One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Dave Greer]

"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 !!! "

That's better. Now you can explain why they were shining flashlights onto pieces of paper, and how you reconcile that with your opinion that there is a huge lightbulb contained inside the over-exposed flare.

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 .

Correct, I altered the original image - just like the author of the Aulis image did (I don't know if it was Jack or Percy) Why? To try and bring out any detail already present, but masked due to low contrast ratios. That's what Aulis tried to do too. Neither myself nor Aulis added anything not already present in the original image (apart from Aulis pasting in the images of the sun, which I don't have a problem with).

Here's the original:-

Here's the effort posted at Aulis revealing more detail:-

Here's my effort:-

Now, which reveals more detail, Aulis's or mine? Does revealing more detail expose anomalies, or cover them up?

I think the whizzkids at Aulis need to revisit this image, using the highest resolution version available at the Gateway to Astronaut Photography, and see whether they are capable of revealing the extra detail present in the image that they weren't able to reveal with their first effort.

Here's a tutorial on Photoshop curves in case anyone wants to know what this function does (it's very similar in Paint.net).

[Dave Greer]

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

Well, if these photos were taken in a studio setting, then it can't be due to atmospheric particles either, since the spotlight is only going to be a few feet away! And that's disregarding the claim that the soundstages were set up in huge vacuum chambers. Either way, whether shot on a soundstage, in a vacuum chamber, or on the moon, the effect seen is nothing to do with atmospheric particles. Factors that DO play a rather important role are the number of camera aperture blades, the aperture setting, the lens design (including quality of coatings etc), exposure time, dust on lens, film type used, brightness of light source. (Incidentally, a polarising filter would also have an effect on the lens flare - as far as I know there were none used on the moon, but the CSM windows had a polarising coating IIRC which may well account for the slight differences seen in the Apollo 11 photo of the sun which don't show the round flare visible in the surface photos.

PS Processing an image in a software package is generally referred to as "photoshopping" regardless of the software used. I currently use Paint.net which has many of Photoshop's features, but is completely free to download - I would still use the phrase "photoshopping" rather than "Paint.netting" to any image manipulation I do using that software.

[Craig Lamson]

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

Well, if these photos were taken in a studio setting, then it can't be due to atmospheric particles either, since the spotlight is only going to be a few feet away! And that's disregarding the claim that the soundstages were set up in huge vacuum chambers. Either way, whether shot on a soundstage, in a vacuum chamber, or on the moon, the effect seen is nothing to do with atmospheric particles. Factors that DO play a rather important role are the number of camera aperture blades, the aperture setting, the lens design (including quality of coatings etc), exposure time, dust on lens, film type used, brightness of light source. (Incidentally, a polarising filter would also have an effect on the lens flare - as far as I know there were none used on the moon, but the CSM windows had a polarising coating IIRC which may well account for the slight differences seen in the Apollo 11 photo of the sun which don't show the round flare visible in the surface photos.

PS Processing an image in a software package is generally referred to as "photoshopping" regardless of the software used. I currently use Paint.net which has many of Photoshop's features, but is completely free to download - I would still use the phrase "photoshopping" rather than "Paint.netting" to any image manipulation I do using that software.

Bingo Dave. The lens flare effect combined with over-exposure cased the images artifacts in the image in question. They happen REGARDLESS of the type of lightsource, sun or artifical. That some jokers think they can tell the difference between the two is beyond silly. The biggest problem when trying to see the same effect here on earth is the lack of a black sky. Many of the len flare effects simply get lost in the light blue color of the sky. For example this image taken by the original poster of this thread:

thread

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G87B

photo (pleaase open)

http://photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=29545184

And will someone please point out how atmospheric attenuation caused this lens flare and halo?

Edited November 10, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

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

Actually you are totally wrong, the images ARE totally relevant to the subject being discusssed,

and that is the actual size of the sun in a photograph. As usual you, when unable to defend

your silly study with actual evidence resort to posting disinformation

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

Strawman. They were never intended to replicate the sun photos from the moon. They amply illustrate a very simple

photographic principal, which shows your analysis to be incorrect.

which were at known apertures (like f5.6, 8 or 11).

Another poor strawman. The aperture setting of the images I posted is also "known" The exif data for the files in question shows that the f-stop for all images was f8'

Sadly this shows your gross lack of knowlege of the subject matter. The overexposure effect in regards to the sun is generraly called Halation in film based photography and sensor spill in digital photography. The actual aperture setting has no effect on this halation as long as the base exposure level to the film remanins the same. For example if a photography that includes an overexposed and halated sun was taken at 1/60@f16 then taken again at the same exposure values like 1/125@f11, 1/250@f8, 1/500@f5.6 and 1/1000@f4, the size of the over exposed sun will remain the same.

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

for the "moonscape" to expose properly.

That is the only thing you have correct in your entire post. And that is also why my series of images is right on point. I show that with a reduction of overall exposure that we can see the real size of the sun, and that the real size of the sun is MUCH smaller that the halation and flare effect you wrongly claiim is the actual size of the sun in the Apollo images in question.

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

Another strawman. The images only represent a standard photographic effect and are not a replication

None of the exposures exhibits a halo effect like Apollo pix.

Strawman. See above

I won't even go into the atmosphere vs vacuum issue...but on earth a

"flare" is caused by air particles reflecting the sunlight;

Priceless, you say you won't and then you do! There is no such thing as atmospheric "flare". The correct term is atmospheric attenuation, and that implies the ABSORBING of light and scattering of light. Heavy moisture content or clouds DIFFUSE light, but do not cause FLARE. Try again next time.

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

Another priceless Jack White statement...a vacuum has air! But enough comedy...the effects of halation and lens flare are uneffected by either atmosphere or vacuum. They happen the same in both.

The experiment is worthless,

No it is your attempt at rebuttal that is worthless.

shows no characteristics of Apollo exposures,

None were intended

and was not shot under correct conditions with the proper f-stop.

Strawman, see above

Garbage in, garbage out.

Yes, that totally sums up your rebuttal

Jack

Craig

Edited November 11, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

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 .

Well Duane, there were no insults just observation. And I guess by your reply that you actually trying to learn something is out of the question. Oh well, many of us have tired to teach you...

How could you have known anything about this given your general lack of knowlege about photography? Instead of blind "belief" of the Apollo quacks, why don't you actually take the time to learn the material yourself? As for Jack's 'rebuttal" please see my reply to him.

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 .

Wrong. The exposure values were adjusted for each shot depending on the situation. Both the exposure time and f-stop were changed as needed. On at least one mission and maybe more the exposure settings for different conditons were printed right on the film magazine and also on the cuff checklist. There are also instances where the Apollo astronauts 'bracketed" the exposures for a single scene just as I did in my series of images. A tripod is not a requirement for bracketing exposures, I only used one in that series because I intended to take three or four images with different exposures and blend them together in photoshop to increase the dynamic range of the finshed photograph. A tripod is required so at all of the images match exaclty.

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

Totally off topic Duane. Tripods are not always used in photography. As a professional photographer I have done many a job without taking a tripod....many....it just depends on the situation. And just for the record, there is no 30 second exposure setting on the Hasselblad lens. A 30 second exposure would have required the use of the bulb setting and a cable release.

... 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 ?

Ok Duane, here is where that learning might be helpful to you. The halation and lens flare effects seen in the apollo images happen because the exposure was set to capture the scene on the moon, not the bright sun. The exposure WAS EXTENDED as it applied to the sun. To correctly expose for the sun, the expousure would need to be REDUCED by many f-stops, which would render the moon scene as very dark or black (see my series of earth photos to view the effects of reducing exposure). You have it backwards Duane. Don't let the quacks think for you...learn this yourself.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[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 !!! "

That's better. Now you can explain why they were shining flashlights onto pieces of paper, and how you reconcile that with your opinion that there is a huge lightbulb contained inside the over-exposed flare.

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 .

Correct, I altered the original image - just like the author of the Aulis image did (I don't know if it was Jack or Percy) Why? To try and bring out any detail already present, but masked due to low contrast ratios. That's what Aulis tried to do too. Neither myself nor Aulis added anything not already present in the original image (apart from Aulis pasting in the images of the sun, which I don't have a problem with).

Here's the original:-

Here's the effort posted at Aulis revealing more detail:-

Here's my effort:-

Now, which reveals more detail, Aulis's or mine? Does revealing more detail expose anomalies, or cover them up?

I think the whizzkids at Aulis need to revisit this image, using the highest resolution version available at the Gateway to Astronaut Photography, and see whether they are capable of revealing the extra detail present in the image that they weren't able to reveal with their first effort.

Here's a tutorial on Photoshop curves in case anyone wants to know what this function does (it's very similar in Paint.net).

No , I think that Whizzkid Dave needs to get his eyes examined .... You asked which study reveals more detail ? ... The one from Aulis does of course !

Look at the original spotlight photo and you will see that it shows about five rings surrounding the center white "hot spot" ... The study fron Aulis shows the EXACT SAME five rings .

Your study however , only shows a dark green mass , with your not originally seen orange dot in the middle of it ... So your study has far LESS detail and therefore is far LESS credible, as it is NOT a match for the original photograph in ANY respect .

Edited November 11, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

Those were three real nice speeches Craig ... Unfortunately they didn't prove anything , except how condescending and unkind you are to those you disagree with .

It's very obvious that Jack was describing the difference between a Sun's atmospheric halo , from a Sun's overexposed camera flare ... but of course you and Burton both had to play a game of semantics with his explaination , as usual .... I have also been reading the awful things posted about Jack on the Apollo Hoax forum, in a thread started by Burton , and the things your mentor Jay Windley had to say about Jack are quite despicable ... You boys should be ashamed of yourselves for posting such dishonest drivil there .

As for your post here to Jack , is " STRAWMAN " the best you can do ? ... You certainly have been taught well by your mentors at clavius and BAUT... Too bad what you post is nothing new or original though ... You boys all sound like a bunch of parrots .

Oh and speaking of original stuff .... Weren't you suppossed to post your original color Kansas Sun photo series here yesterday ? ... Where are they ?

Gosh , I sure hope those files haven't gotten "lost" , like nasa "lost" ALL of those Apollo telemetry tapes !

Edited November 11, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Those were three real nice speeches Craig ... Unfortunately they didn't prove anything , except how condescending and unkind you are to those you disagree with .

It's very obvious that Jack was describing the difference between a Sun's atmospheric halo , from a Sun's overexposed camera flare ... but of course you and Burton both had to play a game of semantics with his explaination , as usual .... I have also been reading the awful things posted about Jack on the Apollo Hoax forum, in a thread started by Burton , and the things your mentor Jay Windley had to say about Jack are quite despicable ... You boys should be ashamed of yourselves for posting such dishonest drivil there .

As for your post here to Jack , is " STRAWMAN " the best you can do ? ... You certainly have been taught well by your mentors at clavius and BAUT... Too bad what you post is nothing new or original though ... You boys all sound like a bunch of parrots .

Oh and speaking of original stuff .... Weren't you suppossed to post your original color Kansas Sun photo series here yesterday ? ... Where are they ?

Gosh , I sure hope those files haven't gotten "lost" , like nasa "lost" ALL of those Apollo telemetry tapes !

Duane, if you have the ability to rebut any of my statements please do so. As it stands you have just played the "I believe card" which is quite worthless in this arena.

Why not tell us exactly the DIFFERENCE between this so called atmospheric halo and a camera flare. And why not use the flare example I posted in reply to Dave. Its pretty obvious that Jack can't do it...heck he thinks there is "air" on the moon.

And I have my photos right here. But somehow I have the distinct feeling you will simply head right to an ignorant denial mode, so whats the point?

And speaking of saying you are going to do something and not doing it...where are those photographic studies you promised to complete weeks and weeks ago? WHats the matter? Did the results show you were wrong and we were right?

A selection from the series:

Edited November 11, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

"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 !!! "

That's better. Now you can explain why they were shining flashlights onto pieces of paper, and how you reconcile that with your opinion that there is a huge lightbulb contained inside the over-exposed flare.

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 .

Correct, I altered the original image - just like the author of the Aulis image did (I don't know if it was Jack or Percy) Why? To try and bring out any detail already present, but masked due to low contrast ratios. That's what Aulis tried to do too. Neither myself nor Aulis added anything not already present in the original image (apart from Aulis pasting in the images of the sun, which I don't have a problem with).

Here's the original:-

Here's the effort posted at Aulis revealing more detail:-

Here's my effort:-

Now, which reveals more detail, Aulis's or mine? Does revealing more detail expose anomalies, or cover them up?

I think the whizzkids at Aulis need to revisit this image, using the highest resolution version available at the Gateway to Astronaut Photography, and see whether they are capable of revealing the extra detail present in the image that they weren't able to reveal with their first effort.

Here's a tutorial on Photoshop curves in case anyone wants to know what this function does (it's very similar in Paint.net).

No , I think that Whizzkid Dave needs to get his eyes examined .... You asked which study reveals more detail ? ... The one from Aulis does of course !

Look at the original spotlight photo and you will see that it shows about five rings surrounding the center white "hot spot" ... The study fron Aulis shows the EXACT SAME five rings .

Your study however , only shows a dark green mass , with your not originally seen orange dot in the middle of it ... So your study has far LESS detail and therefore is far LESS credible, as it is NOT a match for the original photograph in ANY respect .

You are kidding...right? The Aulis study shows more detail in the center of the image, where the IMPORTANT DETAIL IS LOCATED? Lame Duane...lame.

[Duane Daman]

The color photos don't look much like these back and white ones .

But I will take your word for it that they are from the same series .

Jack has already explained the difference between camera exposure flare and atmopheric halos caused by ice particles in the air , so why do you want me to repeat it ? ... So you can play another game with that and ridicule me also ?

I know one of your tactics here is to play mind games by twisting your opponents words around to have the opposiite meaning , but when someone puts a certain word in quotes , like Jack did with "air" on the Moon , it means the EXACT OPPOSITE ! ... As in NO AIR ... but of course you knew that , right ?

I never did any experiments with a camera in the past because there was no point in wasting my time doing so ... I am no photographer and all you would have done is post more insults to me ... Something you do best here with everyone you disagree with .

As for Dave's photoshopped orange dot , it shows much LESS DETAIL than the Aulis study and is NOT a match for the Apollo 12 spotlight in any respect ..

If Jack had posted that study , trying to prove a certain point AGAINST the Apollo photographty, Dave would have just called the orange dot " LENS FLARE ", like he has done in the past ... So that makes his study just more game playing nonsense .

You stated in one of your posts that it's impossible to tell the difference between the real Sun from an artificial light source in photographs .... I find that statement very curious though , as I think the difference is obvious .

Edited November 12, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

No , I think that Whizzkid Dave needs to get his eyes examined .... You asked which study reveals more detail ? ... The one from Aulis does of course !

Duane, you can insist on seeing something else if you must, but the evidence quite clearly suggests otherwise.

Look at the original spotlight photo and you will see that it shows about five rings surrounding the center white "hot spot" ... The study fron Aulis shows the EXACT SAME five rings .

The whole point of using image manipulation sopftware in this manner is to reveal detail that can't easily be seen in the original due to regions of low contrast. Being able to make out five rings in the original photo is quite an impressive feat. I find it very difficult to make out detail in the original - hence the need to adjust the contrast range using software.

Your study however , only shows a dark green mass , with your not originally seen orange dot in the middle of it ... So your study has far LESS detail and therefore is far LESS credible, as it is NOT a match for the original photograph in ANY respect .

That's the whole point - the contrast range in the original image is too low to make out detail! It's highlighted like that because it's much brighter than the surrounding area. That's because the central circle shows where the light source is. It fits very well with the known angular size of the sun. And it doesn't fit very well with the Aulis "huge superlight" theory, and your more recent claim about "flashlights on a piece of paper".

For you and anyone else who isn't convinced, I've revisited the study so it also brings out the detail that you claim is present in the Aulis study and not mine, while still showing that the central bright region is far smaller than Aulis claim.

I'll ask you again, which study shows more detail? Which study is more likely to show how large the light-source is?

Here's a simple guide on how to replicate the enhancement I've done to this image. That should be enough so satisfy anyone that the detail has been revealed, NOT added.

This assumes you are using Paint.NET, free image enhacement software for Windows.

1. Save the following image to your harddrive - ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS17_AS17-134-20410.JPG (NOTE: if the image is not available you'll need to request it from the FTP server again, alternatively there is a crop of the region in question available here).

2. Open the image in Paint.NET

3. Select Adjustments, Curves on the menu bar. (Ensure the RGB transfer map is selected in the drop-down box in the left-hand upper corner of the information box that opens up.

4. Left click and hold anywhere on the grid, then drag the mouse-pointer until the value indicated in the upper right of the Curves window pane is shown as (235,0). Here's a before and after comparison:-

As simple as that. If anyone tries this and has problems with it, let me know. That includes you Duane - I want to help you understand this, not make you look stupid.

[Duane Daman]

Well, if these photos were taken in a studio setting, then it can't be due to atmospheric particles either, since the spotlight is only going to be a few feet away! And that's disregarding the claim that the soundstages were set up in huge vacuum chambers. Either way, whether shot on a soundstage, in a vacuum chamber, or on the moon, the effect seen is nothing to do with atmospheric particles. Factors that DO play a rather important role are the number of camera aperture blades, the aperture setting, the lens design (including quality of coatings etc), exposure time, dust on lens, film type used, brightness of light source. (Incidentally, a polarising filter would also have an effect on the lens flare - as far as I know there were none used on the moon, but the CSM windows had a polarising coating IIRC which may well account for the slight differences seen in the Apollo 11 photo of the sun which don't show the round flare visible in the surface photos.

This frame grab is from the Apollo 14 DAC footage up the cone crater moon set..... The blue lens flare would suggest tungsten-i.e. artificial lighting.

[Craig Lamson]

This frame grab is from the Apollo 14 DAC footage up the cone crater moon set..... The blue lens flare would suggest tungsten-i.e. artificial lighting.

Oh for gods sakes Duane, you have just hit an all time low on the ignorance scale.....

I can't wait to see the amazing story you will need to invent out of thin air to expalin this major screwup.

[Craig Lamson]

The color photos don't look much like these back and white ones .

But I will take your word for it that they are from the same series .

What? The photo expert Duane Daman is confused? I'm shocked.

Jack has already explained the difference between camera exposure flare and atmopheric halos caused by ice particles in the air , so why do you want me to repeat it ? ... So you can play another game with that and ridicule me also ?

Jack didn't explain anything. He waved his hand and the ignorant bobbed their silly little heads. If jack "explained" everything how do "ice particles in air" explain the halo in the image I posted in Daves post? Oh yea, you can't.

I know one of your tactics here is to play mind games by twisting your opponents words around to have the opposiite meaning , but when someone puts a certain word in quotes , like Jack did with "air" on the Moon , it means the EXACT OPPOSITE ! ... As in NO AIR ... but of course you knew that , right ?

Jack made a stupid statement, live with it.

I never did any experiments with a camera in the past because there was no point in wasting my time doing so ... I am no photographer and all you would have done is post more insults to me ... Something you do best here with everyone you disagree with .

What? Waste of time? LEARNING THE TRUTH IS A WASTE OF TIME NOW? You claim you are no photographer yet you also claim the ability to see "faked images" with ease. Care to tell us all how that is possible? Its a real shame you are so dead set against finding the real truth and so willing to follow the quacks without question.

As for Dave's photoshopped orange dot , it shows much LESS DETAIL than the Aulis study and is NOT a match for the Apollo 12 spotlight in any respect ..

Daves image shows us FAR MORE detail in the important area of the image...the area where the sun is, than the image provided by Aulis, which takes that important detail and thows it AWAY to fool the ignorant.

If Jack had posted that study , trying to prove a certain point AGAINST the Apollo photographty, Dave would have just called the orange dot " LENS FLARE ", like he has done in the past ... So that makes his study just more game playing nonsense .

Lens flare is a big part of the image in question, like it or not. It's nonsense to dismiss it.

You stated in one of your posts that it's impossible to tell the difference between the real Sun from an artificial light source in photographs .... I find that statement very curious though , as I think the difference is obvious .

You do? And how is it you can tell one light source from another? Please don't tell me its that crap posted by St. Mark! Now THAT would just make my day. So please show us your expertise in the subject of light...

Edited November 12, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

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

Flare:

http://www.answers.com/flare&r=67

Glare:

http://www.answers.com/glare&r=67

Jack: ZERO, the rest of us:1

Please try again next time.