3 ms·

> "I was guided throughout by two principles: - be true to the photographs - be true to the Earth [...] The main changes I made were: [...] - adjusting th

by ascar 5y ago

> "I was guided throughout by two principles: - be true to the photographs - be true to the Earth [...] The main changes I made were: [...] - adjusting the black point until the background of space appears truly black" These shots are beautiful, but is making the background completely black really doing reality justice? In our unfortunately light polluted night sky we can barely see the stars, but shouldn't the astronauts see the earth within a shimmer of billion stars? Or is the source material not showing stars due to a lack of exposure?

flohofwoe 5y ago
A bright moon surface and fully lit Earth hanging in the sky is also a sort of "light pollution" for the human eye ;) (at least it will cause the pupil to close and let less light through, tuning out the dim stars, same effect why there are no stars in the moon photos). Of course I haven't been to the moon so far and can't really know what the sky actually looks like during "moon day" :)
enriquto 5y ago
I'm pretty sure that some images have had the blue color enhanced. The oceans look a dullish gray from space, not blue.
astroflask 5y ago
> In our unfortunately light polluted night sky we can barely see the stars, but shouldn't the astronauts see the earth within a shimmer of billion stars? No, you have to be in the night side, or looking into the void (no Earth surface visible, definitely not the Sun in sight, not any part of your spacecraft being shined upon) for your eyes to adjust to the darkness and then you get to see the stars. Being near the Moon, I'd add "no moon surface" to that list. > Or is the source material not showing stars due to a lack of exposure? I'm not sure there... Film behaves differently than image sensors. Maybe if we had access to the negatives you could do some chemical magic to bring in detail. I don't know how hard/destructive that could be on the negatives, as film isn't a medium I've ever really used. Grew up in the 90's with a few film cameras, but digital took over before I had the chance to seriously get into photography and was also far cheaper (so, easier to pick up as a hobby for a teenager). Now I'm into digital image processing and that's a totally different beast on its own.

by ascar 5y ago

flohofwoe 5y ago

A bright moon surface and fully lit Earth hanging in the sky is also a sort of "light pollution" for the human eye ;) (at least it will cause the pupil to close and let less light through, tuning out the dim stars, same effect why there are no stars in the moon photos). Of course I haven't been to the moon so far and can't really know what the sky actually looks like during "moon day" :)

enriquto 5y ago

I'm pretty sure that some images have had the blue color enhanced. The oceans look a dullish gray from space, not blue.

astroflask 5y ago

> In our unfortunately light polluted night sky we can barely see the stars, but shouldn't the astronauts see the earth within a shimmer of billion stars? No, you have to be in the night side, or looking into the void (no Earth surface visible, definitely not the Sun in sight, not any part of your spacecraft being shined upon) for your eyes to adjust to the darkness and then you get to see the stars. Being near the Moon, I'd add "no moon surface" to that list. > Or is the source material not showing stars due to a lack of exposure? I'm not sure there... Film behaves differently than image sensors. Maybe if we had access to the negatives you could do some chemical magic to bring in detail. I don't know how hard/destructive that could be on the negatives, as film isn't a medium I've ever really used. Grew up in the 90's with a few film cameras, but digital took over before I had the chance to seriously get into photography and was also far cheaper (so, easier to pick up as a hobby for a teenager). Now I'm into digital image processing and that's a totally different beast on its own.