Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[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.

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.

erm...Thank you for that.  You seem to be here to disprove me.  I have no other info for you.

Thanks

[Abaddon]

erm...Thank you for that.  You seem to be here to disprove me.  I have no other info for you.

Thanks

The is a discussion forum. It's purpose is to facilitate discussion. If you do not wish to have a discussion, then why are you here?

You could start by identifying which particular images you are looking at. Why will you not?

You could start by identifying what setup you need to photograph stars. Why will you not?

[Icarus1]

Because, you haven't asked nicely, and you assume too much.  You already have me 'summed up'.  It would take too much effort (already evident) to convince you of anything else, never mind have a civil discussion about Photography.

Thank you for your input, but you can't help me.

[dougkeenan]

I'm trying to help and being accused of incivility. 

Anybody have a better answer to ignorance than education go right ahead.

[Icarus1]

Also, you do realise I could copy and paste any amount of info an Celestial Photography don't you?  I can't prove my knowledge to you!  You also realise that each camera is different in it's sensitivity and set-up?  There are no fixed settings.

Regards

[Abaddon]

Because, you haven't asked nicely, and you assume too much.  You already have me 'summed up'.  It would take too much effort (already evident) to convince you of anything else, never mind have a civil discussion about Photography.

Thank you for your input, but you can't help me.

Please, pretty please, identify which images you are using.

Please, pretty please, identify what setup you would use to photograph stars.

With a cherry on top. Maybe some whipped cream.

[Abaddon]

Also, you do realise I could copy and paste any amount of info an Celestial Photography don't you?  I can't prove my knowledge to you!  You also realise that each camera is different in it's sensitivity and set-up?  There are no fixed settings.

Regards

Sure, but we know the capabilities of the lunar Hasselblads precisely. We know exposure times focus fstop blah blah. We already know this. We also know all about the film stock used, it's sensitivity and so forth.

For some reason, you will not tell us which image(s) you are examining.

For some reason you will not tell us what setup you would deploy to photograph stars.

[Icarus1]

Also, you do realise I could copy and paste any amount of info an Celestial Photography don't you?  I can't prove my knowledge to you!  You also realise that each camera is different in it's sensitivity and set-up?  There are no fixed settings.

Regards

Sure, but we know the capabilities of the lunar Hasselblads precisely. We know exposure times focus fstop blah blah. We already know this. We also know all about the film stock used, it's sensitivity and so forth.

For some reason, you will not tell us which image(s) you are examining.

For some reason you will not tell us what setup you would deploy to photograph stars.

Here is a link:
I'm trying to help and being accused of incivility. 

Anybody have a better answer to ignorance than education go right ahead.

Doug, to this end you have still not responded in any kind to my question, yet you persist to buzz me.

If you would like to enter this discussion in an enquiring and helpful manner than by all means do so.  Educate me, but do so by answering my initial question.

So far Kiwi is the most sincere, intelligent and approachable.  My experience on this site in a mere matter of hours is exhausting.  I'm defending myself against your attacks.

Ignorance has many meanings and contexts, but it does indeed apply here!

Thanks again.

[dougkeenan]

Educate yourself at your own speed my friend.  It's all there, down to the opcode, waiting for your brain.

However I'm out of here and will reply no more.

[Icarus1]

Also, you do realise I could copy and paste any amount of info an Celestial Photography don't you?  I can't prove my knowledge to you!  You also realise that each camera is different in it's sensitivity and set-up?  There are no fixed settings.

Regards

Sure, but we know the capabilities of the lunar Hasselblads precisely. We know exposure times focus fstop blah blah. We already know this. We also know all about the film stock used, it's sensitivity and so forth.

For some reason, you will not tell us which image(s) you are examining.

For some reason you will not tell us what setup you would deploy to photograph stars.

There is no reason Abaddon.  I just haven't got around to it yet.  I've been dealing with other issues.  Apologies!  I also had no idea if Hyperlinks would work here.  I can't add photo's as there is a 192kb limit!

Here is the link to the gallery:http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

The specific images I'm looking at are:

AS11-40-5950
AS11-40-5949

All other things considered and discussed, raising levels with reveal possible stars, planets, artifacts, hairs dust etc.etc.

But the reason I haven't posted the images, is because it has nothing to do with the question.  It's Theoretical!  IF, and it's a big IF, I was to find a decent negative with stars and planets from the moons surface, would the foreground shadows stay the same, while the background stars moved?  It's Rhetorical, but I wanted to hear some opinions on it.

[Icarus1]

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.

Though this may be a Sunlit scene Kiwi, it only has the reflective luminance of the lunar surface; not the full power of the sun.  I can correctly take a moon shot, either full or crescent while still revealing stars and planets.  All the while exposing for the Moon.  Especially now using Digital RAW.

[Abaddon]

Doug, to this end you have still not responded in any kind to my question, yet you persist to buzz me.

That is hypocritical. I have directly asked you questions, and you refuse to answer.

Let's try again...

Please, pretty please, identify which images you are using.

Please, pretty please, identify what setup you would use to photograph stars.

Care to answer?

If you would like to enter this discussion in an enquiring and helpful manner than by all means do so.  Educate me, but do so by answering my initial question.

It's been answered several times in several ways.

So far Kiwi is the most sincere, intelligent and approachable.  My experience on this site in a mere matter of hours is exhausting.  I'm defending myself against your attacks.

Attacks? What? That is in your imagination. I simply want to know which images you are using and what setup you would use to photograph stars. It's a simple question. Somehow, you are unable to answer it. This leads to an inevitable conclusion. If you do not like that conclusion, you could simply answer. Why will you not?

Ignorance has many meanings and contexts, but it does indeed apply here!

Thanks again.

So far, the evidence of your very own posts indicates that you know nothing about photography. You could easily clear that up by simply answering my questions. Why will you not?

[bknight]

Here is how to post links of the two images you posted.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5949HR.jpg
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5950HR.jpg

Very simple with no image size limitations.

Now exactly what do you or your friend have issues with either of these two images?

[Jason Thompson]

Though this may be a Sunlit scene Kiwi, it only has the reflective luminance of the lunar surface; not the full power of the sun.

Surely it has the reflective luminance of whatever is in the image, since every part of it is lit primarily by the sun, not the lunar surface.

[Jason Thompson]

IF, and it's a big IF, I was to find a decent negative with stars and planets from the moons surface, would the foreground shadows stay the same, while the background stars moved?  It's Rhetorical, but I wanted to hear some opinions on it.

Why would this be a matter of opinion at all? Positions of objects and shadows are determined by the physics of the setup and are not open to debate. If the Moon has not moved enough to alter the angle at which the sun is shining on its surface (hence not enough to alter the direction of foreground shadows or the apparent position of the sun) it hasn't moved enough for the other stars to be in different positions either.

This leads to an obvious conclusion: the points in the photograph that you identify as having moved are not stars.