BACKLIGHTING & FILL FLASH.



Remember boys and girls. There were no secondary light sources on the moon. No reflectors (other than the moon's surface which is equivalent to asphalt in terms of reflectivity, and you don't see many flash photographers bouncing light off THE ROAD

). No gobos. No rogue flashbenders.



It is possible to pick up some bounce fill off a white spacesuit - but you'd really need to get your angles right.

You're not playing because you've lost. Period.

Have a nice evening.

I thought this thread was FILLED with clever people.





Tell me, what is WRONG with this photo? Remember, the sun is 150 million kilometers away.

Do you get it, yet?

Clue: look at 8, 9 & 10.

Now think .... 150 MILLION km.

Let's say the correct exposure for the foreground is, say, f/8. If you had to guess the f/stop for the background what would it be?

What is this TELLING YOU about the source of light given the above?

And no - being on the moon has nothing to do with it. We are talking about a fundamental property of the universe which applies equally well to all travelling waves (such as sound). If anything it makes the question simpler.

This one is a real CORKER

How reflective is a magic suit covered in asphalt?



Barbecue time!

Again, the lighting is wrong on so many levels in this photograph.

Question: what is the melting point of Kodak Ektachrome?

Good thread! Helped pass a couple of hours at work. I never knew there were so many loons about. Or did I?

Can you hear a ROCKET MOTOR delivering TENS OF THOUSANDS of pounds of thrust at upwards of 160 decibels ANYWHERE in this [url=https://youtu.be/Zd2D3MKX3YEclip[/url

Remember, you MUST hear it roaring feet below Armstrong because it is attached to the ship and as ANYONE with half a brain knows - sound travels through more than just air.

Sure, if it were completely detached from the ship you wouldn't hear it. But it wouldn't provide much use to the pilots. CRASH!

My next door neighbour has one, pays something like £80 and some dodgy feller turns up and fits it. It needs to be done every year, something to do with passwords from what I could make out, but she does have every channel available. All a bit iffy.

I thought you were concentrating purely on SCIENCE?

Was this a lie? Or do you know something about light or sound that will shortly revolutionize the way we think about both?

Question: if the sun is 150 million km distant (and - we aren't orbiting a BLACK HOLE) what does the Inverse Square Law say [uFOR CERTAIN[/u about levels of light intensity measured at three unobstructed locations based several miles apart?

Replying to this despite your blatant trolling, and despite the fact that it is impossible to do other than guess, unless you stood at the scene on the Moon with a light meter, because this particular point might be interesting. If you confirm what your point actually is, and what you mean by "the background" - the distant Moon surface? The LEM?

And with reference to that, can we please be informed of whatever it may be that moon hoaxers think is the Killer Point which, you presumably imply, arises from this?

I await with bated breath. Your answer might shatter decades of being fooled!

[iHahahaha. You've been destroyed by Myself an Satellite TV. And by Mugwump on the Moon landing and your defensive hyperbole is the accusation that we're trolls. Poor Borg has nothing left not even Your faith can rescue your downfall as its been smashed to death. You've become a liability Told you that your foundations are built on a Stanley Kubrick filmset..And them foundations have crumbled. hahaha


[/i
[iCalling people trolls in a last resort scramble, only proves you've lost the plot. [/i [iBit of advice next time choose a faith that has foundations..[/i

Ah, so finally you get it. Good.



Not much. The law itself is a given, but the actual lighting conditions on a curved and rotating moon will vary depending on the angle of incoming light, as the Sun rises in the sky, and the reflectivity of the particular type of terrain at each location scattering the incoming light around the scene.

Look at a full Moon through your binoculars. Or even just with your eyes. These factors cause us to be able to see a huge range of shapes shades and patterns even in "dead overhead" lighting conditions.

Unless NASA is faking the Moon, I suppose, and it is really another "holograph".

I am trying to get YOU to understand. I can't make this point any simpler without spelling it our for you.

So engage that lump of lard sitting between your lug holes and think.

You are not THINKING.

QUESTION: Where do we see the MOST light fall-off from an illuminated object CLOSER or FURTHER AWAY?

The same question as was probably at the top of the list of the Apollo imaging team before they wrote the first squiggle on the Apollo landings project paper.

Then, they will have spent many years on designing and building and endlessly testing and redesigning equipment that would be able to, and (as we know from the huge photographic record, did) withstand moon surface conditions.

(And, for example, as part of their training and preparations, the astronauts were encouraged to take the cameras out with them frequently and get to the point, which they did, where operating them became second nature).

Isn't this the bleedin' obvious, though?

or do you find it credible that they would send astronauts with a bog standard camera, having "forgotten" that it would be being used in space?

By the way, you can see this issue cropping up in many, many Apollo photographs. Just browse the NASA archive and look for yourself.

The same goes for fully illuminated astronauts backlit from behind in an ultra-high contrast environment.

Try matching those photos using a single speedlite set eight or so feet behind the subject in a dark room. Like I said, a speedlite is a good analogue because it is a relativity small light source. Indeed, speedlites are often used to fake the presence of the sun.

This is why I use the term THEATRICAL LIGHTING.

ANSWER: Assuming this is what you mean by "light fall-off", we do NOT see ANY light fall off from an illuminated object CLOSER or FURTHER AWAY, in the sense that the correct exposure for the illuminated object will be the same, whether you are next to it, or whether you move hundreds of metres away from it.

Is this a photography class?

Yeah course they do. They scramble a rocket up their the minute the signal stops transmitting. Thats very cost effective and efficient. Comedy Gold..



Occams says satellites don't exist.Like i proved with my system. The Dish is just an antenna picking up analogue Data from Ground Based Transmitters. Simples...