Lighting on the Moon

[craiglamson]

LOL! I spend a lot of time observing the light in the world around me....it's a great teacher. Finding a way to make similar lighting in the studio is the hard part. And it drives my wife nuts.

I've not spent any time in the 3d modeling world so its all greek to me.

One thing is certain, light and shadow are not intuitive. Most laymen really don't pay enough attention to their real world to truly understand the interplay of light and shadow. And once it is reduced to a 2d photo it gets really muddled up for them. In the case of Apollo most of the 'anomolies" can be resolved by simple observation or some quick photos. I often just shake my head in disbelief that many of the so called photo experts don't even do simple emperical testing.

[JayUtah]

Joe Durnavich and I have this discussion sporadically. The problem -- in my opinion -- is that light and shadow is too intuitive. Now that may be just a twist of speech, but what I mean to say is that the perception of light, shadow, geometry, and other aspects of the visible world is typically far down in the subconscious and happens automatically. Artists and others have found a way to bring their conscious mind to bear on these issues of perception. There are several conscious approaches tailored to art, photographic interpretation, computer graphics, etc.

I agree that taking away the depth dimension really confuses people. I remember seeing a picture of Roger Ballettie and his family at a rocket garden near where he worked. Immediately I noticed that the photographer had (accidentally) composed the shot so that a rocket "grew" out of the head of all his family! This is often a problem for amateur photographers. They see the scene in three dimensions, even through the viewfinder, and don't pay much attention to what the scene will be in 2D.

[craiglamson]

I can agree with that Jay but are we not saying the same thing, but just in a different way?

I would agree that light and shadow is often the last thing most people put much effort into understanding at least consciously. They dont spend much time in the study of how the quality of light and the angle of the light effects texture for example. Nor do they spend much time understanding how shadows create depth in a 2d photograph. Thats why we see so many blah vacation photos and why many of those who take them are not happy with the results when they get home. All they know is that their snapshots dont look anything like the postcards. And usually the big difference is the lgiht.

With that in mind its easy to see how a shadow that bends as it passes over uneven ground can be confusing, or in the case of the Aldrin photo how the shadows of the rocks on the distant surface creates the impression that the light falls off in the background.

Its a lot like astronomy. Everyone knows there are stars in the night sky, and they "see" them all the time, yet most never really take the time to actually "look" at them. Just like the study of light and shadow you have to make a conscious effort to really see what is there.

[PeterB]

For those who'd like to know more about the golf ball business, and who called the slice, here's what the ALSJ says:

135:08:03 Mitchell: (Garbled) (At the MET) Fredo, correct me, now; Mag Kilo-Kilo has never been used. Is that correct?
135:08:11 Haise [Capcom]: Stand by. (Pause)
135:08:17 Shepard: (Facing the TV) Houston, while you're looking that up, you might recognize what I have in my hand as the handle for the contingency sample return; it just so happens to have a genuine six iron on the bottom of it. In my left hand, I have a little white pellet that's familiar to millions of Americans. I'll drop it down. Unfortunately, the suit is so stiff, I can't do this with two hands, but I'm going to try a little sand-trap shot here. (Pause)
135:08:53 Mitchell: You got more dirt than ball that time.
135:08:58 Shepard: Got more dirt than ball. Here we go again.

[Al's second swing pushes the ball about 2 or 3 feet, mostly along the line toward the TV camera, rather than along the line of the swing.]

135:09:01 Haise: That looked like a slice to me, Al.
135:09:03 Shepard: Here we go. Straight as a die; one more. (Long Pause)

[Al's third swing finally connects and sends the ball off-camera to the right, apparently on a fairly low trajectory. He drops a second ball, which rolls left and toward the TV camera. Al gets himself in position and connects again. The trajectory of this shot appears to be similar to the previous one.]

135:09:20 Shepard: Miles and miles and miles.
135:09:26 Haise: Very good, Al.

[With regard to Al's "miles and miles and miles", see the discussion following 135:21:50.]

[Readers should note that, while the golf-shot picture in Al's book Moonshot bears some resemblance to the TV images, it is actually a composite made up of pieces of various Hasselblad images. The only actual record of the golf shot is the TV coverage. Al and Ed had already put their Hasselblads into the ETB at about 135:06:06.]

[Not long after I bought a copy of Moonshot, Andrew Chaikin and I had a long telephone conversation about the composite and worked out - at least in general terms - how it was put together. Journal Contributor David Harland tells us that the 1994 hardback UK edition published by Virgin Books contains the composite, while Brian Lawrence tells us that the 1995 edition does not.]

[In the composite, the LM and LM shadow come from a left/right reversal of AS14-669276. Note the LRRR which is sitting in the footpad of the ladder strut. In reality, the LR-Cubed was deployed at the ALSEP site during the first EVA. Both of the astronaut images in the composite come from a pan Al took at the beginning of EVA-1 shortly before 114:53:34. The image of "Al" is actually a left/right reversal of Ed's image from AS14-66- 9240. In the real photograph, Ed is doing a TV pan. In the composite, the TV camera has been removed and the golf club has been added. The image of "Ed" in the composite is taken from another frame in Al's earlier pan, AS14-66- 9241. And, once again, the TV had been removed from a left-right reversal of the original images. Similarly, the image of the U.S. flag has been taken from AS14-66- 9232- or one of the other tourist pictures Al and Ed took during the flag deployment. I have not yet identified the precise images from which the MET and the S-Band were taken; but, the MET image is very similar to the one in AS14-67- 9361, which Al took at the ALSEP site at the end of the ALSEP deployment. Finally, the ball and the shadows of the S-Band legs - like the golf club - appear to have been drawn in.]

135:09:27 Haise: And (to) answer Ed's question earlier there; Kilo-Kilo was used for the window shots, Ed; so, you ought to bring it back.

[PeterB]

jayutah said:

Incidentally, Shepherd laughed because he sliced the ball.

False. Shepard did not actually slice the ball. The CAPCOM made a joke that he had sliced it. He could manage only a clumsy one-handed stroke and managed to knock the ball only a few meters away from the LM into a crater.

It is of course impossible to slice a ball in a vacuum.

That's what made the joke funny.

I wonder about people who don't get jokes like that.

Apollo may have been a massive undertaking. But that didn't mean it had to be solemn. The astronauts were people like the rest of us, and loved their jokes and gotchas.

[nomuse]

craiglamson said:

... Thats why we see so many blah vacation photos and why many of those who take them are not happy with the results when they get home. All they know is that their snapshots dont look anything like the postcards. And usually the big difference is the lgiht.

It never fails. Every time I do children's theater (or dance), there will be a time when some of the darling kids are out under stage lighting, an elegant and balanced five-point scheme that models them, puts a shine in their hair, and a healthy glow to their faces....the parents take out their cameras and cam corders....and the flashes start going off.

I wonder how many of them get home and wonder why their kids look so flat and white in the picture, when they looked so good on stage.

But then, I've seen people take flash pictures of fireworks displays....

I hope this isn't too far off the point! (But then, I haven't seen anything from the original poster for a while.)

[gwiz]

nomuse said:

But then, I've seen people take flash pictures of fireworks displays....

...and if you've ever been to an airshow on a dark cloudy day...

[PhantomWolf]

nomuse said:

But then, I haven't seen anything from the original poster for a while.

And I doubt you will. Even though he was around quite a bit last night I noted that he didn't bother posting. I suspect, that just as Jay and I pointed out at the start of this thread, he's realised he can't refute the facts given and now is in hiding till he starts a new thread, not having bothered to acknowledge this one. If challanged in the next one about that he'll just claim that all he got in return to his "polite and honest question" was a "stream of nonsense."

Of course there is now the possiblity he'll turn up to claim I'm using Ad Hominem attacks on him, all while totally ignoring the rest of the thread, or simply repeating his claim that it is "clearly" an artifical spotlight so there, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, I have my fingers in my ears so I can't hear you.

[Bob B.]

phantomwolf said:

Of course there is now the possiblity he'll turn up to claim I'm using Ad Hominem attacks on him, all while totally ignoring the rest of the thread...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an ad hominem attack when a person says something like, your argument is wrong because you're an idiot. In this case the person is appealing to personal considerations rather than the merits of the argument itself. Insults by themselves are not ad hominems provided they are not cited as the reason for rejecting the argument. If my understanding is correct, then I don't see where anyone here has used ad hominem attacks against margamatix. Everyone, other than margamatix, seems to be using facts and logic the make their cases.

[PhantomWolf]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an ad hominem attack when a person says something like, your argument is wrong because you're an idiot.

I didn't say he'd be right, I just said he'd likely it claim it. For more referance, just have a read of any of these threads. He often posts just to claim that people are using ad hominem attack when they point out that he abandon's his threads or refuses to listen to responses and just repeats the same claims again and again in a repeatative fashion rather then actually dealing with the arguments that shred and destroy those claims.

[PhantomWolf]

For Instance, Here

[margamatix]

phantomwolf said:

He often posts just to claim that people are using ad hominem attack .

Often?

Dishonesty does not help to bolster your case.

[PhantomWolf]

margamatix said:

phantomwolf said:

He often posts just to claim that people are using ad hominem attack .

Often?

Dishonesty does not help to bolster your case.

Dishonesty? Perhaps a little exageration, but hey, I'm happy to count them all up and compare them to your total post count, once you can be bothered actaully answering the arguments given to refute your claims, because totally igoring them bolsters your case even less, unless you really believe putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring anyone that disagrees with you really works.

[Bob B.]

phantomwolf said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an ad hominem attack when a person says something like, your argument is wrong because you're an idiot.

I didn't say he'd be right, I just said he'd likely it claim it.

I understood what you were saying, PhantomWolf. I was just trying to point to those who might not understand that margamatix claims of ad hominem attacks are largely unjustified.

[JayUtah]

Simply mentioning something about the proponent is not ad hominem. Pointing out, for example, that someone has made an expert argument when he is not an expert, is not ad hominem. Pointing out that a proponent has resigned four or five previous debates without resolution is not ad hominem. The latter may be somewhat tangential, but valid nonetheless in considering whether to engage further. Pointing out that a proponent has not examined important evidence, is not ad hominem. Pointing out that someone has gotten wrong a physical law or other fact, is not ad hominem. All these valid arguments may be phrased in a hurtful manner, or maybe taken -- intentionally or otherwise -- as hurtful. That can't always be avoided. In any situation where disagreement occurs, there is the potential to entwine the idea with personal feelings. It's hard to tell someone his ideas, say, about lighting are completely wrong without making it sound like you're calling him stupid.