sometimes

I think the light reflected off the moon obscures the stars.

Shopped out.

Exposure setting, to see the stars the earth would look like a flaming green orb.
Same reason you don't see stars during the day, they don't magically go away

>>688977
Look closely, there are tiny specks in the background. You don't see them well because of the intense luminosity of the lunar surface being hit by the sun.

>>689009
You need to clean your monitor. It's plain black.

Hmm...multiple ways to take this pic.

1. "They" weren't actually on the moon when pic was took
2. Moon has actually has a undisclosed rarefied atmosphere that obscured light from stars, but not earth since it dominates the skyline
3. Sun's reflection on earth/moon.

Let's play the "where is the sun game"

Are there any pictures taken of the stars from the moon?
With the correct exposure and whatnot?

>>689013
you're a moron

>>689012
Zoom in. What are you, blind?

>>689013
Behind.

Seriously guys, basic principle of photography here, if you want to see something faint you need a long exposure.

>>689028
Captain, THAR BE STARS!

>>689014
I don't think there are. We'll have to wait 20 years to get any.

>>689059
Wouldn't it have been worthwhile to take some?

>>689009

I can't tell if those are stars or FUCKING JPEG ARTIFACTS

>>689080
Why? That picture is amazing.

>>689080
Outside dawn / sunset, you'd either burn to death or freeze to death.

see all those little tiny specks that look like dust in the black areas? those are stars and galaxies bro!

Notice how a bunch of the fucking earth is missing. Same reason stars are missing.

>>689106
It's night time in the stars?

The moon doesn't look anywhere near that big from earth. Why does the earth look so huge from the moon?

>>689122
Maybe because it's 6 times as big?

>>689090
It is, as are nearly all the shots taken on the moon/in orbit etc. I guess they only have a limited amount of time and lots of shit they need to get done.
Just thought you could get some astounding pictures.

>>689091

>>689122

Yeah. How could that possibly be?

>>689132
Well, at least we have this. This picture really is breathtaking. Imagine if you could be there when you took that.
Lol, I bet when the astronauts had to leave, they were like little kids being told to leave LEGO Land.

"But, can't we stay a little longer?"

Beautiful.

>>689132

They took a lot of pictures, but a lot of them were on a propriety storage device and guess what, they didn't keep it in working condition. Apparently, a woman who worked at NASA kept the tapes in her fucking garage for over 2 decades.

>>689009
As a camerafag, I'm willing to say half of that is film grain. But yes, some of them are stars.

To anybody who actually believes this is a problem: when you next have free time, try to take a clear, crisp picture of the moon (any point-and-shoot will do). A lot of people get the false assumption that they need a slow exposure, because its so dark at night. On the contrary, you'll find you need a fairly quick exposure (or fairly closed aperture). It's a bright dot on a dark background, and it'll be very easy to saturate that small point.

>>689122
Because the Earth is larger than the moon, and because there wasn't any atmosphere getting in the way. The Earth and the moon would have the same apparent magnitude when viewed from an equal distance away if they had the same size, but the moon is just... smaller. It's like looking at a watermelon from 5 feet away and a grapefruit from the same distance and wondering why the grapefruit is smaller.


The atmosphere reduces the apparent magnitude of distant objects.

>>689129
>>689211
...Alright. This makes sense. Thanks.

>>689172
There are surprisingly few images that i can find by googling about. Were these images not considered important enough to make copies of?

If I could go into the distant past and take one thing with, it would be this picture.

I'd just walk around showing it to everyone, get some great reaction faces...or none at all.

>>689226
Believe it or not, being an astronaut does not make you a good photographer. The vast majority of their photographs were of completely uninteresting subjects, or poorly taken. It was only through the raw volume of pictures they took that gems crept up.

This is true for even professional photographers (I'll normally only keep 15-20 photos out of sets of 400 or more)

>>689148
Heh? The temperature of the moon is 120 C at noon, -100 C at night. The only way an astronaut is going to take a picture from the surface is either at dawn or at sunset. Look at the position of the sun in the pictures.

Having the sun either at your back or in front of you is always going to screw up dim objects.

>>689244
It would be awesome to take some pictures on the moon.

>>689244
Truth. While the astronauts received extensive training (well, a few weeks' worth, IIRC) on how to use the hardware (custom made to be mounted on their chests and there was only a single dial and a single button), there was no view finder or anything. The only reason we have any impressive shots is because there were so many photos taken.

>>688977

Did you even fucking look at the picture? There's stars in it you fuckwit.

Furthermore, it doesn't take anything beyond journeyman seventh grade tier science to understand that the sun fucking SHINES.

I hate kids.

>>689348
That, and because Zeiss knows a thing or two on how to build a camera. 50mm f/0.7. After their use on the moon, Stanley Kubrick bought them so he could shoot Barry Lyndon by CANDLELIGHT. Good God.

>>689393

Ah yeah. Watched that with my GF last week and was like "Look!! They're filming with only candlelight!!!"