Saint in Paradise Posted 16 June, 2009 Share Posted 16 June, 2009 http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_moon-fotos-without-moon-photographer-foto-compositions-ENGL.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 16 June, 2009 Share Posted 16 June, 2009 Apart from the terrible translation... I couldnt agree with a single thing about the "fotos" that was written on there. I could easily discuss every point raised. If anyone wants to pick a few I will happily put across the view of an in-experienced photographer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 16 June, 2009 Share Posted 16 June, 2009 Apart from the terrible translation... I couldnt agree with a single thing about the "fotos" that was written on there. I could easily discuss every point raised. If anyone wants to pick a few I will happily put across the view of an in-experienced photographer. OK then, get your teeth into this one "Humans who are not even able to look through the seeker are shooting series of master fotos without one mistake", an "abnormity" which is only possible "on the moon". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 OK then, get your teeth into this one Still waiting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 (edited) Sorry, didnt see the reply! Come on, it simple. 'Blads are Medium Format cameras, whack on a wide angle lens with a small aperture and that will give you not only a vast depth of field, it should also capture anything 'in front' of you. As for how come all the photos are good, they are forgetting that NASA wont have released all the prints they took, plus it would be safe to say some cropping took place to straighten the horizons and make better composition. Grab your camera, crank it too ISO 800, f16+ on aperture priority, go out and hold it at your chest and see how many shots you would call ok after a little cropping. Edited 23 June, 2009 by Pancake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Sorry, didnt see the reply! Come on, it simple. 'Blads are Large Format cameras, whack on a wide angle lens with a small aperture and that will give you not only a vast depth of field, it should also capture anything 'in front' of you. As for how come all the photos are good, they are forgetting that NASA wont have released all the prints they took, plus it would be safe to say some cropping took place to straighten the horizons and make better composition. Grab your camera, crank it too ISO 800, f16+ on aperture priority, go out and hold it at your chest and see how many shots you would call ok after a little cropping. Two issues.... 1. I don't have a 'blad 2. I can't get to the moon in the dark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Two issues.... 1. I don't have a 'blad 2. I can't get to the moon in the dark I didnt mean you had to have a Hasselblad or the moon. The point was a bout how easy it is to get a decent composition with a wide angle lens if you simple point it in front of you from chest height. As for the dark, high ISO and some light (there are shadows...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 Well, I'm gonna hazard a guess that even at ISO800 with f16, in those lighting conditions, in order to light up some of the stuff they have that is in the shadows they would need a reasonably long exposure time. Remarkably clear pictures for a camera fixed to a chest which will be moving constantly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 why would it ae moving? No wind, on gravity. Stand still and he you apply Newtons Third (?) law then you should stay still.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 why would it ae moving? No wind, on gravity. Stand still and he you apply Newtons Third (?) law then you should stay still.. Breathing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 the chest of a space suit is hard and a fixed shape, so shouldnt* be moved by simple breathing. *having never worn one, I cannont confirm this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I can confirm that no matter how hard I tried - and I did try - I could not stand absolutely completely tripod like still Just the simple fact of breathing affected my stillness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al de Man Posted 23 June, 2009 Share Posted 23 June, 2009 I doubt the light is reflected from the Earth, so if there is any light at all, it is coming from the Sun without being dulled by an atmosphere. Imagine the brightest ever day on earth. This is brighter. You will not need a long exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 24 June, 2009 Share Posted 24 June, 2009 I doubt the light is reflected from the Earth, so if there is any light at all, it is coming from the Sun without being dulled by an atmosphere. Imagine the brightest ever day on earth. This is brighter. You will not need a long exposure. You will to light up the stuff they have managed to do, that is in the shadow of the light source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now