Two sources of light?

[jrkeller]

HUb,

Next time you're out during the day and the moon is full (its a lot brighter than Venus), tell me if you see two shadows. Better yet, take a picture and post it here so that we can all see.

Actually, you just proved we landed on the Moon. If Venus can produce shadows, then that explains the non-parallel shadows on the lunar surface. Imagine what the bright Earth could do too. During the right time of the year Jupiter and Mars can be brighter than Venus. Wow, by my count we've four sources of light.

Everyone else, I'm joking.

[DaveC]

I think we'd all be surprised if some of the prints made from the lunar photographic record weren't dodged and burned to highlight areas of interest and compensate for the latitude of the film. This is a long way from "faking" the photographic record. Pointing out those photos where it looks like such techniques have been used, and then claiming this is evidence of a hoax is patently stupid. If I were in charge of the printing, I think I'd make sure the underexposed areas that contained a feature of interest were "burned in" in that area. This may well be the reason that, in some photos, the US flag on the side of the LM seems more visible than expected. The HBs attribute this to spotlighting because it suits their theory. The explanation is likely much more mundane.

[jrkeller]

You have an excellent point. I have a fair amount of darkroom experience (B & W only) and I have done exactly that to make a poor quality photo to look good.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-04-10 21:37, jrkeller wrote:
Next time you're out during the day and the moon is full (its a lot brighter than Venus), tell me if you see two shadows. Better yet, take a picture and post it here so that we can all see.

I know you're joking for the most part, but it won't be easy to find a full moon out during the day--maybe an almost full moon, which is a lot less bright, but still brighter than Venus.

[JayUtah]

NASA's photo duplication service is provided by a contractor. Given that the vast majority of their service is rendered for public relations (i.e., whiz-bang) purposes, I would assume it is standard practice to enhance the visual appeal of most of their photographs.

I suspect if you wanted transparencies or prints for conducting photographic analysis for things like exposure and saturation, you would have to make a special order with detailed instructions. When I take "proof" photos for my web site I must specify to the lab not to apply exposure correction. Otherwise they "helpfully" try to salvage a photo I wanted to be improperly exposed.

This reminds me of a funny story from the original Star Trek series. Those of you who have seen the original pilot "The Cage" recall the green-faced dancing girl. The crew was doing screen tests with different shades of green makeup and different lights. Oddly enough, the dailies were coming back with no hint of green in the actress's face. Darker shades were applied, only to come back as flesh tones. After a shade of green nigh unto black was tried, someone finally thought to go check with the lab. Sure enough, the lab guys would get the footage and say, "Holy cow, she's green!" and adjust the printing lights accordingly to correct it.

All of my first-hand darkroom experience has been with "artistic" photos, and I don't remember ever printing a photo that was not dodged or burned in some way.

This question has an obvious answer: I'll just call up the people and ask them if they apply standard darkroom enhancement techniques.

[DaveC]

Thanks for reminding me of that little Star Trek gem. I continually have my photos come back from processing with some of my "artistic" efforts thwarted by the lab tech - or more likely a computer controlled processing system. One of the reasons I love my digital camera. Only I get to affect the outcome.

[infocusinc]

Those were all very good points about the darkroom work. I cant remember a time when I didnt do something to a print I have made. I would be totally suprised that the guy working the enlarger, unless he was bored to death didnt do something to each print her made. I sure would.

<a name="2-9-29"> page 2-9-29 aka less than 15 degrees
On 2002-03-31 05:36, HUb' wrote: To: September 29, 2002
4:18 A.M. March 31, 2002 Yawn?
Ok so just how high above the Lunar horizon
was the Sun on July 20th `69 from 4:17 PM EDT

This of course would be an Astronomical ?
{in other words how many bucks to get an answer}


so no i don't really know HOW HIGHT the Sun
nor would i expect to know with any amount
of certanity within my life time.
push to page 1 ? After 6 months
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...#20020929.7:25
in other words it took 1/2 year 4me to solve this