What's the point

[lostsheep]

Ya, Neil Armstrong took those photos with a Hasselblad camera, on film. Today’s ”photography” is so easy that the art is lost.

SeaRat

Okay boomer

Sorry I had to. I won’t use fancy cameras anymore because I was burnt out at a young age; it doesn’t mean I don’t know how to. Never used the one on the left but the 120mm was my go-to for years.

 

[crofrog]

Okay boomer

Sorry I had to. I won’t use fancy cameras anymore because I was burnt out at a young age; it doesn’t mean I don’t know how to. Never used the one on the left but the 120mm was my go-to for years.

View attachment 745044

Im sure is photo album is full of ****** 35mm exposures that are out of focus, improperly exposed and developed at Walgreens. Real art

 

[Manatee Diver]

Im sure is photo album is full of ****** 35mm exposures that are out of focus, improperly exposed and developed at Walgreens. Real art

Ugh I am remembering throwing away two whole rolls worth of slides because the focus was off by just enough to ruin the shots. To a poor college student that was a lot of money wasted.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

With a good 35mm camera (Canon F-1N, with an Action Finder and in an Ikelite case with strobe), focus was not so much of a problem. This is one of my 35mm slides from the late 1980s. Not bad for a “Boomer.”

Neil Armstrong was not too bad as a photographer.

Here’s the NASA page for these photos:

Magnificent Desolation: The Apollo 11 Moonwalk Pictures

Magnificent Desolation: The Apollo 11 Moonwalk Pictures

history.nasa.gov

If you want to get all the photos of Apollo 11, they are in this gallery, with explanations:

Apollo 11 Image Library

SeaRat

 

[Celt]

That’s what I did about six years ago for my favorite spot on the Clackamas River, High Rocks, near Portland, Oregon.


SeaRat

Brilliant John, loved your lamprey video.just realised your on YouTube I'll have a look later and subscribe as they say. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Six Feet Under]

Kave Kardashians



That is perfect.

I have come to realize two things, after 6-7 years of diving in cave country:

1. "Kave Kardashians" are 100% a real thing, and
2. There are people who dive sidemount, and people who make sidemount their entire personality

 

[crofrog]

With a good 35mm camera (Canon F-1N, with an Action Finder and in an Ikelite case with strobe), focus was not so much of a problem. This is one of my 35mm slides from the late 1980s. Not bad for a “Boomer.”


Neil Armstrong was not too bad as a photographer.

Here’s the NASA page for these photos:

Magnificent Desolation: The Apollo 11 Moonwalk Pictures

Magnificent Desolation: The Apollo 11 Moonwalk Pictures

history.nasa.gov

If you want to get all the photos of Apollo 11, they are in this gallery, with explanations:

Apollo 11 Image Library

SeaRat

I mean the photo doesn't have critical sharpness on the subject.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

crofrog,

How are these for critical sharpness? The focusing screen is what allows the photographer to get sharp photos, but sometimes the action is so fast it's hard to anticipate the where the subject will be. In the two aquatic insect nymphs, sharpness was easy. For the Northern Pike Minnow, with the Red-sided Shiner, it's not so easy. The new autofocus does have advantages, but even those can be overcome by the subject's movements.

So far as the astronauts on the moon, they had the Hasselblad camera, and so far as I can tell, almost all their photos were extremely sharp. If you look at the NASA Image Libraries, and pull up the higher density scans, it is obvious that they are very sharp photos.

SeaRat