Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

Posted
  Pancake said:
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 :D

  odd website said:

"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".

Posted (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 by Pancake
Posted
  Pancake said:
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 :(

Posted
  Weston Super Saint said:
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...)

Posted

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 ;)

Posted

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

Posted

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.

Posted
  Al de Man said:
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.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...