PDA

View Full Version : The impossible Apollo photo



infocusinc
2002-Apr-20, 01:12 PM
As14-66-9306. The image that is photographically impossible…according to Jack White. Jack has stated that since the lm in this image is properly exposed even thought it is on the shadow side of the sunlight, it cannot be possible photographically. It should be as black as the lunar surface in the shadows. So I sent him the little test below. Perhaps we could all take it here….well everyone but Jay!

Jack,

Here’s a little photographic quiz for you. If you can’t do this simple little project you will never understand why the Apollo photo you say is impossible, is possible.

I want you to take a portrait of a girl in a white shirt. A simple head and shoulders portrait. It is to have a white background and her face must be lit from her right side, and the shadow side cannot be black but must have some detail.

You are in a room with black walls and ceiling and no windows. 20 feet behind the girls is a large piece of gray seamless paper. You have a 35mm camera with a 135mm lens and all the rest of the normal things you would find in a photo studio available to you. In fact you can use anything as long as it is not a light or a window. The camera has asa 400 b/w film loaded.

Are you with me so far? Good.

Now for your lights, or should I say light. You have only one light available. It’s a simple table lamp that has had the shade removed. Its just a standard light bulb and lets say for this exercise its 250 watts.

Now here is the kicker. The light has to be placed behind the girl, midway between her and the gray paper. It must be positioned is such a way that it cannot be seen by the camera.

Now the big question….How do you make the picture?

Since I will not be posting on the Apollo issue at JFK, perhaps you might want to post this simple test for all to try. If not then you just take it. Any photographer worth his salt can solve this simple problem. Can you?

Craig

JayUtah
2002-Apr-20, 04:30 PM
Yes, I know the answer, but I won't say just yet. I just want to point out that you forgot the standard practice of including irrelevant and superfluous supplies that people would be tempted to use, but which won't help.

So say you've also got a bottle of Lea and Perrin's Worcestershire sauce, two hula hoops, and a ring buoy from the Queen Mary available too. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Johnno
2002-Apr-20, 04:46 PM
Who's the girl? Anybody I know?

infocusinc
2002-Apr-20, 04:58 PM
Any of the current sports illustrated swimsuit models would be fine by me!

Johnno
2002-Apr-20, 06:10 PM
as this is a 'family site', I wont comment on that craig /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

JayUtah
2002-Apr-21, 12:28 AM
When Craig said we had to photograph a girl in a white shirt, I refrained from asking whether the shirt was wet or dry. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

johnwitts
2002-Apr-21, 12:30 AM
...for a whole day!

David Hall
2002-Apr-21, 04:06 AM
Hey, I'll take you up on the challenge. Just send me all the photographic equipment and the SI model and I'll give it a shot.

Of course, I'll have to learn how to use the equipment first, and depending on what the model is like, it might take a while to get to the acutal photography but...

infocusinc
2002-Apr-22, 01:20 AM
Ok guys, the short answer here is reflectors. One needs to redirect the light to take the photo, wet shirt or dry.

Jack said reflectors in a round about way but said the moonmen had no reflectors! I had to remind him that thay had miles and miles of reflectors...the lunar surface!

On a side note tonight I was studying As14-66-9306 in Full Moon. I saw something that I had never seen before. In the halo around the sun there are 4 crosshairs. Each one is a double image, that is there are two crosshairs at each location. Anyone understand this?

Craig

JayUtah
2002-Apr-22, 01:48 AM
The replicated crosshairs is on my list to study. My working theory is halation in the reseau plate.

Yes, reflectors are the answer. I'd say silver on the right and gray on the left. The ISO 400 film will wash out the gray background and make it white. The 135mm lens lets you place the camera far enough away from the subject so that you can open up the lens for correct lighting, yet not worry about depth of field.

The lunar surface is like Reflexite. It throws light back the same direction it came from, regardless of the angle of the surface. So Mary Bennett's argument that the optimum reflector angles used in Sky At Night's studios invalidated the experiment is bogus. The porch of the LM is the prime location to catch a lot of light at at the zero phase angle.

Jack White's answer reveals his overly simplistic approach to photography. When you have to pay attention to what light does and how it behaves, you realize that everything's a reflector to some degree. If I'm wearing a white T-shirt while I'm shooting, it's a reflector.

infocusinc
2002-Apr-22, 01:59 AM
Jay,

Have you seen this multi-crosshair thing in other images? If so are the conditions similar?

One quickly learns that when photographing reflective objects its the reflections you are photographing and not the object!

Jack is simplistic. He has just enough knowlege to make him sound informed. The problem I have with this is that EVERYTHING is run through his "the government did it" filter first.

BTW, very good job on the photo test! I was planning on using stainless steel frying pans!

Craig

David Hall
2002-Apr-22, 03:44 AM
On 2002-04-21 21:48, JayUtah wrote:

Yes, reflectors are the answer. I'd say silver on the right and gray on the left. The ISO 400 film will wash out the gray background and make it white. The 135mm lens lets you place the camera far enough away from the subject so that you can open up the lens for correct lighting, yet not worry about depth of field.


I knew that. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Actually, this IS almost exactly what I was thinking, and I have absolutely no experience in photography. It just seems to me to be the logical thing to do, especially after reading so many hoax debunkings. But even if I hadn't read of it before, I think I would have come up with almost the same answer after a little experimenting.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-22, 04:15 AM
I agree with your assessment of Jack White. He can talk the talk, but he can't walk the walk. As such he will probably fool those who aren't planning to question his findings. But where's the fun in that? It's no achievement to prevail against zero opposition. As you've discovered, the true measure of understanding and investigation is the ability to convince those who are predisposed to disagree with you.

Logically, it's just as fallacious to assume the government is always lying as it is to assume it is always telling the truth. Neither is a reliable premise. Therefore trying to bring government's trustworthiness into any of these arguments is just a distraction. Either the information upon which one's argument is based is true and reliable, or it is not.

Let's say your company loses a contract because a crucial document wasn't received by the client. Let's say your employee Smith claims he did it it. But your assistant says, "Smith's a liar; he didn't do it." But you don't have to quibble with your assistant or strap Smith into a polygraph. Whether the document was prepared and whether it was sent are questions whose answer is independent of Smith's claims, or your assistant's opinion. You should pursue methods of investigation that focus on answering the questions that really need answering, not irrelevancies. Did the courier deliver it? Is the document on the company file server? Were copies retained?

I wasn't sure if reflectors were things you considered standard to a photographer's studio, but I guess I could have ripped portions of the seamless gray paper off to use as reflectors.

You want to put them just out of frame on both sides, slightly in front of the subject. You want stronger light on the right, to satsify the constraints of the problem. So either use a stronger reflector on the right, or use equal reflectors and control the light with distance.

As for exposure, I'd have to meter it and then bracket it. People have to remember that unlike eyes, film is cumulative.

Okay, for the fiducials. Note how the ghosted fiducials appear only when the sun is directly photographed. And note how the ghost fiducial is displaced proportionally to its radial distance from the center of the sunburst. The ghost is distinct, which makes it difficult to argue that it's generalized scattering. So we can postulate some specialized scattering.

Like I said, I haven't really collated and characterized everything, so I can't do more than speculate. I merely have a list of likely causes to test.

kucharek
2002-Apr-22, 08:35 AM
On a side note tonight I was studying As14-66-9306 in Full Moon. I saw something that I had never seen before. In the halo around the sun there are 4 crosshairs. Each one is a double image, that is there are two crosshairs at each location. Anyone understand this?

Craig

I recognized this, too, and, as the crosshairs are distorted, I'd guess it has to do with some reflection from the last lens before the reseau plate. The light fall onto the plate, which reflects back some amount, which again is reflected back, distorted, by the surface of the last lens.

Just my two cents

Harald

infocusinc
2002-Apr-22, 01:09 PM
Harold,

Thats pretty much my thinking as well. Since the second set of crosshairs are distorted in a manner that seems to me to be consistant with reflections from a convex surface (last lens element?) I would have to agree.

2002-Oct-20, 01:15 PM
<a name="2-10-20.4FR"> page 2-10-20.4FR aka 4 Flat Rock
On 2002-04-22 09:09, infocusinc wrote: To 2-10-20
this thread was dredged from page 20
today in hopes of {maybe} finding a link
to some Flat Rock photos from the Apallo
site thats near Lunakhod2 site see REDSHIFT
{put a link here or on the next line if exists}
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2333&forum=3#RS2-10-09
(ROOM 4 LINK}
{AND ANOTHER)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-10-20 09:25 ]</font>