No Stars seen from Space?

reply to post by r3axion


You are arguing specious semantics, here.....as to the albedo and differing reflectivity levels when comparing the Earth, and the Moon.

Point was that the Earth is certainly reflective enough to have an effect on exposure settings, for photography. Additionally, in the (low quality) photo example, the argument of Earth's alleged atmosphere "absorbing" the light (that was simply nonsensical) is mitigated by the fact that the highly reflective Moon's surface is much close to the camera, in any case.

One only has to examine any number of STS or ISS low Earth orbit photos to see the distinct difference in lighting exposure, from day- to night-side!! The Earthshine is significant.

reply to post by zorgon


What do you get out of shoveling bullcrap? We can clearly visit the site ourselves and see your lies.

reply to post by zorgon

What makes you think the images were either scanned or "adjusted" by NASA?
Have you ever scanned slides? Have you ever improved the aesthetics of an image?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by r3axion

 

You are arguing specious semantics, here.....as to the albedo and differing reflectivity levels when comparing the Earth, and the Moon.

not really.

Point was that the Earth is certainly reflective enough to have an effect on exposure settings, for photography. Additionally, in the (low quality) photo example, the argument of Earth's alleged atmosphere "absorbing" the light (that was simply nonsensical) is mitigated by the fact that the highly reflective Moon's surface is much close to the camera, in any case.

When did I say it doesn't have an effect on exposure settings? I think you need to go back and read what I said. Nonsensical? Are you saying the Earth's atmosphere does not play a role in light absorption, and that said light absorption would not effect exposure?

One only has to examine any number of STS or ISS low Earth orbit photos to see the distinct difference in lighting exposure, from day- to night-side!! The Earthshine is significant.

Yes if the exposure settings aren't correct.

I am just going to assume here that you've never taken a photography class.

reply to post by zorgon


Great question... I almost made a thread around this myself, so I will place this here, I was looking at the pictures that came by in another thread of the back lid of Enceladus. I thought why is it that some pictures are rendered in total blackness and the raw images have stars and other anomalies on it,like this one :


And NASA says,

This image has not been validated or calibrated. A validated/calibrated image will be archived with the NASA Planetary Data System in 2012.

But looking at the other pictures, you only see total blackness , in my IMO they probably render these to make the subject more visible.. and to not raise questions right?

Enceladus

reply to post by 0bserver1

Can you provide an example of an image which shows "total darkness?"
Image ID's would be helpful.

reply to post by Illustronic


Well stars are seen in this NASA image.

history.nasa.gov...

Just have to look hard enough because exposure settings don't let the star light come through to make them extremely noticeable. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're saying. That this image is doctored?

reply to post by r3axion

No.
The image isn't doctored, it's just a dirty scan. Not quite as bad the one you chose for 6549 but if you adjust the brightness and contrast you can see scratches and smudges.

I posted a clean scan of 6550 earlier. No stars.

reply to post by Phage


I see what you're saying now.

Regardless, exposure settings are still credited for the "absence" of stars in the pictures.

reply to post by Phage


Great... battle-ling with phage.. just what I need...well I think I placed context wrong, but if you look at this image you see the leading object,and on the background you see the rings but no stars, whys that?

Moon

reply to post by r3axion

Yes. There is no argument there. In images in which the Earth appears with reasonable size in the frame, or the illuminated surface of the Moon appears, and the image is properly exposed, stars will not appear. They are too dim.

reply to post by 0bserver1

No battle.

Because the rings and the moon are too bright.

I don't think any of you have any idea what your talking about... Until you go to space, you know nothing.... Everybody's just guessing

reply to post by r3axion


You don't see stars until exposure is pushed but the funny thing is the same kinds of star specks are also seen in the earth shadow, Are Those Stars Too?



Yes, it is doctored the moon isn't bright burnt sienna orange.

reply to post by dayve


What better way is to ask an astronaut, and I just did, I asked Andre kuypers if you can see the stars at all times in space, via twitter I hope he replies....

reply to post by dayve

The only people who are guessing are those who haven't much experience with photography.

reply to post by 0bserver1

You need to be more specific. Under some conditions stars would be visible. Under others they would not.
You don't seem to understand the concept and the differences between photography and how the naked eye works.

reply to post by Phage


I know how lighting works, and I know rendering software are applied on daily basis because it sells, but I don't buy everything I see is ultimately also the truth , as for the first picture I recited , at the bottom you the stars shine through the bright moon lit any explanation for that?

to me the exposure and the levels are way down, not even speak about hue and saturation, on the rendered pictures of NASA

reply to post by 0bserver1


In your first image (ID please) the moon is not brightly lit. We are looking at its night side. The only light is from the backlit geyser which, as can be seen in the image with the rings, is not very bright at all.

reply to post by Illustronic


I see what is being said now. I chose a bad set of images.

What matters though, is the point I was making about exposure settings