QUESTION: Where do we see the MOST light fall-off from an illuminated object CLOSER or FURTHER AWAY?

The same question as was probably at the top of the list of the Apollo imaging team before they wrote the first squiggle on the Apollo landings project paper.

Then, they will have spent many years on designing and building and endlessly testing and redesigning equipment that would be able to, and (as we know from the huge photographic record, did) withstand moon surface conditions.

(And, for example, as part of their training and preparations, the astronauts were encouraged to take the cameras out with them frequently and get to the point, which they did, where operating them became second nature).

Isn't this the bleedin' obvious, though? or do you find it credible that they would send astronauts with a bog standard camera, having "forgotten" that it would be being used in space?

By the way, you can see this issue cropping up in many, many Apollo photographs. Just browse the NASA archive and look for yourself.

The same goes for fully illuminated astronauts backlit from behind in an ultra-high contrast environment.

Try matching those photos using a single speedlite set eight or so feet behind the subject in a dark room. Like I said, a speedlite is a good analogue because it is a relativity small light source. Indeed, speedlites are often used to fake the presence of the sun.

This is why I use the term THEATRICAL LIGHTING.

ANSWER: Assuming this is what you mean by "light fall-off", we do NOT see ANY light fall off from an illuminated object CLOSER or FURTHER AWAY, in the sense that the correct exposure for the illuminated object will be the same, whether you are next to it, or whether you move hundreds of metres away from it.

Is this a photography class?

Yeah course they do. They scramble a rocket up their the minute the signal stops transmitting. Thats very cost effective and efficient. Comedy Gold..

Occams says satellites don't exist.Like i proved with my system. The Dish is just an antenna picking up analogue Data from Ground Based Transmitters. Simples...

Wonder how they tested and redesigned to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts twice on each trip......

That at least was straightforward, they calculated the likely exposure to higher radiation levels that would occur and judged it safe. In the (measured) event, each astronaut was exposed to extra radiation roughly equivalent to having a full body CAT scan while passing through the belts. Not great, but no biggie.

Hi Stan.

You need to explain how come you can see with your own eyes every single one of them there satellites from the list I gave you, given that they don't exist. You need to deal with this point before you can ever make another comment about satellites again, as they are there - loads of 'em - every night, identificable, viewable, and this must annoy you greatly as it bursts your "satellites don't exist bubble.

But you have ignored such a list twice now, and this shows you up, as it is a prime example of if you can't answer it or explain it, you just ignore it, and hope it goes away.

But it doesn't.

Sorry to shatter your illusions! Now, about those pesky satellites...?

I can't work out whether you are being deliberately stupid or you really are just stupid. You might even be a stupid person feigning even more stupidity.



Why are you "doing a Stanley", and neither making your actual point, or explaining what the fsck you are trying to say? You posed a question. I answered your question. Unless you are saying my answer is wrong (in which case, a reasonably polite "Actually FA here is your error..." would do. Your Mr. Angry bombast and playground insults are quite embarrassing. You have been known to be capable of debate without such insults. Am I supposed to be crushed, or intimidated, or something? If so - it's not working, you ignorant meathead! Go take your insults and stick em where the sun don't shine.