http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dE-vOsc...%3DdE-vOscpiNc
In the video, the Apollo crewmembers have to scramble to load a roll of color film so they can take a color picture of the Earth.
Why weren't they always shooting color? I know that people in 1968 were much more used to black-and-white photos, but for a scientific trip, with no budget concerns, I would have expected nothing but color. Was it a reliability concern? Longevity/archival concern? Discuss.
Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
--A=B by Petkovšek et. al.
Because of the very harsh light on the Moon. No atmosphere meant harsh brilliance/shade ratio. It was easier and more precise to take B&W pictures.The Earth over the horizon was not a planned picture.
So it was latitude? Makes sense. Then why not color neg? I thought it was interesting they used sunny 16.
Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
--A=B by Petkovšek et. al.
Seem to recall a serious overexposure issue where they brought back the film, then a method was devised to dissolve out the right amount of silver so the hugely overexposed film would process and print.
They must have done both. My wife's aunt printed colour prints for NASA. Interestingly she was based in London, Canada.
It's telling me the video is not available
My Brother in Law worked for Ansco/gaf who made millions of square yards of film, and they supplied all the film and processing for Mercury and Gemini. The aero films have the resolution they needed for good evaluation.
That was great, thanks for the link.
'Calm down, Lovell!'
too funny, sounds like any typical family fighting for the camera on a road trip.
Maybe the colour neg film back then wasn't so hot (wasn't it supposed to have relatively bad archival properties?) and Kodachrome I imagine would require a lot of care with metering.
Ummm... what colors would you anticipate seeing on the surface of the moon?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks