Craig Lamson

The second shadow(s) is quite visable, every snow clump in the area not illuminated by the direct sun has one, caused by the second light source, the open blue sky. Why no, the Apollo photographs were taken on the moon.

LMAO !!! Jack ... It looks as though the opposition still wants to discuss why Lamson had to become a contortionist to try to prove your anomalous astronot shadows study wrong .... and it looks as though the foxes outnumber the hens around this particular barnyard also ... Too funny ! You might want to withdraw those remarks in light of the new images I posted that were made to deflect White's objections. No twisting needed in these images. It might help if you understood WHY I needed to turn to the degree I did in the first set of images, because if you did you just might not look so silly making statements like the one you made above. Does the term angle of view mean ANYTHING to you? Now can either YOU or WHITE dispute the results with emperical evidence?

I see you are back commenting on Apollo Jack. There at least two threads with emperical evidence that proves your claims wrong. How about doing the honorable thing and admit your errors?

Just a quick question Jim, How much does a 50 ton press weigh

Lets go with dead horse....

Bump for Jack....

Moving forward from my initial post.... Many might wonder why the snow picture has any value when discussing photos with multi light sources. Aside from from showing the effects of diffusion and balance it also teachs us WHERE to look for signs of additional lighting. Part of being a good lighting tech is creating the IMPRESSION that a set was illuminated with a natural light source. The reason is pretty simply...its what the viewer is used to seeing in everyday life. Sadly this is not as easy as it looks. Its' a fact of life that a light casts a shadow. So when you use many lights to illuminate a set its a given that there will be many shad0ws. The real trick is to HIDE or MINIMIZE the extra shadows so they do not interfere with the IMPRESSION on a single light source. Thats where a pro earns his money. Now back to the snow photo...where do we find the second set of shadows in this image? The answer... in an area not illuminated by the main light source, in this case the sun. And that's the real lesson here...look for signs of additional lighting in areas NOT ILLUMINATED by the main light! Lets look at an example photo. this image has TWO light sources, a 2000W light high and to the right of the set, as a main light and a second 2000w spotlight bounced off of a 20'x30' white reflector in the ceiling. Can you spot the second shadow caused by the diffuse light from the ceiling reflector? (BTW this was taken in a studio and the sky was added in post production) Have at it Jack! Added on edit: My links seem to be broken for some reason so here is the link: http://i5.pbase.com/u34/infocusinc/large/3...rearseating.jpg

Bump for Jack...wanna count those footprints again?

Thanks, Chuck...but that is NOT my problem. It is the new forum software that is the problem. My computer is about ten years old and works well for 99 percent of my needs. But it is a Macintosh G3 with OS9.2. The new forum software DOES NOT SUPPORT MACINTOSH COMPUTERS UNLESS THEY ARE SYSTEM TEN OR HIGHER. The old software was no problem. I am not going to spend $2000+ for a new computer just to post images here. This forum is not a significant part of my daily computer activity. Jack Why $2000 bucks? http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-PowerPC-G3-...tem230090192120 $35.00 http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-DV-500-Indi...tem230090244515 $47.00 http://cgi.ebay.com/iMac-G3-400-Mhz-192-mg...tem220080570028 $42.25 Many more here: http://search.ebay.com/imac_W0QQfromZR8QQfgtpZ1 I don't want someone's cast-off Mac. When I upgrade it will be the Imac2400, listed for $1995. Would you buy a used Brownie to do your photo shoots? Jack Try this: http://www.icab.de/dl.php

Thanks, Chuck...but that is NOT my problem. It is the new forum software that is the problem. My computer is about ten years old and works well for 99 percent of my needs. But it is a Macintosh G3 with OS9.2. The new forum software DOES NOT SUPPORT MACINTOSH COMPUTERS UNLESS THEY ARE SYSTEM TEN OR HIGHER. The old software was no problem. I am not going to spend $2000+ for a new computer just to post images here. This forum is not a significant part of my daily computer activity. Jack Why $2000 bucks? http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-PowerPC-G3-...tem230090192120 $35.00 http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-DV-500-Indi...tem230090244515 $47.00 http://cgi.ebay.com/iMac-G3-400-Mhz-192-mg...tem220080570028 $42.25 Many more here: http://search.ebay.com/imac_W0QQfromZR8QQfgtpZ1 I don't want someone's cast-off Mac. When I upgrade it will be the Imac2400, listed for $1995. Would you buy a used Brownie to do your photo shoots? Jack I've purchased a great part of my lighting and photo gear used, including a used Imac, which BTW works fine with OS X and makes a great web browsing and light image processing computer.

For those who may not believe the squares are the same, simply take the image into photoshop and check the squares with the INFO tool. Both square A and square B have RGB values of 120,120,120.

You using "new math' to count the bootprints in the area between the wheels Jack? ONLY ONE BOOTPRINT?????? And lets take a careful look at that piece of white debris that is on the lunar surface near the rear wheel. The astronauts did not drop it COVERED IN SOIL, but it sure ended up that way...by the astronauts KICKING the soil as they walked????? Sorry Jack but you are wrong once again.

Thanks, Evan...quite a nice comment...what I have been saying all along. Jack Just how funny is that comment from the man who gave us this among others: I may be the only reader of these postings who checks the TIME recorded for each posting. I have noticed that BURTON, ULMAN, GREER, LAMSON, and COLBY post Apollo messages at all times of the day and night, and when anyone else posts something, THEY ALL POUNCE ON IT WITHIN MINUTES EN MASSE, and try to suffocate the truth. It is like they all are huddled around a computer screen at Apollo Central, waiting for work to do. Don't they have "real jobs"? How do they have so much time available day and night to spend on their "crusade"? This takes into account that they are scattered around the world, yet they all spring into action simultaneously. Duane must have a job, because he only posts once daily for a short period, yet they all attack him within minutes of any posting. I am retired, and only have an hour or so between other things to check in occasionally. They post the same stuff over and over. They must get paid by the word. Jack

Then you agree that Jack White's statement is in error? And if not please explain why...in detail..my emperical evidence is wrong. Post away Duane, sure would not want to stop you from 'getting the word out".

Yep and if you read the entire thread for context, the hoaxers are getting their hats handed to them because they cannot understand the subject matter....where have I seen that before?

Thanks, Chuck...but that is NOT my problem. It is the new forum software that is the problem. My computer is about ten years old and works well for 99 percent of my needs. But it is a Macintosh G3 with OS9.2. The new forum software DOES NOT SUPPORT MACINTOSH COMPUTERS UNLESS THEY ARE SYSTEM TEN OR HIGHER. The old software was no problem. I am not going to spend $2000+ for a new computer just to post images here. This forum is not a significant part of my daily computer activity. Jack Why $2000 bucks? http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-PowerPC-G3-...tem230090192120 $35.00 http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-iMAC-DV-500-Indi...tem230090244515 $47.00 http://cgi.ebay.com/iMac-G3-400-Mhz-192-mg...tem220080570028 $42.25 Many more here: http://search.ebay.com/imac_W0QQfromZR8QQfgtpZ1

Duane...it IS possible to use multiple lights without having multiple shadows. Lamson and any good photographer knows how to do this. The trick is diffusion and balance. Diffusion is achieved by several methods...scrims over lights, bouncing light off of large panels or the ceiling, etc. Also, unwanted light in certain areas can be blocked by barn-doors or black baffles. I am certain "Mr. Light" can light a set with dozens of lights and not have a single instance of double shadow. Alligator clips or clothespins and black cardboard are valuable assets, as are large white foamcore sheets. I am sure Lamson has used a SofBox, or the equivalent, to photograph small shiny objects; it comes in several shapes, a circular one of white nylon which diffuses several lights from different directions; large ones with a bank of lights inside a nylon covered box are extensively used in portraiture or fashion work. Parabolic bounce umbrellas are very useful in light diffusion. If the main light (sun) is direct and all other lights diffused, the lighting on the moonset would have "sun shadows" but shadowless lighting on the rest of the set. The secret is having secondary lighting DIRECTIONLESS. When the photographer has lots of time and no budget worries, it is all possible. Jack Of course what Jack is posting is BS. I challenge him to post emperical evidence to support his claims rather than his hand waving. Put quite simply, light has direction, regardless of its quality, (hard, soft, diffused or reflected). In only a VERY SPECFIC instance can light be "directionless. That would involve a light tent, with a translucent floor such that many lights coudl be set so that it travels from all directions. Light tents are designed for very small products, and to suggest they might have been used on a "moonset" is silly. For more information on tents please do a google. I will be posting quite a few example photographs over the course of the next few posts to show in detail how the different modes of lighting Jack lists, actually work, proving with emperical evidence that Jack post is in error. First, Jack states tha double shaodws can be eliminated by a combination of diffusion and balance. In the following photo, there are two light sources, one ... direct sunshine and two...diffuse lighting from the open sky. The balance is such that the shadow area illuminated by the open blue sky is only 18% of the intensity of the sunlit area. That is a difference of 2 1/2 f-stops. Given these conditions, if Jack is correct, there should be only ONE shadow visable in this image. However careful inspection shows there are TWO distinct shadows, one from the direct sunlight and one from the VERY LARGE AND VERY DIFFUSE OPEN SKY! This proves Jacks statement in error. More to come in later posts.

With due respect, that's not even close to being true. And what about their spouses and dependents? http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebrief202 The number that is tossed around in the media is 47 million uninsured. Not sure if that includes illegals. Purchasing coverage can be expensive. I purchase for my business. as an example coverage for may family is $650 month, 1k deductable, no opticial or dental. I can lower that quite a bit if I opt for a higher deductable. In my case I made the choice to leave a nice comfy job with solid benefits to start a business. I knew the costs and I took the responsibility even when it hurt to do so.

Covering Jacks objections.... Late afternoon light low in the sky, 35mm lens on full frame Canon 5D camera (lens equal to the 60mm Hasselblad lens) Result... Jack is wrong once again (or is that STILL WRONG) As always, don't take my word for it, do the test yourself. Also original raw files of all images availabe on request. (Canon .CR2 files)

The reason Jack wanted the feet shown was to prove that his theory that the shadows must always go to the lower center of the frame. How I turned my body has no bearing on Jacks claim. My simple photos proved him (and now you by extension) wrong. The placement of the photographers shadow is dictated by the direction the camera is pointed. Jack ( and you) are waving your hands...again. Wrong again Duane..Get over it.

Thank you. You have just admitted to Waving Your Hands" And since you have admitted more than once you dont understand any of this, how can you be sure that Percy, White and Jones are correct? No what Jack did was type some words. He "explained" nothing. All he did was expose his lack of knowlege about light and shadow as I will detail in a later post. And again White and Percy have been completely debunked time and time again. But given your limited skill set when it come to photography, light aqnd shadow, how could you know who was rihgt or wrong in any case? Thats the great thing about the most of photographic arguments...no one has to "believe" anything. The arguments can be proven or disproven by simply taking pictures and understanding things like perspective, parallax, exposure, light, shadow etc....basic photography. The fact that your limited knowlege leaves you in a position of "believing" is not my problem. As such your "opinion" carried very little weight. The HOAXERS are the only ones being fooled...by the likes of Percy, White and company. Those with the skill and the knowlege can see right through the BS being spread by the HOAXERS.

Since this seems beyond you let me explain ONCE AGAIN. Jack tried to set up a strawman...he suggested THAT IF THE PHOTOGRAPERS FEET were shown in the images, the shadows must go to the bottom center of the frame. This was deceptive on Jacks part because it has no bearing on the subject at hand...can the shadows in the apollo image really be to the side of the frame. Jack came up with this deceptive little red herring BECAUSE it had been shown emperically that the shadows as shown in the Apollo images were possilbe AND COULD be reproduced by anyone. Jack was in a bind. He had to find SOME WAY to try and save face. So he invented the "to the feet" argument. I'm not sure if JAck knows this argument is false and he is just hoping to fool the ignorant,or if he actually believes it, in which case it would be beyond the pale for someone who claims to be an expert in photography. In any case I simply called Jack's bluff. To show the entire photographers shadow to his feet, I needed two things. A very wide angle lens and the sun high in the sky to shorten the shadow. With both I was able to show that Jacks deceptive attempt to CHANGE THE BASIS of the arguement WAS WRONG! You can have the shadow of the photographer all the way down to his feet in EITHER corner of the frame AND in the middle depending on how you FRAME the image. In short, JACK WHITE was simply wrong once again about how a simple shadow works. AND REMEMBER NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SHADOWS IN THE APOLLO IMAGES! Now on to the second part of my test. Yes you are correct I had to turn my upper body to frame partial shadows in the right and left side of the frames. Ita quite reasonable ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND the fact that I used the sun very high in the sky. Since the shaodow was short I NEEDED to aim the camera down quite a bit and turn my upper body a bit more than the Apollo astronauts to get the picture. However there have been many other emperical examples that look very similar to the Apollo image. In a nutshell, you are simply wrong...again. Please retract your mistaken claim that I was being deceptive. I too will say that you were being deceptive. IN NO APOLLO PHOTOS WAS THE SUN HIGH IN THE SKY...but always very low. That is deceptive. The Hasselblad cameras were attached to the chestplate and faced straight ahead; your twisting and bending and aiming the camara to the side is deceptive. You admit to using a very wide angle lens; not using the equivalent of the Apollo lens is deceptive. In a nutshell, you are simply wrong...again. Jack Ok Jack, lets cut to the chase. You are simply trying to save face here. Not very honorable IMHO. First this is not an attempt to recreate an Apollo photograph. The Apollo images in question don't show the astronauts feet. The photos were taken simply to show your statements were wrong, which the photos show. No amount of shucking and jiving on your part can change the simple fact that you screwed up. Second the angle of the sun does not matter. Light and shadow work the exact same way regardless of the angle of the light. You trying to make an issue of this is....well...deceptive. Third, the way the Apollo cameras were mounted matters not a whit to the photos in question. I am not recreating Apollo images, I'm showing your even the red herring you constructerd to obscure your failures was in fact a failure too. Forth, the wide angle lens changes NOTHING. It doesd do two things, it allows the entire shadow from head to foot to be shown and it also makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you to claim the images were croppped. You really should be ashamed of yourself for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the unknowing. Here is your red herring: No Photographer can stand beside his shadow! The ONLY apollo photo that correctly depicts the shadow (shows a picture with a photographers shadow in the center of the frame) Correct: When light is behind photographer, his shaodw MUST GO to the bottom center where his feet are! IT'S THE LAW! The laws of physics, ananomy, and common sense say that a persons feet are generally under the head;the camera is centered under the head. The camera must be directly above the feet. When the light is behind the photographer, his shadow must go to his feet, not beside him! So let see if my test fits the above; My feet were under my head, the camera is centered AT THE HEAD, the camera is directly above the feet, my shadow goes to my feet. What does not fit: "Correct: When light is behind photographer, his shaodw MUST GO to the bottom center where his feet are! IT'S THE LAW!" INCORRECT! Jack White has just been proven wrong AGAIN. The shadows fall in the frame IN RELATION to the framing of the scene, and that can be at either side OR in the center. Do the honorable thing Jack and admit your mistake.

I rebutted ALL of the photographic claims made by Neville Jones, if you care to actually read my posts. Others have taken apart the rest of his article. Here is a news flash for you. If there is a light, there will be a shadow..somewhere...you just need to know how to find it. What "lighting anomalies? And of course the evidence you talk about has been shown to be in error so many times. But feel free to copy it from wherever you found it and we can take it apart here...piece by piece.

But the "ENTIRE" mesh is not clean. Look again as you are so fond of saying.