Question about stars in photographs in space

Hi John,

I have a couple questions about photography in space. I think you would know better than most. I understand little about photography, besides the simple point and shoot method.

First question: Is it true that when photographing while on the surface of the moon stars do not show within the pictures?

Second question: Would stars show within photographs if taking pictures of a planet outside of its orbit?

I am trying to grasp the reasoning why stars dont seem to be present in photos around a large body, like say, Saturn.

Thanks,
Xia

Originally posted by Xiamen
Hi John,

I have a couple questions about photography in space. I think you would know better than most.

EH ?? Why does he know "better than most"? Im sure he hasnt been trained in any photo techniques other than the 'seeing things that arent realy there" school of misdirection

I am trying to grasp the reasoning why stars dont seem to be present in photos around a large body, like say, Saturn.
Thanks,
Xia

Probably because the brightness of the central object (Saturn) closes down the shutter as too much light would come in and overexpose the image.
Try pointing your camera at a lightbulb and taking a picture and youll see that a lot of the stuff around it will either be dimmed tight down or the entire thing overexposed.

Sir, there are plenty of places online where you can get this information from unbiased, professional sources. As you already stated, you know nothing about photography, so most likely the answer you get, if worded properly, you will believe.

You can do a very simple "point and shoot" example on a clear night in your own neighborhood to answer this question beyond the shadow of a doubt if you are so inclined. I fear you will only get the answer that serves to forward someones ignorant and outlandish agenda when you pose such a question around here.

It all depends on exposure time - if you're focusing on a bright object and/or one close up you would normally have an exposure time too short for stars to appear.

If I photograph the moon (a bright object), I use a fast shutter speed to get a sharp image, but no stars visible around the moon. If I want to capture the stars (fainter objects) I keep the shutter open for as long as possible (and avoid the moon which would otherwise appear seriously overexposed!)

If it's any different in space I'd be interested in knowing why

Here is a GREAT simple write up on the reasons for the lack of stars in most space photos:

www.clavius.org...

Chorlton,

I dont mean to degrade anyone in their understanding of space photography, and I appologize if I had offended you or any others.

Im only implying that he might know a little better since he has been in space himself.

Longer exposure I realize would over-expose surface features and bring the stars forward. Is that also true for photos taken without anything (no moons, planet, ect.) within the foreground?

Whoa, whoa....whoa. John is not the only around here that has been to space, lol.

Seriously, where did you get the idea that John has been to space? His last name is Lear, not Glen.

Originally posted by Xiamen
Chorlton,

I dont mean to degrade anyone in their understanding of space photography, and I appologize if I had offended you or any others.

Im only implying that he might know a little better since he has been in space himself.

I think if you check, he hasnt actually been into space, even though some might say he lives on another planet

:

Longer exposure I realize would over-expose surface features and bring the stars forward. Is that also true for photos taken without anything (no moons, planet, ect.) within the foreground?

Its totally dependant on the exposure time. Photographs of stars are usually taken with long exposure times on moving bases that will track the stars as they move relative to earth.

The link posted by ITF is superb and will explain everythng to you.
www.clavius.org...

Im sorry Im getting things confused here about John. I am jumping the gun here and my thoughts are erratic. My appologies again.

Then my questions are directed to anyone who is, able to answer.

I am fairly new to ATS, a few months fairly new. I misunderstood Johns placement and again am sorry for my mis-information.

But please do not bash me, for Im trying to understand all the new and old information circulating within ATS. My appologies to John and to the ATS community.

Oh, we're not bashing you, just having a little fun. Sorry for the confusion. I commend your quest for further knowledge, and know with certainty that you will find the facts you looking for with due diligence.

Please check the link I listed earlier, that should shed enough light on your original question to pretty much close this thread.

Have fun on ATS, just remember, never loose site of you sense of logic, reason, and your overall ability to use common sense to separate the wheat from the chafe.

[edited because I can't type]

[edit on 26-9-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

thank you for that link, and your patience.

Aren't most pictures of missions on the moon taken during daylight?
Add to that the brightness of the moon's surface reflecting back into space when those pictures are taken, talk about light pollution, the sun's light and it's reflection of the moon! I don't think that the fact that there is no atmosphere, making the sky black, should help in seeing stars. It's daytime and starlight is flooded out.

The full moon's light really doesn't help stargazers down here on earth, especially where there is snow, starlight gets flooded out.


[edit on 28-9-2007 by Wendigo]

It doesn't matter...

Originally posted by Chorlton
EH ?? Why does he know "better than most"? Im sure he hasnt been trained in any photo techniques other than the 'seeing things that arent realy there" school of misdirection

Whether he does or not, this is John Lear's Forum and if members would like to ask him a question, regardless of context they may do so. I might add that those questions can and will be asked without a third party chiming in and questioning the validity of the question, John's ability to answer, or the price of tea in China. If John answers, and you can identify some shortcoming, omission, or downright falsehood then feel free to chime in and point it out to the membership. There is no need for any preemptive dismissal of any member's qualifications.

On a side note, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the Conspiracy Master Initiative.

reply to post by Mirthful Me

It DOES Matter

I have familiarised myself with the Conspiracy Master Initiative. and I cannot see I have done anything wrong.

Quote from SO:
"All members will be able to read the content of this forum, and any member with 200 posts or more can respond to threads."

There is no qualification to that statement other than what one would normally expect from any post. The OP posted and as is my right I responded.

I responded to a thread. It was obvious to me that the OP was misinformed and indeed that was proved correct when he posted that he thought John lear had been into space.

I made no attempt to stop the OP from asking his question as you suggested and I was NOT 'chiming in' I was posting to the thread my opinions or do you consider that anyone responding to any thread in this forum is 'chiming in'?

[edit on 28/9/07 by Chorlton]

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
If John answers, and you can identify some shortcoming, omission, or downright falsehood then feel free to chime in and point it out to the membership.

Do we need to restrict ourselves to only John's falsehoods? If so, that will get terribly monotonous.

Just asking, in my continuous quest for knowledge.......