Author Topic: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery  (Read 11881 times)

Offline AstroBrant

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Yes, we did.
"Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« on: November 19, 2014, 04:00:51 AM »
A YouTube commenter has given several links to Kipp Teague's gallery:
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html

He's using the pictures as examples of "fall-off." I was immediately struck by the high contrast of the photos and knew they were quite different from the ones found on ALSJ. I told the person to contact the history office, (link is on the gallery web page), and ask Kipp directly for an explanation. Since Kipp is a primary contributor to the ALSJ, he should be able to give the guy a good explanation.

I thought I would come here and ask, optimistic that some of you might already know the answer to why these pictures are so,... well, sorry to say,... poor. Of course, I gave the commenter the explanation for the difference in surface brightness and referred him to the ALSJ versions.

Here are some examples:
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5942a.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5961.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5964.jpg

from Kipp's Image Gallery, versus:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5942.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5961.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5964.jpg


« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 04:03:13 AM by AstroBrant »
May your skies be clear and your thinking even clearer.
(Youtube: astrobrant2)

Offline Bryanpoprobson

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
  • Another Clown
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2014, 05:11:05 AM »
The framing of 5961 and 5964 are off too..
"Wise men speak because they have something to say!" "Fools speak, because they have to say something!" (Plato)

Offline Miss Vocalcord

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2014, 06:11:20 AM »
Since Kipp is a primary contributor to the ALSJ, he should be able to give the guy a good explanation.
I would say he is the one who could give a definite answer, but just looking at the folder ( "ap11ann" ) they are in isn't this
just some selection which they edited specially for the anniversary?
If you look at the root folder ( http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/ ) you can see this was for the 30th anniversary (1999) so I guess these
photo's are at least 15 years old?

Offline Bryanpoprobson

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
  • Another Clown
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2014, 06:30:43 AM »
The copy of AS11-40-5903 in that folder is the PR produced one with the strip of extra sky.
"Wise men speak because they have something to say!" "Fools speak, because they have to say something!" (Plato)

Offline AstroBrant

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Yes, we did.
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2014, 10:02:13 AM »
Since Kipp is a primary contributor to the ALSJ, he should be able to give the guy a good explanation.
I would say he is the one who could give a definite answer, but just looking at the folder ( "ap11ann" ) they are in isn't this
just some selection which they edited specially for the anniversary?
If you look at the root folder ( http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/ ) you can see this was for the 30th anniversary (1999) so I guess these
photo's are at least 15 years old?

That sounds like a very good possibility. If the guy who commented on YouTube doesn't try to contact Kipp, I will.
May your skies be clear and your thinking even clearer.
(Youtube: astrobrant2)

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2014, 12:58:16 PM »
I wonder if at least part of the 'fall off' might be from dry Heiligenschein from all the little glass beads in the lunar regolith from impacts.

Offline AstroBrant

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Yes, we did.
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2014, 01:52:47 PM »
I wonder if at least part of the 'fall off' might be from dry Heiligenschein from all the little glass beads in the lunar regolith from impacts.

Through my reading and conversations on this I'm now of the opinion that it is opposition surge/shadow-hiding. I used to think it was caused by glass inclusions. I believe there's an article somewhere speculating that. Glass spherules may be a contributing factor, but probably not the primary one. I think one reason the shadow-hiding effect is so pronounced on the moon is because the sky is black. Here on earth the bright sky drastically reduces the contrast of shadows.

Anyway, I told the guy that the differences in brightness were due to opposition surge. The pictures in Kipp Teague's archive exaggerate this effect significantly.
May your skies be clear and your thinking even clearer.
(Youtube: astrobrant2)

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2014, 02:22:32 PM »
Yeah, I could see that.

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2014, 07:23:16 AM »
I thought I would come here and ask, optimistic that some of you might already know the answer to why these pictures are so,... well, sorry to say,... poor. Of course, I gave the commenter the explanation for the difference in surface brightness and referred him to the ALSJ versions.

Here are some examples:
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5961.jpg

from Kipp's Image Gallery, versus:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5961.jpg


Those are the old scans which were originally part of the ALSJ and might have been the first ones made for the internet.  Kipp Teague can probably give more information.

The copy of AS11-40-5961 linked above, in the ap11ann folder, is almost identical to the one I have in the CD-ROM version of the ALSJ, dated 1 May 1999 -- the date of the jpeg is 30 March 1999. Going by the fuzziness of the fiducials I'd guess that those scans were made from colour prints or from poor-quality copy transparencies or negatives.

The CD-ROM copy of AS11-40-5964 is equally as poor as the one linked in the OP.

Perhaps, because of our good friend AwE130, I shouldn't reveal that the booklet that came with the CDs has (with an obvious edit) the following dedication:

"For <My Name> with best wishes  -- (signed) Eric M Jones -- 1 July 2004"

Who knows what flow charts I could end up on as part of that thoroughly evil  ApolloHoax/Dwight/Jay/Hengeveld/ALSJ cabal which, in the face of the remarkable evidence put forth by the whispering AwE130 and his multitude of followers, tries to convince the world that the moon-landings happened. :)
« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 07:43:33 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline AstroBrant

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Yes, we did.
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2014, 05:38:51 PM »
There seems to be a consensus developing that these were made on or before 1999 and not just poor reproductions of ALSJ images. I wasn't inclined to believe the latter since Kipp has been so involved in the ALSJ. I guess the high quality images in the ALSJ, made directly from original negatives, came after these images were uploaded, right?

If I was better at computer things I might have been able to figure this out for myself. Thanks for the help.
May your skies be clear and your thinking even clearer.
(Youtube: astrobrant2)

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2014, 05:28:33 AM »
I guess the high quality images in the ALSJ, made directly from original negatives, came after these images were uploaded, right?

Yes, in 2004-2005.  Scans from the original negatives if black-and-white and from transparencies if colour.  Kipp Teague mentions this in his Apollo Archive Update History on his home page,
http://www.apolloarchive.com/

Quote
February 13, 2005 - 220 images added to Apollo Image Gallery, including all 154 images from Apollo 12 film magazine "46/Y," recently digitally scanned by Johnson Space Center directly from the original Hasselblad film roll. Also included are approx. 60 scans from HQ color transparencies, mostly focusing on Apollo 12, 15 and 17 pre-flight and launch activities.

January 15, 2005 - Over 200 images (all scans supplied by Ed Hengeveld) added to Apollo Image Gallery.

October 10, 2004 - 63 images added to Apollo Image Gallery.

July 2004 - 177 images added to Apollo Image Gallery, including all 127 images from Apollo 11 film magazine "S" (the EVA), newly digitally scanned by Johnson Space Center directly from the original film roll.

Prior to that, some of the black-and-white images available online were similar to the poor-quality ones in Michael Light's book Full Moon.  They might have been scanned from badly fogged prints, where the black bleeds into the lighter colours, and might have been printed by someone who smoked in his darkroom, coating his enlarger lens with tar and causing light to spread into dark areas when it shouldn't.

This wasn't uncommon in the 1970s -- the glow of a cigarette was a "safe" light for black and white prints and didn't fog them.

I got similar fogging in my b&w prints when, in my ignorance, I lightly oiled the diaphragm in an enlarger lens which squeaked when it was changed.  The heat of the enlarger lamp later caused the oil to very thinly spread itself over the lens surfaces that were nearest to the diaphragm, and I spent a long time fruitlessly trying to find the cause of the fogging. Finally, I noticed that the fogging affected prints but not proof sheets, so it occurred to me to look into the enlarger lens with a light behind it...

Moral: Never oil any lens.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 05:40:47 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline Bryanpoprobson

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
  • Another Clown
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2014, 09:31:29 AM »
Most enlargers have some falloff around the edges, I used to have a round piece of card on a thin stick, which I used to hold back the centre when exposing films. This, like most things, to do with photography, was less marked the more expensive the kit. The problem stemmed from having a bulb as a light source.

When stepping up to doing COLOUR prints from slide using cibachrome  technology (the temperature was less critical, print from colour negative was a lot more sensitive to temperature variation) this introduced a whole vista of added complications, in terms of setting the filters and of course correcting the exposure. Added to that, I would assume that all the prints were done by one individual, by hand, which means that there is that persons interpretation of the print. It may be that he liked framing the images slightly and deliberately held back the edges. There is a whole world of unknowns, in the way the printing was done. Something I have droned on at length to "so called" photo experts saying that these images, are somehow indicative of some form of fakery.

As an example, the image below took me over 1 hour of individually exposing various areas and holding back others, I had to cut out templates in the end to get it right. Without adding "my interpretation" to the print, the sky would have been totally grey, the buildings in the distance would have been under exposed, you would not have seen the fine wire lines in the sculpture, etc. My main point is, this was done around 1978/80 using technology of the time so in terms of relevance, it is totally relevant.


For anyone interested the extra graining effect was achieved by using a Canon F1 camera, Ilford HP5 film and pushing it to 1600 which makes for a more sharper image but with more graining.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 10:37:35 AM by Bryanpoprobson »
"Wise men speak because they have something to say!" "Fools speak, because they have to say something!" (Plato)

Offline AstroBrant

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Yes, we did.
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2014, 12:09:57 PM »
@Kiwi and Bryan,
I taught graphic arts for many years, which included a unit in photography. So I understand the points you are both making about darkroom procedure and film processing. After initial development of the prints, of course, there was the whole process of publishers duplicating them, transferring them to plates, and running them on presses, all of which involves several more steps.

In fairness, though, most published pictures of the era were very good quality and did not show such contrast effects. It seems limited to Apollo pictures, which is a shame, since they were so important. That leads me to believe that the defect occurred early in the process, at NASA, prior to the release of the images.

Anyway, it is my hope that those who make these "fall-off" claims will compare the high quality scans of 2004 and 2005 to these pictures and summon up enough objectivity to see that they are clearly better quality pictures which reveal more accurately what was in front of the camera.
May your skies be clear and your thinking even clearer.
(Youtube: astrobrant2)

Offline Bryanpoprobson

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
  • Another Clown
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2014, 12:56:47 PM »
Brant have you asked Eric about this? He loves to get his teeth into issues like this. He did a sterling job for me in finding a contamination source for some of the Apollo 16 Mag 116/E in particular. It turned out the crew tried to wipe the camera clean of dust with a damp cloth and accidentally dragged it across the reaseau plate.



"Wise men speak because they have something to say!" "Fools speak, because they have to say something!" (Plato)

Offline AstroBrant

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Yes, we did.
Re: "Fall-off" problems with the Apollo 11 Image Gallery
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2014, 10:10:34 PM »
Brant have you asked Eric about this?

No. Before I do that, I will ask Kipp, but I wanted to give the other guy a chance first.

As for the Apollo 16 defects, I'm guessing that has to do with that ugly smear that appears in so many photos. I wondered what caused that. Amazing how gross it looks just because it was wiped with a wet cloth. It looks more like somebody rubbed it with a hot Tootsie Roll.
May your skies be clear and your thinking even clearer.
(Youtube: astrobrant2)