We Never Went to the Moon

[Craig Lamson]

Dr. Jones was only addressing the assertions made by his opponent ... He didn't make the claim that multiple light sources were necessarily used on the moon set , but rather refuted the evidence proposed that it couldn't be possible to use mulitple light sources without producing multiple shadows .

He explained that if the master and slave lights had the proper balance , multiple shadows would not occur ... but I can't prove whether this is correct information or not .

And this is what I consider nit picking , because Dr. Jones rebutted his opponent on so many other more important issues , but you only focused in on this one issue because , being a photographer , you could play a game with this .

I , on the other hand, would have no way of knowing how many lights were used on the moon sets or where they may have been placed to not create mulitiple shadows .

I have seen the evidence though , that artificial lighting was used in the form of a huge spotlight to represent the sun ... and this explained the many lighting anomalies which are evident in the Apollo photos .

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.

[Jack White]

Dr. Jones was only addressing the assertions made by his opponent ... He didn't make the claim that multiple light sources were necessarily used on the moon set , but rather refuted the evidence proposed that it couldn't be possible to use mulitple light sources without producing multiple shadows .

He explained that if the master and slave lights had the proper balance , multiple shadows would not occur ... but I can't prove whether this is correct information or not .

And this is what I consider nit picking , because Dr. Jones rebutted his opponent on so many other more important issues , but you only focused in on this one issue because , being a photographer , you could play a game with this .

I , on the other hand, would have no way of knowing how many lights were used on the moon sets or where they may have been placed to not create mulitiple shadows .

I have seen the evidence though , that artificial lighting was used in the form of a huge spotlight to represent the sun ... and this explained the many lighting anomalies which are evident in the Apollo photos .

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

[Craig Lamson]

Dr. Jones was only addressing the assertions made by his opponent ... He didn't make the claim that multiple light sources were necessarily used on the moon set , but rather refuted the evidence proposed that it couldn't be possible to use mulitple light sources without producing multiple shadows .

He explained that if the master and slave lights had the proper balance , multiple shadows would not occur ... but I can't prove whether this is correct information or not .

And this is what I consider nit picking , because Dr. Jones rebutted his opponent on so many other more important issues , but you only focused in on this one issue because , being a photographer , you could play a game with this .

I , on the other hand, would have no way of knowing how many lights were used on the moon sets or where they may have been placed to not create mulitiple shadows .

I have seen the evidence though , that artificial lighting was used in the form of a huge spotlight to represent the sun ... and this explained the many lighting anomalies which are evident in the Apollo photos .

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.

[Duane Daman]

Fascinating evidence there craig ...

Oh by the way ... I have some phony Apollo photo evidence coming soon that is going to completely blow away your BS of the Apollo photos being real and really taken on the moon .

Nice snow ... Very pretty .

[Craig Lamson]

Fascinating evidence there craig ...

Oh by the way ... I have some phony Apollo photo evidence coming soon that is going to completely blow away your BS of the Apollo photos being real and really taken on the moon .

Nice snow ... Very pretty .

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".

[Craig Lamson]

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.

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

Edited February 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

Where exactly is the second shadow in this photo ? .... I only see one .

"(BTW this was taken in a studio and the sky was added in post production)"

You mean like with the Apollo photographs ?

Edited February 21, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Where exactly is the second shadow in this photo ? .... I only see one .

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.

"(BTW this was taken in a studio and the sky was added in post production)"

You mean like with the Apollo photographs ?

Why no, the Apollo photographs were taken on the moon.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

"Why no, the Apollo photographs were taken on the moon. "

You left out the word set after moon .... Yes, I know the Apollo photos were taken on moon sets and the black sky added in post production , but what has that to do with multiple shadows ?

When you said mulitple shadows , I thought you were going to show multiple shadows on the main snow clump in the sunlight ... Not imaginary shadows of the clumps in the shade .

So excactly how have you refutted Jack's evidence ? .... He explained in great detail how a good photographer could have balanced the stage lighting to not show any multiple shadows .

[Craig Lamson]

"Why no, the Apollo photographs were taken on the moon. "

You left out the word set after moon .... Yes, I know the Apollo photos were taken on moon sets and the black sky added in post production , but what has that to do with multiple shadows ?

When you said mulitple shadows , I thought you were going to show multiple shadows on the main snow clump in the sunlight ... Not imaginary shadows of the clumps in the shade .

So excactly how have you refutted Jack's evidence ? .... He explained in great detail how a good photographer could have balanced the stage lighting to not show any multiple shadows .

You didn't READ did you. You just bumped along not understanding in the least.

First of all Jack "explained" nothing. He wrote a bunch of words that simply are not true. I've posted two examples of how mulit shaodws show up in images and more importantly HOW TO FIND THE...WHERE TO LOOK.

In the snow photo ther are two lights...the sun...and the wide open blue sky. The light from the blue sky is only about 18% of the intensity of the sun...so much for Jack's "balance". The light from the blue sky is as near to a 'non directional" lightsource as you can get and yet it cast a nice soft shadow...so much for Jack's "non-directional" argument.

Nope he has been shown to be wrong once again. Two lights, two shadows. You guys wanna try again?

Oh and BTW, if you look at the shadow side of the clump of snow in the sunlight, you can see that this shadow is illuminated by the open blue sky ( you can tell because the shadow is ...well...blue). In this are of blue is the texture of the snow, texture you can see BECSUE THERE ARE SHADOWS created by the open blue sky. So there you go, double shadows on the sunlit clump of snow.....

[Duane Daman]

You keep talking about the open blue sky being a second light source to the sun in this photo , but there was no open blue sky on the moon , so the second light source would then be the Earth shine right ?

And I have read that even the lunar surface is a light source .... So on the moon , there are three light sources ... The Sun , the Sun's reflection off of Earth and the glass filled dirt of the lunar surface ....

So if there are three light sources on the moon and three light sources cause mulitple shadows , then why are there no multiple shadows in the Apollo photos ?

[Duane Daman]

bump

[Craig Lamson]

You keep talking about the open blue sky being a second light source to the sun in this photo , but there was no open blue sky on the moon , so the second light source would then be the Earth shine right ?

And I have read that even the lunar surface is a light source .... So on the moon , there are three light sources ... The Sun , the Sun's reflection off of Earth and the glass filled dirt of the lunar surface ....

So if there are three light sources on the moon and three light sources cause mulitple shadows , then why are there no multiple shadows in the Apollo photos ?

You are right there is no blue sky on the moon.

And you are right that the lunar surface is a light source, as is the photographer/astronaut ina white space suit, as is the gold mylar of the LM etc in certain situations. And there ARE instances of multiple shadow in the Apollo images...from the light sources mentioned and all in the correct places.

[Duane Daman]

Well if there are multiple shadows in the Apollo photos which were caused by at least three different light sources , then why couldn't those extra light sources be studio lighting , all in the correct places ?

I think you just refuted your own argument .

[Craig Lamson]

Well if there are multiple shadows in the Apollo photos which were caused by at least three different light sources , then why couldn't those extra light sources be studio lighting , all in the correct places ?

I think you just refuted your own argument .

You "think" wrong.

You simply fail to understand....again.

They are not "studio lighting" because they don't fit the profile of studio lighting...they fit the profile EXACTLY of the items on the moon or the lunar surface.