wrote:
Still no answer from Brad.

I asked:
"Why are there no stars in the background during the recent ISS/Shuttle
space walk ?? "


The dynamic range(DR) of their Kodak film was in fact sufficient to
have included a dozen or more items besides the moon and Earth, and of
those CCD images of today are fully capable of offering a good 32 fold
better yet at their having extended that DR capability that should
knock our socks off with having unavoidably included a few stars, with
some of those best performing of NSA spy satellite CCDs being capable
of offering better than a 100:1 improved DR ratio, that which can be
further extended via spendy optical filters.


Besides a number of such stars, Venus should have been downright pesky
in at least two of the Apollo missions, as unavoidably getting into
several of those unfiltered Kodak moments. Seems that you'd also have
wanted to have intentionally included the rather nearby impressive
likes of Venus as could only have been included as easily photographed
from the moon.

This does not answer my question
Yes it does, and then some.

This seems (I'm not 100% sure) to try to answer why there should have
been stars in the Apollo photos.

Would you folks like to see some other examples of our moon as having
been photographed along with other planets and stars, or would you care
to discuss the lethal gamma and hard-X-ray aspects of our naked moon
that's a bit worse off radiation dosage than what the worse dosage of
our Van Allen belts have to offer?

No, fool, I just would like an answer to my ONE ( not dozens )
question:

"Why are there no stars in the background during the recent ISS/Shuttle
space walk ?? "
Because you're snookered and summarily dumb and dumber, as in totally
dumbfounded beyond the point of no return.

I see that your MIB as e-spooks have been quite active at bringing my
PC/internet and Usenet access to a crawl once again. Do you folks
think that's funny?

Your continual infomercial-science basis of your buttology mindset
worth of denial is in normal auto-denial mode, just like that of your
good buddy and partner in crimes against humanity, GW Bush.

Obviously you're going to reject upon all science regardless of
wherever it comes from (even Kodak's physics of photons and of
whatever's of their film hard-science that's 100+% replicated isn't
good enough, is it?), the same as no matters how much WW-III takes as
another bite out of humanity and away from whatever's left of our
global warming fiasco, you're sticking to your perpetrated cold-war
guns. Good boy!

Obviously you've intentionally overlooked that little tricky part of
f32 that was involved with obtaining that terrestrial image, that if
obtained external to Earth's atmosphere you'd have to cut that same
exposure by a least half again, thus we're talking at most 1/4 second
at f32, and of course Spica being of such far-blue, violet and near-UV
primary spectrum would have to be at the very least twice again as
bright. Gee whiz, folks, I wonder what using f4 might otherwise do to
the 100 ASA film shutter speed?

Could that become 125th of a second at f4?

Actually that previous example image using 100 ASA/ISO/DIN slide film
was more than likely closer to being exposed as an f48 at 1/2 second,
as due to the optical losses that may have been unavoidably imposing
another half f-stop in addition to what the 3X tele-extender
application itself represented, which by the way should also have
further contributed to having attenuated the UV-a.

Could it be that you know absolutely nothing about cameras, lens,
filters and much less about film?

I can only further surmise that you're having Muslim for dinner, and
not as any guest.
-
Brad Guth