Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why it's so hard to find a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon

apple.copydesk.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 134 posts

Re: Why it's so hard to find a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon

#81

Post by derleth »

TheTruthIsHere wrote: post #34
wazoox wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also there is another half-a-billion or so which thinks man never landed on moon. Citation needed. It looks to me like only a small gang of wingnuts are part of the "moon landing conspiration believers" (I never met one). Like s slight portion of those believing that 9/11 was a CIA/Israeli job, or that there isn't any biological evolution.

Obviously you live in US, get your information from mainstream media (instead of doing your own research on the Web) and belong to the upper middle class. That's in my humble experience the only type of guy, who would never meet anyone disagreeing with government propaganda. In Latin America, East Europe, Arabic countries, Russia and Japan ~90% of the people I talked to believe 9/11 was an inside job. As for the moon…

> 9/11 was an inside job.

Indeed. The USPS did it with explosive furniture. If you disagree with me, you're NWO COINTELPRO M-O-U-S-E.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/07/craziest-theory...

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=476254

Re: Why it's so hard to find a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon

#82

Post by batista »

Karunamon wrote: post #58
batista wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Comparing the photo that Neil Armstrong took on THE MOON to a sketch of his cat is silly, and you know it. Sure, but not much sillier that saying that putting up a picture of a different person is a "slight inaccuracy". > Also, every single image you see of Saturn from Cassini has been manipulated. Almost every photo of Mars from Curiosity is manipulated. So what then? Notice how I, unlike TFA, never said anything…

>and not creative image doctoring like pasting some space or removing a person USSR style. I can't possibly be the only person confused by the author's visceral reaction to pasting in a block of black above a photo, or slightly offended by your comparing it to USSR-esque person removal.

First, "the author's visceral reaction" is simple journalist ethics. They teach you that at journalist school. Doctored images are bad.

Second, noticed how I haven't mentioned NASA in my reply about doctored images? I gave some examples of the kind of things photo editors avoid. Nowhere I said, explicitly or implicitly, that NASA adding black was like a "USSR-esque person removal".

Also notice how I gave TWO examples? "like pasting some space or removing a person USSR style"? NASA did the first, USSR did the second. Where's the confusion?

I called both "creative image doctoring", but NOWHERE did I implied that what NASA did is equally morally outrageous as the second.

Re: Why it's so hard to find a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon

#83

Post by batista »

Karunamon wrote: post #67
DanBC wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a manipulation of the truth. By presenting that image as truth you have lied to the viewer. There are (or at least, should be) strict ethical controls on journalists to avoid lying to their readers. That's why quotes are what the interviewee actually said, and not what the journalist wanted them to say. And it's why pictures of events are what was actually captured by the camera, with minimal manipulation for pu…

And what truth is that? There was nothing of any substance added or removed to the image, indeed adding the black only served to make it aesthetically appealing. There's distortion of the truth, and then there's removing redeye from a picture. Which of these would you say this falls under?

>And what truth is that? There was nothing of any substance added or removed to the image, indeed adding the black only served to make it aesthetically appealing.

The truth that if you make it "a little of this is OK", "a little of that is OK" people will abuse it. No manipulation is clear cut and KISS.

And making an image "aesthetically appealing" can have consequences of viewer manipulation. E.g making pictures of war prettier, or removing some things that don't make the frame pleasing but reveal stuff about the actual situation, etc etc.

Even this manipulation hides facts. E.g the fact that Neil couldn't operate the camera with precision -- so it can be used to show that the walk on the moon was easier or more "piece of cake" than it really was. (Remember that one major use of the moon mission was cold-war era PR for the US).

>here's distortion of the truth, and then there's removing redeye from a picture. Which of these would you say this falls under?

Even removing redeye from a picture would be frowned upon in newsrooms.

E.g What if the picture is of a drug abusing athlete, and the process shows his eyes more normal than they were?

Re: Why it's so hard to find a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon

#84

Post by batista »

brudgers wrote: post #46
batista wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I always assumed that the poor composition of the original AS11-40-5903 (and many other photos from the Moon which suffer from the same problem) was because every pixel was precious, so they didn't want the uniformly black sky to take up any larger fraction of the image area than necessary. It wasn't pixels -- it was emulsion film. Nor was it that precious. What would they do with a photo of more rock/equipment and…

The film was precious. Every gram of film had to be brought back into orbit by Eagle in lieu of some onboard instrument, backup system, additional fuel and air or sample from the surface.

A kilogram of film is still too much film. And they have too many useless and bad photos taken so it doesn't seem good pictures was their priority.

Re: Why it's so hard to find a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon

#85

Post by coin »

Karunamon wrote: post #67
DanBC wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a manipulation of the truth. By presenting that image as truth you have lied to the viewer. There are (or at least, should be) strict ethical controls on journalists to avoid lying to their readers. That's why quotes are what the interviewee actually said, and not what the journalist wanted them to say. And it's why pictures of events are what was actually captured by the camera, with minimal manipulation for pu…

And what truth is that? There was nothing of any substance added or removed to the image, indeed adding the black only served to make it aesthetically appealing. There's distortion of the truth, and then there's removing redeye from a picture. Which of these would you say this falls under?

The OTS antenna on top of the helmet is clipped. Adding black sky doesn't restore it.

Re: Why it's so hard to find a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon

#86

Post by Karunamon »

batista wrote: post #83
Karunamon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what truth is that? There was nothing of any substance added or removed to the image, indeed adding the black only served to make it aesthetically appealing. There's distortion of the truth, and then there's removing redeye from a picture. Which of these would you say this falls under?

> And what truth is that? There was nothing of any substance added or removed to the image, indeed adding the black only served to make it aesthetically appealing. The truth that if you make it "a little of this is OK", "a little of that is OK" people will abuse it. No manipulation is clear cut and KISS. And making an image "aesthetically appealing" can have consequences of viewer manipulation. E.g making pictures of…

>people will abuse it

Then be outraged at the abuse. Just about any tool can be misused, but that doesn't make using that tool wrong.

>so it can be used to show that the walk on the moon was easier or more "piece of cake" than it really was.

I see what you're getting at, but even that seems like a stretch, even in the light of the cold war. "Dumb Americans can't even operate a camera right!"

I see the principle here, I really do, but a principle is not applicable in all cases. Leaving no room for nuance is not an ideal to strive for!

Re: Why it's so hard to find a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon

#87

Post by Karunamon »

batista wrote: post #82
Karunamon wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and not creative image doctoring like pasting some space or removing a person USSR style. I can't possibly be the only person confused by the author's visceral reaction to pasting in a block of black above a photo, or slightly offended by your comparing it to USSR-esque person removal.

First, "the author's visceral reaction" is simple journalist ethics. They teach you that at journalist school. Doctored images are bad. Second, noticed how I haven't mentioned NASA in my reply about doctored images? I gave some examples of the kind of things photo editors avoid. Nowhere I said, explicitly or implicitly, that NASA adding black was like a "USSR-esque person removal". Also notice how I gave TWO examples…

>NOWHERE did I implied that what NASA did is equally morally outrageous as the second.

No, but you compared something completely innocuous with something completely evil. I sincerely don't believe even did it on purpose, but it reads like a cheap appeal to emotion.. probably an implication you weren't trying to give off.

Re: Why it's so hard to find a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon

#88

Post by jakejake »

I don't really have a problem with the photo as long as the caption doesn't say it's Neil. It's a historic moment that everybody should recognize. He is known for this event and even took the photo.

As for the doctoring, I don't find it unethical. I don't have a problem straitening a crooked photo, adjusting the contrast, etc to make the photo visually appealing. That's not the same as adding a person. I understand journalists want "the truth" but with film there are so many artistic decisions made when processing a photo anyway. Maybe the truth is that is was very dark or bright. Should darkroom manipulation be skipped and the photo be blown out or solid black because that's the real truth? If there was a scratch on the negative I don't mind if it's repaired as long as it isn't maliciously trying to trick us.

Re: Why it's so hard to find a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon

#89

Post by brudgers »

batista wrote: post #84
brudgers wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The film was precious. Every gram of film had to be brought back into orbit by Eagle in lieu of some onboard instrument, backup system, additional fuel and air or sample from the surface.

A kilogram of film is still too much film. And they have too many useless and bad photos taken so it doesn't seem good pictures was their priority.

In my work, I shoot a lot of photographs when I visit a project site during design and construction. My priority is not composition or aesthetics, it's documentation so that I can answer questions which I didn't know I would have when I went so that I can avoid another trip.

They sent pilots, to the moon. They had a couple of hours. That's all. Film allowed them to collect a large amount of data which hundreds or thousands of scientists could later analyze.

Some rocks are more interesting than others. But it's better to have the scientists decide which to take a closer look at on the next landing.

Re: Why it's so hard to find a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon

#90

Post by jaylevitt »

jopt wrote: post #57
jyap wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only people who care that it isn't a picture of Neil Armstrong are: - People who know it isn't a picture of Neil Armstrong and feel like they need to point that out. - People who are bothered by the slight inaccuracy that it isn't a picture taken of him. Either way, he took the picture. He took one of the most famous pictures. If the caption to the picture reads "Buzz Aldrin as captured by Neil Armstrong", who ca…

What. Slight? What could be more inaccurate?

Picture of Don Walsh or Jacques Piccard, first to descend into the Mariana Trench?
Post reply on HN