301–310 of 419 posts
I was confused when I first saw this photo, as I don't think I've ever before seen a nightside, moonlit Earth, exposed so that it looks like the dayside at a first glance. I wonder how many casual viewers actually realize it's the night side. A nice demonstration of how moonlight is pretty much exactly like sunlight, just much much dimmer. In particular it has the same color, even though moonlight is often thought of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment history suggests you're in the US, so you should be pleased to learn that you weren't included. The visible landmass is northern Africa, with a smidge of the Iberian Peninsula visible.
Classic American thinking even from space they are the center of the world smdh
Looking at the EXIF (with exiftool) for the image uploaded by NASA ( https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/art002e00019... ), apparently this was taken by a Nikon D5 with an AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED and developed with Lightroom. It also seems like very little was done in Lightroom. Amazing... I dumped the whole EXIF here: https://gist.github.com/umgefahren/a6f555e6588a98adb74eed79d...
The EXIF data says that the picture was taken with the flash off! How did they get the Earth to light up when it is obviously dark outside? Is this fake?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might misunderstand how ISO works on digital cameras. (I did.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWSvHBG7X0w
Good grief, that video suffers the YouTube-ism of "ramble on about how you don't understand X" for way too long. Video alleges people think ISO makes the sensor "more sensitive or less sensitive". (I … don't think this is common? But IDK, maybe this is my feldspar.) (The video also quibbles that it is "ISO setting" not "ISO" … while showing shots of cameras which call it "ISO", seemingly believing that some of us bel…
> … also while fact checking this comment, I stumbled across Canon's KB stating to use as low an ISO as possible, which the video rails against. They should talk to Canon, I guess?
Isn't ISO last the same as setting it as low as possible? Obviously it's always set to something, so I thought 'doing it last' means start with it low, set exposure & shutter, increase as necessary?
(Shutter speed being dictated by subject and availability of tripod, essentially it's just exposure & ISO which becomes about how much light there is and how it's distributed, I suppose.)
I'm not really into photography though, so perhaps that's all nonsense/misunderstanding.
I love the fact that you can see the aurora at both poles!
I may be mistaken but there's even atmosphere visible - that tiny translucent band on the darker photo
That tiny translucent band…
The total mass of Earth’s atmosphere is about 5.5 quadrillion tons
https://www.britannica.com/story/how-much-does-earths-atmosp...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's right. Sunlight is white in the atmosphere too. Scattering causes the sun , not the light, to look yellow, and so sunlight is thought of as yellow.
Scattering doesn’t really make the sun to appear yellow except when it’s low, behind a lot of air. When it’s above 30° or so it just looks blinding, neutral white (or non-blinding neutral white if there’s suitable cloud cover or other filter in front of it). Even though a lot of the blues are scattered around, the sun still looks just white when it’s high in the sky. But when the sun does look yellow, its light is ye…
Not quite; the sun is far away and is restricted to a tiny portion of the sky, but its light covers half the earth at a time. It is simultaneously true that the sun looks yellow and that the light we receive from it is white. It isn't the case that objects in direct sunlight are yellowed by that light; the yellow appearance when you look at the sun is something of an illusion.
> Even though a lot of the blues are scattered around, the sun still looks just white when it’s high in the sky.
This isn't true.
"It is the first time since 1972 that humans have travelled outside of the Earth's orbit." But they're not tho (Earth's gravitational dominance extends 4x the distance to the moon)
> It is the first time since 1972 that humans have travelled outside of the Earth's orbit. They mean outside of low Earth orbit (which basically means further away than the ISS). The phrasing is not ideal. > Earth's gravitational dominance extends 4x the distance to the moon "Earth's gravitational dominance" is not a single thing; it depends on what kind of "dominance" you're talking about. For example, even though t…
It’s about the suns gravitational pull on the moon dominating over the Earths gravitational pull on the moon, but that due to the centrifugal force (there isn’t one, so conservation of angular momentum) the Earth's gravitational pull dominates.
Looking at the EXIF (with exiftool) for the image uploaded by NASA ( https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/art002e00019... ), apparently this was taken by a Nikon D5 with an AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED and developed with Lightroom. It also seems like very little was done in Lightroom. Amazing... I dumped the whole EXIF here: https://gist.github.com/umgefahren/a6f555e6588a98adb74eed79d...
Before Lightroom it might have looked closer to this: https://images-assets.nasa.gov/image/art002e000193/art002e00...
How are people still flat-earthers after stuff like this