My highest resolution and most detailed shots of the moon came from a (unfortunately non-alt) 17-40L. At 17mm (300D full frame): http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20100722_moon_closeup.jpg
moving some of the moon closer to the camera helps
(Johnson Space Center moonrock preparation facility, Houston, TX)
mpmendenhall wrote:
My highest resolution and most detailed shots of the moon came from a (unfortunately non-alt) 17-40L. At 17mm (300D full frame): http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20100722_moon_closeup.jpg
moving some of the moon closer to the camera helps
(Johnson Space Center moonrock preparation facility, Houston, TX)
So what, who cares if it's non-alt... post it up anyway bro!
I think as long as it's a comparative or referential post it's no problem. I think the forum segregations are mostly for thread starters. I doubt it's meant to stifle analyses.
EDIT: Oh, 17mm... OK, I get it. Im slow but I get there eventually... Usually.
Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8 Aspherical ($17 in the lens shop).
The Conclusion:
This is like $7 over my usual expenditure for a lens (hehe ) but when I tested it in the shop I was seriously impressed with it's sharpness at 28mm and at 100mm. So I splurged. The moon shot was taken while the sky was still blue a little so I dunno if it's that or what but it doesn't seem so sharp to me. In the shop I was going, like, wow, zeiss-like... Whatever, after I got it home (yesterday) I took another 300 shots with it and looked at them on the computer. There's a slight edge-contrast-flare (halo) at f/3.8 but it's gone by f/5.6 - and the images I took were very very sharp. The aperture ring on this lens has mid-stop clicks too and there's enough room between clicks that it can be used stoplessly. In all, it's very worth $17 IMO.
BTW, I can't believe I'm saying this about a Tamron lens. Every Tamron I've had in the past has been a loser! I even usually refer to Tamron lenses as Tamp... well, you get the idea anyway.
mpmendenhall wrote:
It would be interesting to see the moon shots posted in color --- that also tells a lot about lens aberrations. I'll try and see if I can post anything tonight, but it's been kind of hazy around here recently.
That was very funny but I wonder if you know that the popular stock NASA pic you posted, supposedly showing Buss Aldrin on the Moon, and supposedly taken by Neil Armstrong, is actually one of the best bits of photographic evidence that they never actually went to the Moon at all?
You just have to know what to look for:
1) The large and very obvious Hasselblad cameras used by the Astronauts were bolted to the chestplates of their spacesuits, to keep their hands free, but the reflection in the visor shows that Neil, or whoever actually took it, did'nt have a camera!
2) The horizon reflected in the visor is in the wrong place as it should actually be reflected somewhat higher up in the Visor...To get it in that position the lens/camera would have had to be some 12 feet above the ground, yet the reflection shows "Neil" standing on ground at the same level as Buzz is standing on!
3) Due to weight constraints, no artificial lighting apperatus could be taken to the Moon and therefore the only light source available to the Astronauts was light from the Sun. Obviously that light would have been bright and of even brightness over the whole Sea of Tranquility area and for several hundred or even thousands of miles around it. Strange then that the "sunlight" deminishes extremely rapidly, which can be measured in feet and yards, the further away it is from Buzz!...The only logical answer is that he was standing under a spotlight, in a Studio, right down here on Earth!
4) The "sunlight" spotlighting Buzz is up and behind his left shoulder, meaning he would be nothing but a Silhouette to Neil, yet we can clearly see the whole of the front of him!...Clear evidence of the use of studio fill lights!
Anyway, back to the Moon shots...
Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8 Aspherical ($17 in the lens shop).
The Conclusion:
This is like $7 over my usual expenditure for a lens (hehe ) but when I tested it in the shop I was seriously impressed with it's sharpness at 28mm and at 100mm. So I splurged. The moon shot was taken while the sky was still blue a little so I dunno if it's that or what but it doesn't seem so sharp to me. In the shop I was going, like, wow, zeiss-like... Whatever, after I got it home (yesterday) I took another 300 shots with it and looked at them on the computer. There's a slight edge-contrast-flare (halo) at f/3.8 but it's gone by f/5.6 - and the images I took were very very sharp. The aperture ring on this lens has mid-stop clicks too and there's enough room between clicks that it can be used stoplessly. In all, it's very worth $17 IMO.
BTW, I can't believe I'm saying this about a Tamron lens. Every Tamron I've had in the past has been a loser! I even usually refer to Tamron lenses as Tamp... well, you get the idea anyway. ...Show more →
Nice images guys! I tested another lens last night. It's fairly unique I think. Great contrast and DR from this lens and the street photography I did with it some hours prior came out all crisp and creamy with beautiful color rendition! Funny enough I can't find this particular model mentioned anywhere on-line. Other similar models get bad reviews but this specific model doesn't seem to have ever been reviewed or mentioned. Pretty weird.
Alf Beharie wrote:
That was very funny but I wonder if you know that the popular stock NASA pic you posted, supposedly showing Buss Aldrin on the Moon, and supposedly taken by Neil Armstrong, is actually one of the best bits of photographic evidence that they never actually went to the Moon at all?
You just have to know what to look for:
1) The large and very obvious Hasselblad cameras used by the Astronauts were bolted to the chestplates of their spacesuits, to keep their hands free, but the reflection in the visor shows that Neil, or whoever actually took it, did'nt have a camera!...Show more →
The highest resolution image of the Buzz Aldrin photo I could easily find is at wikipedia. I'm sure NASA has a higher res photo on their site, but I didn't find it very easily: link
If you look at the reflection in Aldrin's visor, Armstrong is a white blob. You can't tell what he is or is not holding.
Alf Beharie wrote:
3) Due to weight constraints, no artificial lighting apperatus could be taken to the Moon and therefore the only light source available to the Astronauts was light from the Sun. Obviously that light would have been bright and of even brightness over the whole Sea of Tranquility area and for several hundred or even thousands of miles around it. Strange then that the "sunlight" deminishes extremely rapidly, which can be measured in feet and yards, the further away it is from Buzz!...The only logical answer is that he was standing under a spotlight, in a Studio, right down here on Earth! ...Show more →
The aforementioned picture of Buzz Aldrin is actually doctored (and this is a well known fact) for aesthetic purposes. Here's the original: link
The pack was on the edge of the crop, but many people used a version that was doctored to have some space between the pack and the edge of the crop. Contrast and detail were also enhanced in some fashion, which led to the spotlight look. The original shows that the terrain is, in fact, evenly lit.
Alf Beharie wrote:
4) The "sunlight" spotlighting Buzz is up and behind his left shoulder, meaning he would be nothing but a Silhouette to Neil, yet we can clearly see the whole of the front of him!...Clear evidence of the use of studio fill lights!
Anyway, back to the Moon shots...
The moon's dust is highly reflective, which is why the moon appears very bright during a full moon. The moon dust was reflecting the sun light everywhere, allowing for a fair amount of fill light.
I like conspiracy theories and uncovering actual conspiracies. Like I believe that the US and UK governments are primarily run by a group of rich banking elite the majority of whom worship satan and want to eliminate the majority of life on Earth. I believe this because they say so themselves and because it checks out historically with the public record. But the Moon conspiracy is a disinfo op propagated (and probably devised) by the NSA. Almost every "point" is easily countered and debunked. I don't want to get too specific but my family was very involved with several of the Apollo missions including Apollo 11 - a lot of the involvement was on the engineering side - some was on the actual construction - and yet more was to do with pre-launch operations and preparation. I wasn't that young at the time and my IQ is high - there is little to no question in my mind that we landed on the Moon, got out and walked & drove around. Recent lunar imaging missions have even photographed the debris from those missions. So when I hear someone confessing their belief in that particular conspiracy theory I think: Hahaha, another person suckered and fooled but the NSA disinfo propaganda. What many people seem to miss with images like this is that photography of that day especially for (promotional) public consumption was just as much an art-form as it is today and all of the same techniques were available, vignetting, dodging, burning, spot retouching, color correction and enhancement, contrast manipulation, etc. And you can bet that a photograph like that underwent all of those processes and more. The purpose of that photo is not scientific documentation! Rather it is promotional - to increase public interest - to get more funding for the NASA programs.
If you want a good space conspiracy theory check into the "alien structures" on the dark side and rim areas of the moon. If you want to uncover an interesting conspiracy closely related to NASA during those times check into "operation paperclip", the US governmental and corporate involvement with Hitler's plans and execution thereof, WWII in general, and families involvements from the likes of Bush, Ford, Rockefeller , and etc. But the Moon landing being faked has pretty much been thoroughly debunked and is a dead topic now - to those who stay up on such things. :P
Bifurcator wrote:
If you want a good space conspiracy theory check into the "alien structures" on the dark side and rim areas of the moon. If you want to uncover an interesting conspiracy closely related to NASA during those times check into "operation paperclip", the US governmental and corporate involvement with Hitler's plans and execution thereof, WWII in general, and families involvements from the likes of Bush, Ford, Rockefeller , and etc. But the Moon landing being faked has pretty much been thoroughly debunked and is a dead topic now - to those who stay up on such things. :P
I'm not sure which operation paperclip you're referring to, but the official (at least, unofficial at the time) operation paperclip was to bring German scientists over to the US and have them work on American projects, which I suppose is also devious.
Whatever the case, the best evidence to debunk moon landing conspiracies would be independent efforts (not led by NASA or the US Gov't) to spot NASA equipment (especially the Laser reflectors).
) but when I tested it in the shop I was seriously impressed with it's sharpness at 28mm and at 100mm. So I splurged. 
