Apollo 11 Hasselblad photos.

Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by skyrick, Jul 14, 2009.

  1. skyrick

    skyrick Member

    Messages:
    305
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Location:
    Arlington, T
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
  2. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,653
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks,

    Steve
     
  3. Jeff Kubach

    Jeff Kubach Member

    Messages:
    6,930
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Location:
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I enjoyed those photos, thanks Rick!

    Jeff
     
  4. nocrop

    nocrop Member

    Messages:
    99
    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Anybody know what film and lenses they used?
     
  5. AgX

    AgX Member

    Messages:
    12,217
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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)
     
  6. Anscojohn

    Anscojohn Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,727
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
  7. Q.G.

    Q.G. Inactive

    Messages:
    5,682
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Yep.
    But what film and lenses were used?
    :wink:
     
  8. nocrop

    nocrop Member

    Messages:
    99
    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Shooter:
    35mm
    AgX, that is one authoritative answer. Thanks!
     
  9. Wade D

    Wade D Member

    Messages:
    901
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Location:
    Jamul, CA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.:D 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.
     
  10. Samuel Hotton

    Samuel Hotton Member

    Messages:
    359
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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.
     
  11. Willie Jan

    Willie Jan Member

    Messages:
    1,935
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Location:
    Best/The Net
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Best way is to take a piece of grass in the shadow and set it into zone V.
    Or measure the clouds.:D

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

    Lightproof Member

    Messages:
    81
    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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.
     
  13. polyglot

    polyglot Member

    Messages:
    3,472
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    South Austra
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Photo Engineer

    Photo Engineer Subscriber

    Messages:
    25,905
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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
     
  16. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,653
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    A terrible loss and yet the digisnappers tell us that their photographs will last forever without backing up the files!

    Steve
     
  17. neelin

    neelin Member

    Messages:
    91
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Location:
    winnipeg, ca
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    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. :wink: :0
     
  18. Photo Engineer

    Photo Engineer Subscriber

    Messages:
    25,905
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The tapes that still exist are undergoing enhancement under contract to NASA. Some are complete. So far, they have gotten good reviews.

    PE
     
  19. tjaded

    tjaded Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,022
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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!
     
  20. BrianShaw

    BrianShaw Member

    Messages:
    6,716
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That was along time ago. It probably de-orbited already and burned up in a brief but spectacular fireball.
     
  21. Fotogeorge

    Fotogeorge Member

    Messages:
    28
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Location:
    Southern Cal
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I wonder if the studio, where NASA shot the images with the H-blad, is still available for another landing. :wink: 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.
     
  22. Andy K

    Andy K Member

    Messages:
    9,422
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Location:
    Sunny Southe
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  23. chriscrawfordphoto

    chriscrawfordphoto Member

    Messages:
    1,188
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Fort Wayne,
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Nixon was president during the first moon landing and all of the ones that followed.
     
  24. jamusu

    jamusu Member

    Messages:
    305
    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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.
     
  25. PeteZ8

    PeteZ8 Member

    Messages:
    410
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Location:
    Newtown, PA
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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.
     
  26. PeteZ8

    PeteZ8 Member

    Messages:
    410
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Location:
    Newtown, PA
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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.