Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[Icarus1]

This, although not really a proof of anything as so far, anything i say is a lie, is my 'Friend' and a typical post from him on FB.

Note my reply.  I usually put the time in afterward to debunk what he is suggesting.

My head is literally banging now.  Maybe I'll come back later to reply.

Thanks

you know, assuming everyone is going to be the same probably isn't wise, and especially not helpful.  My approach at the beginning may have been familiar, but it's not familiar to me.  I've never joined or posted on a forum like this.  I'm quite frankly surprised that people have given this much time and effort to it.

[jfb]

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.

Keying off of this a bit...

Right now, the moon is waxing gibbous and is visible during the afternoon when the sun is still up. 

Now, think about this for a minute - the moon is visible while the sun is up.  No other object, not Venus, not Jupiter, not any other star, is bright enough to see while the sun is still up.  Their light is too dim to cut through the sunlight scattered in the upper atmosphere (it also helps that the moon is an area light source, not a point, so it's throwing more photons at you anyway).  That's kind of the situation happening on your negative - the stars are simply too dim to register compared to the lunar surface. 

The sunlit surface of the moon is something like fifty thousand times brighter than the next brightest object in the sky, far beyond the dynamic range of any film to handle (and that's as viewed from Earth - the situation would likely be even more extreme on the lunar surface itself).  B&W negative film can reliably capture around 10 stops of dynamic range (that is, about a 1000:1 range between highlights and shadow); pulling can extend that another stop or so.  However you'd need at least 16 stops to be able to capture the range between the sunlit lunar surface and the very brightest stars; I don't think you can pull enough to coax that kind of range out of B&W film, at least not with the emulsions that flew on Apollo. 

Forget about color film (negative or transparency).  You could probably use HDR techniques with a digital system to capture that range, but that doesn't help when it comes to Apollo images. 

(This is part of why the shadows on the lunar surface appear so stark in the Apollo images - yes, part of it is because there's no atmosphere to scatter light and create a diffuse light source, but it's also because the film can't handle the range from highlight to shadow, so shadow detail is lost). 

As it is, if you are taking pictures on the moon and you expose for the sunlit lunar surface (using the Sunny 16 rule or something close to it), you will get a pitch-black sky (clear negative in that part of the frame).  If you expose for the stars, the sunlit lunar surface will be a detail-free blob of pure white (maximally dense negative in that part of the frame).  You can't expose for both in the same frame (at least, not without one hell of a graded filter). 

Now, if you're on the far side of the moon during lunar "night", then you should be able to capture both the lunar surface and the stars at the same time, since the stars will be the only source of illumination.  And if someone ever launches a "night" mission to the far side one of these decades, that would be a cool picture to get (imagine the Milky Way rising over the lunar horizon without a hint of atmosphere to get in the way). 

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.

CSI (and similar shows) have ruined the minds of a generation.  Sure, I can zoom in on a lone pixel and reveal a reflection of the killer's face in the window!

The stars didn't register on those shots.  No amount of manipulation is going to bring them out. 

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.

To Icarus1: check out NASA TV for video from the ISS sometime; it will give you an idea of the lighting challenges. 

[Icarus1]

Actually here is the conversation I had with 'My Friend' 3rd Jan 2017.  Literally the day I posted this poorly worded statement/question


.

[Icarus1]

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.

Keying off of this a bit...

Right now, the moon is waxing gibbous and is visible during the afternoon when the sun is still up. 

Now, think about this for a minute - the moon is visible while the sun is up.  No other object, not Venus, not Jupiter, not any other star, is bright enough to see while the sun is still up.  Their light is too dim to cut through the sunlight scattered in the upper atmosphere (it also helps that the moon is an area light source, not a point, so it's throwing more photons at you anyway).  That's kind of the situation happening on your negative - the stars are simply too dim to register compared to the lunar surface. 

The sunlit surface of the moon is something like fifty thousand times brighter than the next brightest object in the sky, far beyond the dynamic range of any film to handle (and that's as viewed from Earth - the situation would likely be even more extreme on the lunar surface itself).  B&W negative film can reliably capture around 10 stops of dynamic range (that is, about a 1000:1 range between highlights and shadow); pulling can extend that another stop or so.  However you'd need at least 16 stops to be able to capture the range between the sunlit lunar surface and the very brightest stars; I don't think you can pull enough to coax that kind of range out of B&W film, at least not with the emulsions that flew on Apollo. 

Forget about color film (negative or transparency).  You could probably use HDR techniques with a digital system to capture that range, but that doesn't help when it comes to Apollo images. 

(This is part of why the shadows on the lunar surface appear so stark in the Apollo images - yes, part of it is because there's no atmosphere to scatter light and create a diffuse light source, but it's also because the film can't handle the range from highlight to shadow, so shadow detail is lost). 

As it is, if you are taking pictures on the moon and you expose for the sunlit lunar surface (using the Sunny 16 rule or something close to it), you will get a pitch-black sky (clear negative in that part of the frame).  If you expose for the stars, the sunlit lunar surface will be a detail-free blob of pure white (maximally dense negative in that part of the frame).  You can't expose for both in the same frame (at least, not without one hell of a graded filter). 

Now, if you're on the far side of the moon during lunar "night", then you should be able to capture both the lunar surface and the stars at the same time, since the stars will be the only source of illumination.  And if someone ever launches a "night" mission to the far side one of these decades, that would be a cool picture to get (imagine the Milky Way rising over the lunar horizon without a hint of atmosphere to get in the way). 

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.

CSI (and similar shows) have ruined the minds of a generation.  Sure, I can zoom in on a lone pixel and reveal a reflection of the killer's face in the window!

The stars didn't register on those shots.  No amount of manipulation is going to bring them out. 

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.

To Icarus1: check out NASA TV for video from the ISS sometime; it will give you an idea of the lighting challenges.

Sorry, but I haven't read this.  This is already proven!!!!  Please read the ENTIRE thread for any questions about me you might have.

Thanks

[JayUtah]

This, although not really a proof of anything as so far, anything i say is a lie...

Well, I'll do my part in backing down from the brink.  It really doesn't matter whether you're arguing for yourself or by proxy for a friend.  People here will take your questions, because we like talking about space and the history of its exploration.  Under most circumstances they don't need to know whether you really believe some claim.  If some of the Apollo program seems fishy to you, get your evidence in a row and make your case, and expect vigorous opposition.  If you just want to ask informational questions and get answers, the "Reality of Apollo" section is more appropriate for that.  It really doesn't matter whether you're a professional this or that.  Lots of people here aren't, and they still get treated respectfully.  What matters more is honesty in the approach.

you know, assuming everyone is going to be the same probably isn't wise, and especially not helpful.

Nobody's assuming everyone is going to be the same.  Instead we observe that all conspiracy theorists fall into the same pattern in their approach.  That's observation, not assumption.  The assumption takes place when someone new shows up and exhibits that pattern.  The assumption -- unless something shows otherwise -- is that the pattern arises because the newcomer has the same plan in mind as all the predecessors.  Don't chastise people for operating under an assumption that many years of experience and evidence has shown to be reasonable given the signs.  Now that you've been made aware of the situation, it's your job to provide that something falsifies the assumption.  If you don't want to be counted among "the same," don't be the same.  I give this advice to all the newcomers.  And I tell newcomers what they're specifically doing wrong.

I'm quite frankly surprised that people have given this much time and effort to it.

There are thousands of forums like this all over the Internet on every subject you can imagine.  Avail yourself of them.  Many are gold mines of information.  Just keep in mind that when posting in the Hoax Theory section in this one, it is very much about being able to prove your case and having the appropriate knowledge and information.  It's also about expecting to be challenged.  It's why this part of the forum exists.

[JayUtah]

Sorry, but I haven't read this.  This is already proven!!!!  Please read the ENTIRE thread for any questions about me you might have.

Well, you should read it -- not necessarily now but at your leisure -- because he's giving you helpful information.  Not to prove or disprove what you may have claimed, but to explore why things happen the way they do in photography.  You may already know all of it, but the point of this forum is that people learn a lot amidst the discussion and debate.  As I said, we have a number of professional photographers here and a number of amateurs who would probably be in the same class of knowledge and experience as you.  This is often about debating what is or isn't the case, but it's also often about people sharing their understanding.

[Icarus1]

This, although not really a proof of anything as so far, anything i say is a lie...

Well, I'll do my part in backing down from the brink.  It really doesn't matter whether you're arguing for yourself or by proxy for a friend.  People here will take your questions, because we like talking about space and the history of its exploration.  Under most circumstances they don't need to know whether you really believe some claim.  If some of the Apollo program seems fishy to you, get your evidence in a row and make your case, and expect vigorous opposition.  If you just want to ask informational questions and get answers, the "Reality of Apollo" section is more appropriate for that.  It really doesn't matter whether you're a professional this or that.  Lots of people here aren't, and they still get treated respectfully.  What matters more is honesty in the approach.

you know, assuming everyone is going to be the same probably isn't wise, and especially not helpful.

Nobody's assuming everyone is going to be the same.  Instead we observe that all conspiracy theorists fall into the same pattern in their approach.  That's observation, not assumption.  The assumption takes place when someone new shows up and exhibits that pattern.  The assumption -- unless something shows otherwise -- is that the pattern arises because the newcomer has the same plan in mind as all the predecessors.  Don't chastise people for operating under an assumption that many years of experience and evidence has shown to be reasonable given the signs.  Now that you've been made aware of the situation, it's your job to provide that something falsifies the assumption.  If you don't want to be counted among "the same," don't be the same.  I give this advice to all the newcomers.  And I tell newcomers what they're specifically doing wrong.

I'm quite frankly surprised that people have given this much time and effort to it.

There are thousands of forums like this all over the Internet on every subject you can imagine.  Avail yourself of them.  Many are gold mines of information.  Just keep in mind that when posting in the Hoax Theory section in this one, it is very much about being able to prove your case and having the appropriate knowledge and information.  It's also about expecting to be challenged.  It's why this part of the forum exists.

Jay, it's a shame you weren't the very first person to post after I posted.

I've taken heed to all advice on here, specifically at the end here when 'what to expect if you're a Newbie.

However, mine is one of arguable ignorance and naivety.

you suggested I apologise for mis-leading the forum.  Maybe i can ask the forum to apologise to me and forgive me for falling into a familiar pattern and being scrutinised for it?

[Apollo 957]

Let me give you and all others some advice:

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.

Thanks again.

Try being more humble in your approach.

As a native English speaker, and one of your fellow countrymen, I have to say I find nothing in the quote to which this was a response which suggests a lack of courtesy.

Please don't let the side down, old chap.

[JayUtah]

CSI (and similar shows) have ruined the minds of a generation.

Ugh, hate that show.  Sadly a lot of my more right-brained colleagues love it.

The stars didn't register on those shots.  No amount of manipulation is going to bring them out.

Indeed, and I think we've belabored why.  There simply isn't enough exposure time for the light from stars to rise above the noise threshold.  We know this from the science of astronomy and the chemistry of the particular emulsion.  And we also know this from experimentation.  It's not hard to take E-6 ISO 160 film in the 120 format and a Biogon (albeit modern) lens out at night and see how long an exposure it takes before you begin to see stars.  30 seconds at f/5.6 for a recoverable image, 60 seconds for an exposure visible in the normal E-6 process.  No chance whatsoever of a latent image forming at 1/60.  And therefore no chance that a subsequent scan will pick it up, and no chance that fiddling with the Levels slider will reveal it.  (And contrast expansion should always be done using the algorithm behind the Curves adjustment anyway.)

But the important question is what is brought out by various kinds of image manipulation?  Noise.  Dirt.  Catadioptrics.  Compression artifacts.  Encoding artifacts.  Quantization.  Algebraic artifacts.  You name it, a misapplied contrast expansion will find it.  That's why it's important first to know what the helpful ranges are in the digital toolsets.  Just because you can move the slider all the way over doesn't mean you're getting usable information.

[Icarus1]

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? 

Sorry but i've still no idea how to post or quote, but how does appearing to Act like a CT, Prove I AM one?

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

I seem to have found it!

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.

So I'm here to Prove or disprove the CT on why No stars??  What am I missing?

Assuming the moon photo's are legit

I'm relying on strangers to give me proof.  None of us have been there.  Assumption based upon proven knowledge are the backbone of the proof.  It's not 1st hand

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!

Not sure why you highlighted this and not HIS responses to me?

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).

Magic words here is 'Initial belief'.  It was actually bknight that said there's was nothing here.  I simply asked for evidence or proof i.e knowledge for myself to know why for sure.


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

i know they're mine.  why did you repost only this and not the rest where i try to re-classify my question?  are you purposefully trying to ridicule me?

[Icarus1]

Let me give you and all others some advice:

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.

Thanks again.

Try being more humble in your approach.

As a native English speaker, and one of your fellow countrymen, I have to say I find nothing in the quote to which this was a response which suggests a lack of courtesy.

Please don't let the side down, old chap.

You've got a lot of catching up to do Apollo.  welcome back to my Roasting.

[JayUtah]

Maybe i can ask the forum to apologise to me and forgive me for falling into a familiar pattern and being scrutinised for it?

I don't speak for the forum, but I suppose such an apology would depend on how well in future you follow the advice you've been given.  I agree you haven't at times been treated as well as you should have been, but that doesn't excuse you from being legitimately taken to task for statements you've made.

[JayUtah]

...not the rest where i try to re-classify my question?

"Re-classifying" is suspicious because so many conspiracy theorists change horses or try to move the goalposts in an argument.  When that's followed up later by notions like, "I never said that," or "I never claimed that," it makes people think the claimant is trying to conjure up the appearance of success by changing the question to avoid a rebuttal.  From time to time it's necessary to clarify or recast an argument.  But make it painfully clear that's what you're doing.  Clearly abandon the previous question and state the next one de novo.

[Icarus1]

CSI (and similar shows) have ruined the minds of a generation.

Ugh, hate that show.  Sadly a lot of my more right-brained colleagues love it.

The stars didn't register on those shots.  No amount of manipulation is going to bring them out.

Indeed, and I think we've belabored why.  There simply isn't enough exposure time for the light from stars to rise above the noise threshold.  We know this from the science of astronomy and the chemistry of the particular emulsion.  And we also know this from experimentation.  It's not hard to take E-6 ISO 160 film in the 120 format and a Biogon (albeit modern) lens out at night and see how long an exposure it takes before you begin to see stars.  30 seconds at f/5.6 for a recoverable image, 60 seconds for an exposure visible in the normal E-6 process.  No chance whatsoever of a latent image forming at 1/60.  And therefore no chance that a subsequent scan will pick it up, and no chance that fiddling with the Levels slider will reveal it.  (And contrast expansion should always be done using the algorithm behind the Curves adjustment anyway.)

But the important question is what is brought out by various kinds of image manipulation?  Noise.  Dirt.  Catadioptrics.  Compression artifacts.  Encoding artifacts.  Quantization.  Algebraic artifacts.  You name it, a misapplied contrast expansion will find it.  That's why it's important first to know what the helpful ranges are in the digital toolsets.  Just because you can move the slider all the way over doesn't mean you're getting usable information.

I agree with everything you've just said here,and willfully admit that certain things you've mentioned, I've no Idea about.  However, suggesting i am a Professional Photographer does not suppose I know all of this.  I hope we can move past this now, moot point.   

[Icarus1]

OK, Jay.  Let's wrap this up.

I hope even with those small screen caps I've posted we can agree my 'Friend' is real and this was my original reason for looking at images.

I was actually 'assuming' wrongly it seems as I have conceded long ago, that what I 'thought' were Stars are more than likely, cosmic rays, pubes, lice or just general dust.  Not to mention emulsion artifacts, damage, and aliens?

I have proved on all accounts I am a N00b, especially in the 'How to post a question in a truthers Forum' Category.  I've already been awarded a Medal in here.  Thanks for that.  I'd like to thank............

I will take my first step toward apologising If I have offended anyone at all.  It was never my intention. 

If you have added to this thread in a positive manner I thank, you but if you've added in a Nagative way, then I thank you twice.


Please take this as my final on the matter of 'Are these Stars' or 'These are Stars' or have I made a complete fool of myself publicy, again.

Take care and maybe i'll talk to you all again when I've become a Master Astro Tog and uncovered what is really going on in Alaska.

Regards

Paul