|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 29, 2005 10:33:57 GMT -4
Plus, you wouldn't be able to change the film or adjust the settings on a Hasselblad camera with those great big pressurised gauntlets on.
I've tried it. Have you?
Plus, Mission Control in Houston were telling the astronauts what light settings to use. Well, how would that work?
Because there were photographic experts at mission control who had expertise in camera settings.
Spirit, unless you are as thick-skinned as I am , I suggest you do not venture to express even the slightest degree of scepticism as to the authenticity of Apollo on the ApolloHoax forum.
Spirit, you're quite welcome to be skeptical, so long as you are prepared to reason through your skepticism. Margamatix is just upset because all he has is skepticism -- no evidence or argument.
Oh right. So the TV camera could judge the light levels?
Actually it could, for its own purposes. But despite what Phantom Wolf has said, that's not the basis for camera setting advice from Mission Control.
First of all, the general exposure settings were printed on each magazine for each basic lighting setup: up-sun, down-sun near, down-sun far, etc. The astronauts did not need to ask for every setting.
Second, the early mission exposure settings were based on the best guesses of photographic experts on Earth. These were, of course, based on Earth tests. When the astronauts were uncertain in some particular case, they asked what the experts wanted the settings to be. This is so they could calibrate the settings for future missions.
The RCA Apollo 11 TV camera was self-adjusting. The later Westinghouse cameras were also self-adjusting, but added remote iris control.
Did no-one think of taking a light meter?
Yes, but they're even harder to use in a space suit than just the camera. It's two pieces of equipment to operate and keep track of.
Not all photographers require exposure meters. Photojournalists of the 1960s didn't use them. The fact that they are ubiquitous on cameras today and connected to a sophisticated exposure computer has created the wrong impression that good photography is impossible without precisely measured light levels.
The astronauts were taught the simple tricks that field photographers used at the time to avoid having to meter each shot, yet still get acceptable photographs.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 29, 2005 11:05:09 GMT -4
Spirit, unless you are as thick-skinned as I am , I suggest you do not venture to express even the slightest degree of scepticism as to the authenticity of Apollo on the ApolloHoax forum....Spirit, you'll generally find your questions treated thoroughly. But you'll find the attitude they are greeted with to vary somewhat with your preparation. In other words, it helps if you make at least a cursory attempt to find the answer first. Not that you won't get an answer (and generally several). With temperatures on the moon varying between -280° in the shade and +280° in the sun, those few people with the ability to wonder are wondering how how the Ectachrome [sic] film and Hasselblad cameras managed to bring back such clear pictures. When Jay asked "temperatures of what", that wasn't a trick question. There is no single ambient temperature on the Moon, as we spent considerable time explaining to margamatix here. In particular, the snarky bit "those few people with the ability to wonder" is without merit. People who are into science and engineering wonder quite a bit about how things work; it's in their nature. But there's a big difference between "wondering" and "denying without any grounding in fact or understanding of the topic". You'll find that most Apollo deniers paint themselves as independent wonderers or truth seekers, but when the truth is presented to them they turn away from it.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 29, 2005 11:14:59 GMT -4
Did no-one think of taking a light meter?Yes, but they're even harder to use in a space suit than just the camera. It's two pieces of equipment to operate and keep track of. Not all photographers require exposure meters. Photojournalists of the 1960s didn't use them. The fact that they are ubiquitous on cameras today and connected to a sophisticated exposure computer has created the wrong impression that good photography is impossible without precisely measured light levels. The astronauts were taught the simple tricks that field photographers used at the time to avoid having to meter each shot, yet still get acceptable photographs. In fact, the packing for most rolls of film have an exposure guide printed on it. The guide gives recommended f-stop and shutter speed settings for various lighting conditions. Back in 1994 I went to Boliva to see a total solar eclipse. I had two 35mm cameras with me, one with a light meter for general photography and the other with no light meter for photographing the eclipse though a telescope. About halfway through the trip a spring in the camera with the light meter broke so I could no longer advance the film. I finished up the rest of my vacation using the camera without a light meter for all my photography. I had to simply use my best guess at the exposure settings. Despite having never done this before the results were adequate, though I had a tendency to sometimes underestimate the exposure about one stop. This was with no prior practice and without being able to see the results of my photography until after I got home and had the film developed. With just a little bit of prior experience I could have obtained very good results.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 29, 2005 11:39:02 GMT -4
But despite what Phantom Wolf has said, that's not the basis for camera setting advice from Mission Control. First of all, the general exposure settings were printed on each magazine for each basic lighting setup: up-sun, down-sun near, down-sun far, etc. The astronauts did not need to ask for every setting. heh, serves my memory right, now you say that I remember your pointing that it out before. I'm gald there isn't an "I corrected PW" T-Shirt, everyone on the board would have one by now.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 29, 2005 11:46:14 GMT -4
I've never used a light metre for my phtos and I've taken a number of good ones, though I'm the first to admit I've taken some awful ones to. On my trip to the US I was using a digital camera and a number of my shots at the Henry Dorley Zoo would, imo, be postcard quality images, one of which I have on my computer's desktop (it's of a Siberian Tiger.) There were a lot that I didn't bother getting printed as well, but if you take enough photos it's relatively easy to get some good ones, and one thing I noted on my trips thrugh the Apollo photos is that the Astronauts often took 2 or 3 photos of the same thing, but with different expousure settings, so that at least one of them would be useful.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 29, 2005 11:50:26 GMT -4
one thing I noted on my trips thrugh the Apollo photos is that the Astronauts often took 2 or 3 photos of the same thing, but with different expousure settings, so that at least one of them would be useful. A handy technique known as bracketing: these days a digital SLR can be set to do it automatically...
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 29, 2005 16:14:56 GMT -4
I know I've been doing this a bit recently....but how would the film melt? What heat source was the film exposed to, and how did that heat get to the film stock?
Back before I went digital I was shooting records of my set designs...low light, but a good distance from the camera (focus was not a problem). Later I shot scale models using macro lenses. There, depth of field is a killer and the light meter can't be trusted. What I took from that was simple; if you got strong light, a lot of your other problems go away. Bracketting is always useful. When my SLR finally started to die (this was an old Minolta 201..._everything_ was manual), bracketting saved me a lot of shots I would have lost otherwise. (How it was dying, is the shutter was starting to stick...basically, the shutter time became completely random, and I had to trust iris and exposure to get within the ballpark. Yet...I still got shots I could keep.)
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 16:20:42 GMT -4
Spirit, you'll generally find your questions treated thoroughly. But you'll find the attitude they are greeted with to vary somewhat with your preparation. In other words, it helps if you make at least a cursory attempt to find the answer first. .But surely, this forum is the place to find that answer?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 29, 2005 16:26:39 GMT -4
But surely, this forum is the place to find that answer?
Not necessarily. It's not improper to expect people to have made some effort on their own behalf.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 29, 2005 16:46:03 GMT -4
Plus, there's some expectation - call me presumptuous - that when well-informed answers are given, some attention is paid to them.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 16:50:57 GMT -4
Not necessarily. It's not improper to expect people to have made some effort on their own behalf. Well, like what, if not by asking here? Flying to Houston and knocking on the door? What? It didn't happen Jay. I'm sorry, but there it is.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 29, 2005 16:57:45 GMT -4
Look down: at the bottom of the screen are five links that will take you to masses of relevant information.
Have you ever been diagnosed as having learning difficulties? From your history on this forum, you seem to find it impossible.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 29, 2005 17:02:29 GMT -4
Well, like what, if not by asking here?
Original research.
Flying to Houston and knocking on the door?
Did you have to go to Bennett and Percy's houses to learn about their claims? Did you have to fly to Nashville, Tennessee in order to learn about Bart Sibrel's claims? No -- clearly you found a way to inform yourself about them without going to great lengths.
Sheesh, I didn't have to go any NASA center to learn about how film behaves in a vacuum. But I did have to put forth my own effort.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 29, 2005 17:09:58 GMT -4
How about doing a little looking up on the Web about heat transfer in a vacuum? You don't have to leave your chair. You might learn that there's no single "the temperature" on the surface of the Moon, and that the optical properties of an object are extremely important in determining its temperature.
Or you could learn a little bit about sublimation, and understand how the astronaut's suits rejected excess heat. Again, no travel required.
Actually, it's sort of a moot point. The regulars here tend to heap information on posters who come asking questions, and do a lot of their homework for them. Some seem genuinely interested in learning something and tend to appreciate it. Others just wave it off as it distracts them from endlessly repeating unsupported claims.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 17:21:30 GMT -4
Have you ever been diagnosed as having learning difficulties? . No, I haven't
|
|