One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Duane Daman]

So once again , you have invented your own evidence to suit your side of the argument

That's tantamount to accusing me of falsifying evidence, so I'll politely ask you to either (a) withdraw the remark, or ( prove that I "invented" this evidence (good luck with that).

(Incidentally, you still need to change the flase representation you made about the photograph of a spotlight a few posts ago. It isn't a photograph of a penlight either - it is a photograph of piece of paper illuminated by a penlight, as explained by the person who wrote the article you found the image in. You can hardly use that as an apples to apples comparison of what is supposed to be a "superlight" shining directly into a camera.)

EDIT Anyone who wants to see how this detail is brought out using the curve function and level inputs on Paint.NET (a free downloadable photo editting programme), please ask and I'll send you the PGN file.

The "curve" function and level altering can not add detail that isn't already present in an image - they change contrast ranges, which can enhance detail already present.

I won't withdraw the claim that you invented this evidence because that's exactly what you did ...You took an Aulis study of the Apollo spotlight "Sun" and added an additional orange spot in the center of it that wasn't there until you put it there .

I already corrected my claim about the picture I posted being a spotlight, to it being a flashlight ... Or did you perhaps miss that ?

So why is it when Jack computer enhances photographic images it's called a "mis-use of photoshop" but when you do it it's okay ?

Seems like quite a double standard you guys are using here .

Edited November 10, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

As posted in the OTHER thread about this sillyness:

Camera on a tripod shooting a setting sun. The ONLY thing that has changed from the left to the right photos is exposure time, with the exposure getting shorter as you move right. Top row are full frames, bottom row crops from the full frames.

NOTICE the "size" of the sun gets smaller as the exposure decreases and also note the "halo" around the glare of the sun, very similar to the Apollo inages in question.

You are toast once again duane...you need to quit listening to the quacks.

What proof do you have that these are pictures of the Sun ? .... And if they are , where were they taken that the sky was pitch black behind them ?

Simple, I have the camera raw files and I was the photographer. The sky was not black, it was a golden yellow. I converted to gray scale to make the gradients easier to see. BUT (and you would know this if you had purchased a clue somewhere along the line) the ske get darker and hte sun smaller because I bracketed the exposures. As such as the exposure was decreased the tonal range of the image was changed. Golden yellow was moved down the scale to near black

I hope you didn't get them from the faked Apollo photography , because if you did , then you just proved my point that the Apollo "Suns" are really spotlights on moonsets .

Nope, I got them from my Canon 1Ds, taken in a farm field in the middle of Kansas. Just standard old pictures of the sun.

Those pictures look more like that flashlight picture than any picture of the real Sun .

If thats what you see, you need to get out more and actually take some pictures, rather than listen to the likes of White, Percy and St.Mark. Those guys are selling you a bill of goods.

As for me being "toast" , that remains to be seen ..

Tool late. Those with a critical eye have already seen.

I see ... So you took the Sun pictures yourself from a "golden yellow sky " and then converted them to "gray scale" ... and you expect me to believe this , why ?

I would like to see the original pictures before you changed the color .... Then I will decide if they are normal looking pictures of the real Sun or something you fabricated in your studio .

As for "White, Percy and St. Mark selling me a bill of goods" , you couldn't be more off base if you tried ... As for what you're selling , I'm not buying it .

Why in the world would I lie about any of this? It would be a pretty stupid thing to do considering anyone with a camera can recreate my test and see for themself if my results can be duplicated. In fact thats exactly what I would expect a serious researcher to do...check for themself. This has been something that has been suggested to you many many times...and as far as I can tell you have yet to do so even once. Instead your system seems to be "I believe therefore I am right". Thats all fine and dandy, but given you are playing in an arena that is pretty black and white, empirical testing trumps "I believe" every time. And since the gang of three is selling you stuff sorely LACKING in empirical evidence...well that bill of goods leaves a LOT ot be desired....unless you plan on blindly taking things on faith. I thought you might be smarter than that.

So what kind of files do you want? These were taken in raw format, and you can have a unprocessed file for inspection uses only. Or I can post the porcessed jpgs...you name it.

I don't care which files you post here ... I would just like to see the original color Sun photos before you changed them to gray scale ... Then I would like to know why you think your Sun photos apply to the Apollo photos which were not taken on a tripod using different exposure times .

Fine, I'll put them up tonight.

I'm suprised you can't figure out the connection given we are talking about it..and I explained it, but here you go...again

It all has to do with the size of the sun and how it glare makes it look bigger than it really is. My examples show how a large "sun" in a properly exposed frame is many, many times large than the actual sun. My images show that as the exposure decreases and we get closer to a more proper exposure for the sun itself, the glare is eliminated and we can see the actual size of the real sun. Its the point Dave is making with his diagram and the point that is lost on White, Percy and even St Mark with his silly visor stuff.

I cut out the unnecessary insult from your post and will focus only on what matters here .... The size of the Sun and the exposure time needed to increase the size of the Sun flare .... Jack has already posted what I already knew ... Your experiment is worthless in relation to the Apollo photos .

The Apollo photos were point and shoot with the same exposure time for each shot ... They didn't use any tripods and they didn't extend the exposure setting , like you did with your picture series from the Kansas field .

If they had taken a tripod , as is always used with standard photographic equipment , and bothered to set an exposure of 30 seconds , then they could have taken some mighty fine STAR photos .. but of course they didn't bother to take a tripod , they didn't bother to expose any film at 30 seconds and they NEVER took any photos of the stars ... but they did take many photos of an "overexposed Sun " with HUGE flare around it .... How did they do that with no extension of the exposure setting in an environment with no atmosphere ?

Edited November 10, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

...I won't even go into the atmosphere vs vacuum issue...but on earth a "flare" is caused by air particles reflecting the sunlight; in a vacuum the "air" should allow for crisper images without halos or flares.

Now THAT is garbage, Jack. That is totally wrong. Flare has nothing to do with the atmosphere. The only halo I am aware of that you get due to atmosphere (or more properly the ice crystals) is the 22 degree halo effect.

Would you care to post some evidence in support of your claim?

I'll post evidence in support of my claim that you are TOTALLY wrong.

- A discussion about flare / halo in digital cameras. Yes, I know what you are going to say, but flare / halo is caused by the lens and therefore it doesn't matter that it is a digital. See if you can find anywhere in the discussion a mention of flare / halo being caused by the atmosphere:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009Cfv

- An explanation of flare and halo. Once again, see if you can find a reference to it being caused by the atmosphere:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=34974

- Flare: Light reflected from lens surfaces, the inside of the lens barrel and the inner walls of the camera's mirror box can reach the film and fog part or all of the image area, degrading image sharpness. These harmful reflections are called flare. Although flare can be reduced to a large extent by coating the lens surfaces and using anti-reflection measures in the lens barrel and camera, flare cannot be completely eliminated for all subject conditions. It is therefore desirable to use an appropriate lens hood whenever possible. The term "flare" is also used when referring to the effects of blurring and halo caused by spherical and comatic aberration.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...6α=DEF

- Spherical Aberration

Most lenses use spherical surfaces (as opposed to aspherical surfaces), so that light flux parallel to potical axis (imaged in the center of the image area, basically) does not focus on a single point in the focal plane (on the film). This is spherical aberration. It appears a halo, blur and loss of sharpness. It becomes more common at high aperture lens, and can be reduced by stopping down the lens. It can also be reduced by the optimal combination of positive and negative lenses.

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/...or/nwords-e.htm

Edited November 10, 2007 by Evan Burton
Corrected spelling

[Dave Greer]

The photo "experiment" is a visual non-sequitur and thus is irrelevant.

It does not represent a replication of sun photos taken from the moon,

which were at known apertures (like f5.6, 8 or 11). The f settings "on

the moon" were not meant to expose correctly for the direct sun, but

for the "moonscape" to expose properly.

Your last sentence sums the situation up perfectly.

The f settings

"on the moon" were not meant to expose correctly for the direct sun, but

for the "moonscape" to expose properly.

If you believe this, why can you not understand the Apollo photos of the sun???

The experiment sequence was shot with 35mm, not a Hasselblad.

None of the exposures exhibits a halo effect like Apollo pix. I won't

even go into the atmosphere vs vacuum issue...but on earth a

"flare" is caused by air particles reflecting the sunlight; in a vacuum

the "air" should allow for crisper images without halos or flares.

A flare is caused by air particles reflecting sunlight? Not according to you Jack...

Link

Kathy, that is a lens flare...an internal light reflection within the camera.

Link

...there are three types of lens flares:

1. APERTURE FLARE

2. LENS COATING FLARE

3. OVEREXPOSURE FLARE

According to your earlier posts, there are 4 types of flare: internal light reflection, aperture, lens coating, or over-exposure. Now you are saying that in a vacuum there should not be halos or flares?

From above...

on earth a "flare" is caused by air particles reflecting the sunlight; in a vacuum the "air" should allow for crisper images without halos or flares

How do you account for (i) the contradiction in your own statements, and (ii) this image?

Or this image?

Or this image?

The experiment is worthless, shows no characteristics of Apollo

exposures, and was not shot under correct conditions with the proper

f-stop. Garbage in, garbage out.

Jack, surely anyone following the thread can see that Craig was simply demonstrating that different f-stops of while imaging the sun produce radically different photos. Greater exposure, more glare. Less exposure, less glare. It takes a bear of very little brain to realise that it just might be possible that the Apollo sun photos were exposed in such a way that made the glare appear to be exactly what it is. If you disagree, please provide empirical evidence that the Apollo sun photos could not possibly have been over-exposed to the degree they were.

[Dave Greer]

I won't withdraw the claim that you invented this evidence because that's exactly what you did ...You took an Aulis study of the Apollo spotlight "Sun" and added an additional orange spot in the center of it that wasn't there until you put it there .

Duane old bean, I'll give you the opportunity to gracefully withdraw your false accusation (which may have been made in the heat of the moment) before taking it further.

I already corrected my claim about the picture I posted being a spotlight, to it being a flashlight ... Or did you perhaps miss that ?

No, you missed the fact that it isn't a photo of a flashlight either. As I pointed this out to you via PM and on the forum, it's a photo of a piece of paper, illuminated by a penlight. Again, you have the opportunity to correct your mistake.

So why is it when Jack computer enhances photographic images it's called a "mis-use of photoshop" but when you do it it's okay ?

Seems like quite a double standard you guys are using here .

Let's reverse that one shall we? How come when Jack uses Photoshop you describe the end result as "the latest in computer image enhancement", but when I use it you say I add something that wasn't there?

Withdraw the false accusation please, then we can focus on the actual evidence. Remember, I've already said that anyone following the thread can ask me for the PNG file which they can use with Paint.NET. This enables the user to step through each and every function or edit applied to the original image to see what effect it had - eliminating the possibility of shennanigans.

The offer is of course open to you as well Duane, since you appear to be claiming I forged part of the image.

Thank you.

[Duane Daman]

Lamson claimed that the different exposure times created the difference in the size of the flare around the Sun .

"Simple, I have the camera raw files and I was the photographer. The sky was not black, it was a golden yellow. I converted to gray scale to make the gradients easier to see. BUT (and you would know this if you had purchased a clue somewhere along the line) the ske get darker and hte sun smaller because I bracketed the exposures. As such as the exposure was decreased the tonal range of the image was changed. Golden yellow was moved down the scale to near black "

I am NOT discussing "halos" around the Sun and what may or may not create them ... I am discussing FLARE and the different sizes of the Apollo "Sun" from one shot to the next using the same f-stop setting ... You do understand the difference , right ?

By the way , those Sun photos you posted , taken from low earth orbit , are what the Sun should look like from the vacuum of space ...

Funny how NONE of the Apollo photos ,allegedly taken on the Moon, look anything like those .... There is a vast difference between what the real Sun looks likes , opposed to what a SPOTLIGHT looks like , don't you think ?

Edited November 10, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

"And finally here the Apollo 14 "Sun" , which looks NOTHING like the photos of the overexposed Sun , but looks very much like the photo of the overexposed FLASHLIGHT LIGHT ON A PIECE OF PAPER !!! "

If that's not clear enough for you , too bad .

As for the rest of your nonsense , I don't care what type of file you used with Paint.net .... You altered the original image .

The difference is this ... When Jack uses photoshop , it's to expose the anomalies in the Apollo images ... When you use it , it's to cover them up .

Edited November 10, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

Duane...these guys claim an interest in astronomy, but they

did not even understand what I was talking about when I

referred to LIGHT FLARE CAUSED BY PARTICLES IN THE

ATMOSPHERE.

On earth, OBSERVATORIES are built on mountaintops to

avoid the light flare associated with pollution and moisture

in the atmosphere. Photographers and astronomers know

that LIGHT FLARE in the sky affects sharpness and exposure

by blocking light transmission by creating a glare or flare

in the area of the light source. You can confirm this by

googling LIGHT FLARE.

They thought I was referring to LENS FLARE, a totally

different subject. Lens flare takes place INSIDE A CAMERA.

LIGHT FLARE occurs IN THE SKY when there is atmospheric

pollution of any sort in the sky, blocking some of the light.

Go outside on a foggy day, and sometimes you can look

directly at the sun disk if the fog is heavy enough. At sunset

look in the west...if the sky is polluted (usually is) the air

will turn red and the sun will turn orange or yellow because

particles in the air will FILTER out many colors of the spectrum.

This effect is called light flare.

Light flare and lens flare are two different effects. I referred

to light flare, not lens flare. THERE SHOULD BE NO LIGHT

FLARE IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE.

Jack

PS...they keep saying that I PHOTOSHOP images...another

invalid assumption. Although I own PhotoShop, I prefer

to use the simpler graphics program which came with my

scanner. It is much more user friendly. It performs 90

percent of the functions of PhotoShop and is far less

complicated.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Jack White

[Kevin M. West]

Light flare? Now you're just making things up to cover your ass.

Please, Jack, show me one example of anyone using the phrase "light flare" in the context you mention.

[Duane Daman]

What Jack is pointing out is the difference between "LENS FLARE" ( you're an expert in that right ? ) ... which are the aperture shaped objects seen in some photos brought about by the camera lens , opposed to the circular light "FLARE" which is photographed around bright objects such as the Sun ( not to be confused with halos ) ...or very bright spotlights ( also know as solar lights or mole lights ) ... You know , the kind that nasa used on their moon sets to represent the Sun .

[Jack White]

Check any dictionary. Flare and glare are synonymous. Light pollution is a common term

used to describe flare or glare in the sky. Glare or flare can be seen. It can be photographed.

Light reflected from atmospheric particles creates flare.

Light reflected from atmospheric particles creates glare.

There is NO atmosphere on the moon, therefore no glare/flare to photograph.

Splitting hairs on semantics displays desperation.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Come on Jack - fair is fair. I have showed you a number of examples regarding flare / halo, and not once do they mention atmospheric effect.

Show us some photographic references where they talk about flare / halo being caused by the atmosphere (except the previously mentioned 22 degree effect).

Are you able to do this, to show some evidence? Or is merely your opinion?

Edited November 10, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

Flare - not one mention of the atmosphere causing it:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=f...p;x=29&y=16

Glare - not one mention of atmospheric effect:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=g...p;x=31&y=17

Halo - the aforementioned 22 degree effect:

Meteorology. any of a variety of bright circles or arcs centered on the sun or moon, caused by the refraction or reflection of light by ice crystals suspended in the earth's atmosphere and exhibiting prismatic coloration ranging from red inside to blue outside (distinguished from corona).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=h...p;x=24&y=17

[Evan Burton]

"Atmospheric effects on Observational Astronomy"

Scattering, scintillation, absorption... no mention of flare / glare:

http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/ast3722/l...EffectAtmos.htm

You can confirm this by googling LIGHT FLARE.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=...amp;btnG=Search

Historically speaking - impact of light flare on film - Photographic Society of America

"Flare exists in two forms. One is called mechanical flare and is caused by reflections from bright areas within the lens mount. The other is called optical flare and is caused by reflections from the lens element surfaces. Mechanical flare can be reduced or eliminated by careful construction of the lens. Optical flare is, for the greater part, an inherent quality of the optical system and some will be present in any lens."

No mention of atmospheric effect

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m130...v59/ai_13873910

Nothing else that I can find in the first five pages returned.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

Splitting hairs on semantics displays desperation.

Jack

In my opinion, it displays your inability to admit when you are wrong. The flare under discussion is being caused by the sun and the camera. Atmosphere plays no part in it whatsoever, and you have continually failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary.

There have been multiple references given for photographic forums and societies, camera manufacturers, astronomical websites, etc, and none mentions the atmosphere causing flares.