are.  I have little patience for that.  If you are the professional photographer you claim to be, you are certainly not the only one here.  You are also talking to people with expertise in lots of other relevant fields, and you're ignoring what you're being told.  You want to be treated with respect?  Reciprocate.

Try being more humble in your approach.

Right back at you, pal.

I haven't disagreed or argued with anyone offering advice or the Facts!  Where did you get that from?  I have been at most, courteous and thankful for some thorough replies.  Yours (not exclusively) was one that I found particularly rude and assuming.  Take is as something to learn from and move on.

I have already accepted the explanation to what I believe might be stars, very early on in this post.

Thanks for taking part.

[Icarus1]

And for your information using Photoshop is the SAME as using a Dark room, only for different material!  You can reveal info recorded faintly in an image.  Digital negatives OF COURSE are NOT FILM!!!!  I know what A Jpeg is!!!! Jeeeeeeez.

Yes, you can sometimes use Photoshop to reveal faint images. What you can't do is use it to reveal images too faint to have been captured in the photograph in the first place

Agreed, hence me posting here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to see if there was anything on what I thought i had found!

There quite clearly is not anything in it. You have agreed that there is not anything in it. Far as I am concerned, that ends the matter with the exception of any other technical enquiries you might have. 

If you have any such enquiries, the membership here can likely provide references aplenty and are happy to do so.

Can we consider the stars in Apollo photographs answered to your satisfaction and move right along to the orbit questions? Or do you have remaining photography questions?

Welcome back.  We can indeed this is the case, and was proven to me very early on.  No hard feelings. 

Try not to treat everyone like they're a bottom Dweller.  We're all friend on this Flat Earth. 

[Icarus1]

Agreed, hence me posting here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to see if there was anything on what I thought i had found!

But your questions were based on assumptions that a professional photographer would not make.  You volunteered that you were a professional photographer, which has turned out not to be true.  You may earn you living by using a camera, but you lack the knowledge that has at least previously characterized the professional practice of the art.   And more importantly, what you're trying to do is more properly termed image analysis, and that is a scientific and mathematical field.  Nothing in your hobbyist experience prepared your for that.

I am a Professional Photographer.  FACT!
I am not a scientific photographer.  FACT!
I've never taken pics on the Moon.  FACT!

But I know for certain that in certain cases, details can be revealed using digital manipulation.  Would you agree?

To add to this, I've no idea how black space is outside of the Earth atmos.  I've no idea how raw sunlight affects film.  I've no idea how the original film captured details.  I had NONE of this knowledge.  It's now more available to me.  You see i have a romantic Idea that space is dazzlingly luminous with uncountable stars.  It's got nothing to do with my camera.  It's an unknown to me to shoot in space.  I was hoping for more stars.

[JayUtah]

Yours (not exclusively) was one that I found particularly rude and assuming.  Take is as something to learn from and move on.

Gillianren is on of the most unfailingly polite and generous posters on this forum.  If you're calling her rude, you really need to rethink your approach.  Being incessantly angry at being justly criticized is not going to make your case.

You came here as a conspiracy theorist.  That is not in question.  You professed expertise you did not have, and on the basis of that pretended expertise you insinuated a "conspiracy to deceive," citing a few long-debunked and often misconceived points amateurs bring up.  While you have indeed congenially accepted correction and participated meaningfully in the ongoing discussion, you still seem to be trying to save face in the form of pretending you didn't come here proposing a conspiracy theory.  You did, and it got shot down.  You can call yourself whatever you want -- "professional phographer," "photon wrangler," or whatever.  But if you profess expertise you do not have, you will get caught here.  Our regulars have a vast cross section of expertise.  Don't have a meltdown when you do get caught.

[jfb]

I recently came across a video/article of the Spinning Corkscrew theory of our solar system, and in fact all stars within a Galaxy.  Namely that all planets 'follow' the Sun as it's hurtles thru space at ludicrous speed.

Are you familiar with it?

If you mean the ridiculous animation produced by DJ Sadhu, then yes.

As a model of how the planets move, it's garbage

Oh really? 

Now, before we go half cocked on me being a crazy un-educated basement rat, this 'theory' actually makes sense to me!  Why is it garbage?

It is true that the solar system is moving through space (orbiting the center of the Milky Way, which is also moving through space), so the planets do trace out complicated corkscrew-within-a-corkscrew patterns over time, and the video is a moderately useful visualization of that.

But...

The orbits of the planets around the Sun do not depend on the Sun's motion through space (the Sun isn't creating a vortex that affects the planet's motion) - they'd be effectively the same if the Sun were standing perfectly still relative to everything else.  Also, the solar system doesn't move through space perpendicular to the ecliptic, as shown in the video - it's more like /-> instead of |->.

[onebigmonkey]

I've never taken pics on the Moon.  FACT!

But you can take photographs of the moon as a way of learning the problems of photographing a bright moon and stars at the same time. You can do one or the other, not both.

But I know for certain that in certain cases, details can be revealed using digital manipulation.  Would you agree?

Yes, providing the details are there. if they were never there no amount of manipulation will reveal them.

To add to this, I've no idea how black space is outside of the Earth atmos.  I've no idea how raw sunlight affects film.  I've no idea how the original film captured details.  I had NONE of this knowledge.  It's now more available to me.  You see i have a romantic Idea that space is dazzlingly luminous with uncountable stars.  It's got nothing to do with my camera.  It's an unknown to me to shoot in space.  I was hoping for more stars.

Space is dazzingly luminous with uncountable stars, as many astronauts have reported. You just can't photograph them with a bright moon in shot. Don't mistake a black sky for dark.

[Icarus1]

Yours (not exclusively) was one that I found particularly rude and assuming.  Take is as something to learn from and move on.

Gillianren is on of the most unfailingly polite and generous posters on this forum.  If you're calling her rude, you really need to rethink your approach.  Being incessantly angry at being justly criticized is not going to make your case.

You came here as a conspiracy theorist.  That is not in question.  You professed expertise you did not have, and on the basis of that pretended expertise you insinuated a "conspiracy to deceive," citing a few long-debunked and often misconceived points amateurs bring up.  While you have indeed congenially accepted correction and participated meaningfully in the ongoing discussion, you still seem to be trying to save face in the form of pretending you didn't come here proposing a conspiracy theory.  You did, and it got shot down.  You can call yourself whatever you want -- "professional phographer," "photon wrangler," or whatever.  But if you profess expertise you do not have, you will get caught here.  Our regulars have a vast cross section of expertise.  Don't have a meltdown when you do get caught.

I came here with a Conspiracy Concern.  Prove otherwise!

My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.  Lizards and all!  He sends me links all the time to the point of me being concerned about him.  He recently told me that it's not even worth his time trying to prove the Space Program is Fake, he simply Knows it!  I have already stated in here that I have tried to prove to him why there are no stars in space.  Dynamic range etc.  I know this!  but there must always be room for doubt for without it, we won't attempt to prove it.
In an attempt to prove something to HIM, I took two pics and tried to reveal faint details of stars.  However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.  The 'Stars' had moved!!!!  It is Most Likely, they are NOT Stars at all.  Most probable.  but as I live and breath I cannot allow myself to say for certaintly that they are NOT Stars either.  I am not certain about anything.  I have never once been angry here.  I could be lying, but what can we prove?  I certainly do have problems communicating at times, especially using type!  If I have offended Gillianren I will re-read what she has posted to see if I can conscientiously remove my remarks.  for this I have no problem.

This is all that has happened here.  I've not disagreed with anyone about anything put forward.

[Zakalwe]

Oh really? 

Now, before we go half cocked on me being a crazy un-educated basement rat, this 'theory' actually makes sense to me!  Why is it garbage?

I cannot explain why it makes sense to you. I will hazard a guess though- it's probably because you've never looked into how orbits work, never learned about Copernicus' work or had any experience in the motion of the planets. You're also probably wowed with fancy graphics and music rather than sitting down and researching stuff thats been known for centuries and proven to be the case.
The main reason why the video is garbage is that the author claims that the heliocentric model is incorrect. That's is a bold claim, given that it's been worked out and proven to work for centuries.

[JayUtah]

I am a Professional Photographer.  FACT!

Call yourself whatever you want.  You don't have the appropriate expertise to attempt the sort of analysis you did, and on the basis of it allege a conspiracy.  No amount of photographing babies and pets teaches you what you need to know in order to make that study and draw that conclusion.

But I know for certain that in certain cases, details can be revealed using digital manipulation.  Would you agree?

You're asking me the uselessly generalized form of your claim, apparently in hopes that the inevitable "yes" answer will somehow justify what you attempted to do and somehow let you save face.  In certain cases, certain kinds of details in digitally encoded photographs may be made more visible to the eye by the skilled use of computer algorithms.  But what you tried to do is not one of those cases.  In certain other cases, inexpert use of computer algorithms on digitally encoded photography produces artifacts that well-meaning but misinformed amateurs mistake for details in the original image or original scene.  What you tried to do is one of those cases.  As so many amateurs have done before you, you just fiddled with the sliders until you saw something you didn't expect, and drew wholly inappropriate conclusions about what they might be.  Kudos to you for coming here to ask your question, and further kudos to you for accepting the answers.  But please take my advice and don't pretend that you have expertise you don't have.  If you set your anger and frustration aside, perhaps a few of us here will take the time to teach you.  But if you're just going to vent because you weren't given undeserved respect, then you won't reap much beyond recrimination.

People who can legitimately claim to be professionals in this sort of image study have spent years in the full-time learning of these digital techniques and have passed rigorous tests of their skill.  They have attained enough practice to know what they're looking at, either in chemical or digital photography.  No, just because tools exist and are useful in some cases does not make you a skilled user of those tools.  Owning a copy of Adobe Photoshop doesn't make you a skilled photo analyst anymore than having a hammer and chisel makes you Michelangelo.

Then there is photogrammetry, which is the science that deals with your attempt to reckon shadows in photographs.  While many years of photography practice will give a person an intuition for photography, the science of using shadows to reconstruct ("rectify," in photogrammetric terms) the scene and determine the locations of light sources and objects in the original scene cannot be done intuitively.  It is a rigorous practice of geometry and mathematics.  If, in your study of photography, you learned the mathematics of non-spherical lenses, you will have learned the rudiments of photogrammetry backwards.  But you will not have picked any of that up through hobby practice.

[onebigmonkey]

as I live and breath I cannot allow myself to say for certaintly that they are NOT Stars either.

I can.

I have spent many hours poring over Apollo surface images and comparing them with what should have been visible in the night sky. I (along with others) have found Venus, but I have never matched a star with the various defects that appear in Apollo images.

The only stars you can match in Apollo images are those taken in orbit above an unlit lunar surface, in cislunar space, or those taken from the surface by the UV camera.

[Abaddon]

Agreed, hence me posting here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to see if there was anything on what I thought i had found!

But your questions were based on assumptions that a professional photographer would not make.  You volunteered that you were a professional photographer, which has turned out not to be true.  You may earn you living by using a camera, but you lack the knowledge that has at least previously characterized the professional practice of the art.   And more importantly, what you're trying to do is more properly termed image analysis, and that is a scientific and mathematical field.  Nothing in your hobbyist experience prepared your for that.

I am a Professional Photographer.  FACT!
I am not a scientific photographer.  FACT!
I've never taken pics on the Moon.  FACT!

But I know for certain that in certain cases, details can be revealed using digital manipulation.  Would you agree?

Conditionally. No amount of photoshop slider gliding can reveal details which the camera/film are not capable of capturing no matter what. Using the available combination of ISO/stop/aperture on the lunar cameras, it simply is not possible. Just a couple of posts up, you agreed this.

Furthermore, any such "revealed" detail requires a level of expertise. I have some of it, having worked in photoshop for years. You do not. This is neither a problem, nor is it something which cannot be easily fixed by some learning. Nor is it an insult. I remain mostly ignorant of, for example, neurosurgery. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer to any question. "I don't know BUT..." is not most of the time.

I am a Professional Photographer.  FACT!

Sure. You make your living from it. De facto it is your "profession". I doubt anyone has an issue with that. This is not in question. Personally, I would encourage you to build a career and a business doing something you like and enjoy. In any milieu, I find that is always rewarding.

I am not a scientific photographer.  FACT!

Nobody claimed you were and you clearly are not. We agree.

I've never taken pics on the Moon.  FACT!

12 people have. You are not one of them, nor am I. Nonetheless, we can assess the resultant images.

Once again, you, me and everyone else agrees that there are no stars. Can we agree AGAIN, that this is a dead issue and move along to orbits?

This will not happen as long as you continue to re-insert a dead issue.