New proof of lunar surface as "fill light"

[ka9q]

I just caught what may be a new proof that objects in shadow were lit by sunlight scattering off the lunar surface and not by any "fill light".

This picture from Apollo 16

www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-114-18439HR.jpg

shows the UV camera in the foreground in the LM shadow. That's Charlie Duke in the background.

Note the round shade on the front of the camera, covered with polished gold making it a specular reflector, i.e., a mirror. The lower half is lit, the upper half isn't. The black upper half is the reflected lunar sky, the lower half the reflected lunar surface. The line between the two is the lunar horizon.

Note also that the lower half of the shade is roughly as bright as the rest of the camera.

Myth busted (again).

[smlbstcbr]

Magnificent!
But, as mentioned before in the forum, the HB will say that NASA modified the picture in order to cover their deceive.

[Count Zero]

Excellent find! Note the lighting on the tripod is from below. Also, you can see the reflection in Charlie's visor.

[Kiwi]

This photo
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6725HR.jpg
is a good shot for showing a mixture of lighting -- direct sun, specular highlights on the mylar, lens flare, fill-in from the lunar surface on the front of the LM and on Al Bean, and the lunar surface reflected in Al's window. It is wonderfully exposed and composed to show the variety of lighting.

Worth noting, too, is that the ladder rungs get darker as they get closer to the surface. This is due to something JayUtah has described at length -- I think it is called the view factor -- and is the reason that Buzz Aldrin's legs get darker nearer his boots when he is standing on the surface in
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5869HR.jpg

Another artistic beauty, due to reflections in the mylar, is
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6716HR.jpg
Pete Conrad is lit solely by fill-in light from the lunar surface. Note the blackness of the surfaces that point up, showing that the lighting is coming from below and from the sides.

Al Bean was holding the camera upside-down at knee height and guessing where to point it, and the photo is one of four which differ slightly.

The important thing in shots like this is exposure. It must be increased sufficiently to show the fainter fill-in light.

Some HBs and HPs whaffle on about how the shadows should be black, showing their ignorance of the fact that if you can look out the LM's hatch and see the lunar surface, or photograph it, that means that light is reaching the porch and lighting it up, and a suitable exposure will show it in a photo.

[HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk)]

Sept 5, 2008 20:42:41 GMT -4 ka9q said:

I just caught what may be a new proof that objects in shadow were lit by sunlight scattering off the lunar surface and not by any "fill light".

This picture from Apollo 16

www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-114-18439HR.jpg

shows the UV camera in the foreground in the LM shadow. That's Charlie Duke in the background.

Note the round shade on the front of the camera, covered with polished gold making it a specular reflector, i.e., a mirror. The lower half is lit, the upper half isn't. The black upper half is the reflected lunar sky, the lower half the reflected lunar surface. The line between the two is the lunar horizon.

Note also that the lower half of the shade is roughly as bright as the rest of the camera.

Myth busted (again).

Myth busted as far as anyone who has a clue about optics is concerned. Unfortunately, this photo has been used by some HBs as absolute proof that the photos were taken in a studio. They simply can't comprehend the fact that the UV camera is reflecting the scene around it, and are convinced that it is illuminated by a spotlight from the other direction.

Inability to correctly interpret photos is perfectly acceptable. Using that inability to claim the moon landings were faked isn't just sad, it's also risible.

[inconceivable]

Just a thought. But since the Earth would look so big to an astronaut on the moon, this would surely be another light source. The earth has 5 times the reflecting power as the surface of the moon and a full earth sends 31 times as much light to an astronaut on the moon as a full moon sends to the earth.

[gwiz]

On the other hand, from the moon the earth is only two degrees across, while the sunlit lunar surface is (on average) 180 degrees across. The extra reflectivity of the earth isn't going to make up for that size difference unless the lunar location is deep in shadow.

To sum up, the sources of light are:

1st, the sun
2nd, the lunar surface
3rd, depending on location, the lunar module, the spacesuits, the earth, etc, etc.

[JayUtah]

...a full earth sends 31 times as much light to an astronaut on the moon as a full moon sends to the earth.

That's still not photographically significant compared to the light reflected to an astronaut on the lunar surface, from the lunar surface.

[Jason Thompson]

Sept 15, 2008 10:01:25 GMT -4 inconceivable said:

Just a thought. But since the Earth would look so big to an astronaut on the moon, this would surely be another light source. The earth has 5 times the reflecting power as the surface of the moon and a full earth sends 31 times as much light to an astronaut on the moon as a full moon sends to the earth.

And how significant is that in daylight?

31 times brighter than a full Moon sounds impressive, until you realise that the Sun is about 450 thousand times brighter than the full Moon. The Earth's light just isn't going to have any noticeable effect on a sunlit scene.