Apollo 11 Hasselblad photos.

skyrick · Jul 14, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/science/20090713-moon-landing-hasselblad-photos/index.html

You've gotta love the NY Times. Even though they no longer even have a darkroom in the building, they keep on giving us access to some great photos; either via their Lens blog or articles like this.

Rick

Sirius Glass · Jul 14, 2009

Thanks,

Steve

Jeff Kubach · Jul 14, 2009

I enjoyed those photos, thanks Rick!

Jeff

nocrop · Jul 14, 2009

Anybody know what film and lenses they used?

AgX · Jul 14, 2009

Lenses:

Zeiss (Oberkochen) Biogon 60mm, Planar 80mm, Planar 100mm and UV-Sonnar 105.

The camera with the reseau-plate only took the Biogon. Which was recalculated, not at least due the distorting refraction of the plate.

Films:

Ektachrome MS (SO)

(Ektachrome EF (SO); maybe)

High Resolution Aerial color film (SO)

Panatomic X Aerial

High Speed Recording

All films on PET base and all emulsions in use outside of the Apollo project before. (I can't specify on Apollo 11)

Anscojohn · Jul 14, 2009

skyrick said:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/science/20090713-moon-landing-hasselblad-photos/index.html

******
Ah, c'mon, everyone knows all that was done on a sound stage in Burbank.

Q.G. · Jul 14, 2009

Yep.
But what film and lenses were used?

nocrop · Jul 14, 2009

AgX, that is one authoritative answer. Thanks!

Wade D · Jul 15, 2009

The astronauts left the cameras on the moon so they could bring back more rocks.
Maybe next time I'm there I'll bring back a few of them. Would be worth a fortune now. Oh, I forgot, I don't have a space ship.:rolleyes:
BTW great images from NYT now that I'm back to reality.

Samuel Hotton · Jul 15, 2009

Does anyone know what the exposure would be required on the surface of the moon sunlit side? Is it brighter than EV 15, sunny f16 rule?
Sam H.

Willie Jan · Jul 15, 2009

Samuel Hotton said:
Does anyone know what the exposure would be required on the surface of the moon sunlit side? Is it brighter than EV 15, sunny f16 rule?
Sam H.

Best way is to take a piece of grass in the shadow and set it into zone V.
Or measure the clouds.

It is closer to the sun, so maybe it's 1/10 stop higher than on earth.

Lightproof · Jul 15, 2009

Zone System on the moon, great! Also the question comes to mind wheter or not reduced gravity will affect mirror slap issues.

The lack of atmosphere is the main issue. I think its much more than a 1/10 stop difference.
Remember, we can use the reflected light of the moon for taking photographs on earth.
This light source has just about 30 arc minutes of diameter - so it must be pretty bright up there. I bet they used some strong ND filters.

polyglot · Jul 17, 2009

Sun to Earth: 149x10^6 km, Earth to moon: 384x10^3 km so the moon will be at less than 1/500 closer to or further from the sun as it orbits earth, most of the time a lot less. So we're talking about a ratio of illumination from the sun of 1.002^2 or 0.998^2, which is basically none whatsoever.

Atmospheric attenuation on a clear sunny day is likewise fairly irrelevant in the visual bands, otherwise you wouldn't be able to easily see 20km from the top of a mountain! There's not much atmosphere above 20km and pretty much all of it above 2km is thinner and cleaner than the grubby bottom-1km that you're looking through horizontally. I think the main difference would be that blue light will not be scattered out and then back in from another direction - better colour balance between the bright and shadowed sides of things with perhaps a more blue cast overall but probably less than you'd adjust out while printing.

Sunny-16 rule would work fine outside the vehicles I'm sure. I understand that moon rock is pretty pale stuff though and we're also taking photos of white spacesuits and spacecraft, so maybe they used a bit less exposure than sunny-16 to prevent blown highlights... but in some of those shots you can see the bright side of the suits are blown so maybe not.

Photo Engineer · Jul 17, 2009

Pictures can only be taken during the 14 earth day Lunar daylight. At other times, the surface of the moon that we can visit and see is only illuminated by reflected earthlight and is too cold for our astronauts and so we only visit during the lunar "day". This will eventually change, but that is the way it was. As for the light, the UV was one of the big problems as it was hard to guage the effect on color film. The normal metering system would work otherwise, so the cameras had HA-3 (High Altitude 3) UV or equivalent over the lens.

NASA has announced that they have erased some 1,000 or more video tapes of the data from the Apollo flights, and the USAF has lost most of the photos taken from ground based cameras. The University of Central Florida is working with groups of us who worked there at the time to estimate how much was lost and what can be recovered. No one knows why these historical documents got such treatment.

PE

Sirius Glass · Jul 17, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
NASA has announced that they have erased some 1,000 or more video tapes of the data from the Apollo flights, and the USAF has lost most of the photos taken from ground based cameras. The University of Central Florida is working with groups of us who worked there at the time to estimate how much was lost and what can be recovered. No one knows why these historical documents got such treatment.

PE

A terrible loss and yet the digisnappers tell us that their photographs will last forever without backing up the files!

Steve

neelin · Jul 17, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
NASA has announced that they have erased some 1,000 or more video tapes of the data from the Apollo flights, and the USAF has lost most of the photos taken from ground based cameras. *****No one knows why these historical documents got such treatment.*****
PE

Aaaah....that would be to fuel the next generation of lame conspiracy documentaries of how the moon shots were a hoax and new analysis techniques would have revealed the truth. :0

Photo Engineer · Jul 17, 2009

The tapes that still exist are undergoing enhancement under contract to NASA. Some are complete. So far, they have gotten good reviews.

PE

tjaded · Jul 17, 2009

At a recent photo exhibit I read that during a NASA mission one of the astronauts accidentally let go of a Hasselblad, which is now orbiting the earth. Take that Sputnik!

BrianShaw · Jul 17, 2009

tjaded said:
At a recent photo exhibit I read that during a NASA mission one of the astronauts accidentally let go of a Hasselblad, which is now orbiting the earth. Take that Sputnik!

That was along time ago. It probably de-orbited already and burned up in a brief but spectacular fireball.

Fotogeorge · Jul 17, 2009

skyrick said:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/science/20090713-moon-landing-hasselblad-photos/index.html

You've gotta love the NY Times. Even though they no longer even have a darkroom in the building, they keep on giving us access to some great photos; either via their Lens blog or articles like this.

Rick

I wonder if the studio, where NASA shot the images with the H-blad, is still available for another landing. I understand that NASA destroyed 45 original, downloaded videotapes of the moon landing. Supposedly, it was a grave mistake, or was it just a case of destroying the evidence. Sure is lucky, that NASA still has the H-blad images. I notice that the image of the landing foot shows that there wasn't any moon dust on the landing pad. I find it surprising that the radiation, that exists on the moon didn't damage the MF film. It is a shame that they didn't return with the H-blad, so that someone could examine the camera for dust and radiation contamination, and see how the film was protected from the radiation. There is a long history of LBJ lies, like his his silver star award, college days, Kennedy assasination cover-ups, and the Tonkin Gulf incident. It will knock you over if you go ahead and read some books on the LBJ biography. The moon landing is just another LBJ manufactured lie. I personally, don't believe there were any moon landings.

Andy K · Jul 17, 2009

I think, given the political climate of the time, the various wars-by-proxy being fought between the USA and the USSR, if the moon landings were being faked, they would have been quickly debunked by the Soviets.

chriscrawfordphoto · Jul 17, 2009

Fotogeorge said:
I wonder if the studio, where NASA shot the images with the H-blad, is still available for another landing. I understand that NASA destroyed 45 original, downloaded videotapes of the moon landing. Supposedly, it was a grave mistake, or was it just a case of destroying the evidence. Sure is lucky, that NASA still has the H-blad images. I notice that the image of the landing foot shows that there wasn't any moon dust on the landing pad. I find it surprising that the radiation, that exists on the moon didn't damage the MF film. It is a shame that they didn't return with the H-blad, so that someone could examine the camera for dust and radiation contamination, and see how the film was protected from the radiation. There is a long history of LBJ lies, like his his silver star award, college days, Kennedy assasination cover-ups, and the Tonkin Gulf incident. It will knock you over if you go ahead and read some books on the LBJ biography. The moon landing is just another LBJ manufactured lie. I personally, don't believe there were any moon landings.

Nixon was president during the first moon landing and all of the ones that followed.

jamusu · Jul 17, 2009

I believe they were fake also. My main reason is due to the fact that technology has advanced by quantum leaps and bounds since we first supposedly landed on the moon, but have yet to return. Why have we not returned? Maybe it's because we have never been there.

Jamusu.

PeteZ8 · Jul 17, 2009

jamusu said:
I believe they were fake also. My main reason is due to the fact that technology has advanced by quantum leaps and bounds since we first supposedly landed on the moon, but have yet to return. Why have we not returned? Maybe it's because we have never been there.

Jamusu.

At the time it was a technology race with Russia. The moon was a finish line, and we had to beat them there. Since then the focus of the space program has changed dramaticly and NASA budgets have been slashed.

If you really understand the history of the USA and the Cold War, it makes perfect sense.

PeteZ8 · Jul 17, 2009

Fotogeorge said:
I wonder if the studio, where NASA shot the images with the H-blad, is still available for another landing. I understand that NASA destroyed 45 original, downloaded videotapes of the moon landing. Supposedly, it was a grave mistake, or was it just a case of destroying the evidence. Sure is lucky, that NASA still has the H-blad images. I notice that the image of the landing foot shows that there wasn't any moon dust on the landing pad.

Why would there be dust on the landing pads? There is no atmosphere to kick up dust.

Personally would find NOT going to the moon to be more unbelievable. The amount of people required to propogate the hoax would be unsurmountable. Why so many people would take that to their grave is beyond me.

There would just be too many people involved to keep the secret.

Apollo 11 Hasselblad photos.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency