Uncomprehensible apollo photographs

[Metz Moonflash]

This is starting to sound all too familiar.

If it`s been covered here before, I apologize.

Is there a link to the thread?

Then I will check it out an go back to the ektachrome-research tomorrow.

It is almost 3am CET, so I need to get some sleep now.

I wish you all a fabulous weekend!

[captain swoop]

Where is this going?

It looks like a 'fishing' trip.

[Kiwi]

How is the part on the mountain background explained in this picture:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/as15-88-11863.jpg
Is it a sandstorm?
I am just kidding!
But if it is explained with dust on the lense, why then no dust on the lense the shots right before and right after?

...Am I missing some details?

Yes, you are indeed missing something -- experience with and understanding of photography. If you took plenty of photos as I previously described, you would see these same things in your own photos. Is it any surprise, then, that you see them in the lunar photos? The astronauts had a much harder job taking photos than you would.

11863 is taken more into the light than the others, so any dust on the lens is more likely to show up on account of sunlight catching it and/or the lens. 11866 shows flare coming off the foil on the LM's leg -- probably a result of the same dirt, yet you claim it is not there.

Lens flares, whether produced inside the optics or by dirt, always degrade the blacks in a positive image, exactly as you see in the sky in 11863. Study a few hundred more Apollo pictures -- you will see plenty of flare in up-sun photos. Put a few fingerprints on your lens (or on a filter if it is not a very cheap lens) and take some up-sun photos. Then you will prove this to yourself.

This is not a photography-tuition bulletin board, so before you "criticise" more Apollo photographs, how about learning a little about photography so that you don't have to ask these basic questions.

I think it is extremely obnoxious that some people criticise Apollo when they know little or nothing about it and the many principles involved. Isn't it more intelligent to come from a position of knowledge?

It is lens, not lense.

[jt-3d]

But if it is explained with dust on the lense, why then no dust on the lense the shots right before and right after?

There is.

Well some of the images aren't working so I can't look for myself however the way light hits said dust determines weather it shows up or not. If the light is directly on, the dust won't show up because its really close to the film and it can't reflect any light into the lens. If the light hits it at a steeper angle, it'll reflect the light onto the film. Just a little basic photography lesson for ya there.