My parents used a Kodak Brownie camera the whole time I was growing up, and every single photo was in focus, except for one that I took as a child because I couldn't hold the camera still. The camera was fixed focus with a focal length that kept everything sharp and it was a fixed exposure.
I could take hundreds of photos every day with that Brownie, and they would all be sharp as a tack. You can do that with that type of camera and regular black and white film. Color film was expensive years ago, so my parents only shot one roll in color when I was growing up. Those photos are sharp as well. I took the negatives in to have new prints made for me to have back in the 70s. Even today, they look like brand new photos.
So yes, it's fairly easy to get sharp, well-exposed photos every time with the right camera and film. And it's not that hard to aim a box camera. Now a cellphone camera is a different animal entirely. That's why I use a real camera for serious work.
Your brownie most likely had a functioning viewfinder for framing and composition.
How about we focus on the framing? Do you think the compositions achieved are possible given that the viewfinders / reflex systems were removed and the camera was mounted on a chest harness?
I encourage you to look at this with an open mind and possibly carry out an experiment of your own. Maybe try some ‘blind’ no-viewfinder photography and see what your ‘keeper’ ratio is.
Have a look at the sequence of Aldrin stepping out of the lander. Have a look at the Réseau plate marks. These were not ‘cropped’ for the framing. They were framed in the camera with a moving subject using a chest harness. Amazing.
I would also ask if you can find ANY photography from nasa or true professionals of the time that come close to presenting the level of clarity, photgraphic perfection, and drama as the landing photos. Have a look through nasa’s own archives. Does anything from anyone compare?
I would not buy the argument that the lighting environment makes them so exceptionally perfect and dramatic, nor that it is the special gear. To the contrary, those factors would add up to ‘worse’ photos. They are just too perfect.
My parents used a Kodak Brownie camera the whole time I was growing up, and every single photo was in focus, except for one that I took as a child because I couldn't hold the camera still. The camera was fixed focus with a focal length that kept everything sharp and it was a fixed exposure.
I could take hundreds of photos every day with that Brownie, and they would all be sharp as a tack. You can do that with that type of camera and regular black and white film. Color film was expensive years ago, so my parents only shot one roll in color when I was growing up. Those photos are sharp as well. I took the negatives in to have new prints made for me to have back in the 70s. Even today, they look like brand new photos.
So yes, it's fairly easy to get sharp, well-exposed photos every time with the right camera and film. And it's not that hard to aim a box camera. Now a cellphone camera is a different animal entirely. That's why I use a real camera for serious work.
Your brownie most likely had a functioning viewfinder for framing and composition.
How about we focus on the framing? Do you think the compositions achieved are possible given that the viewfinders / reflex systems were removed and the camera was mounted on a chest harness?
I encourage you to look at this with an open mind and possibly carry out an experiment of your own. Maybe try some ‘blind’ no-viewfinder photography and see what your ‘keeper’ ratio is.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11_eva_thumbs.html
Have a look at the sequence of Aldrin stepping out of the lander. Have a look at the Réseau plate marks. These were not ‘cropped’ for the framing. They were framed in the camera with a moving subject using a chest harness. Amazing.
I would also ask if you can find ANY photography from nasa or true professionals of the time that come close to presenting the level of clarity, photgraphic perfection, and drama as the landing photos. Have a look through nasa’s own archives. Does anything from anyone compare?
I would not buy the argument that the lighting environment makes them so exceptionally perfect and dramatic, nor that it is the special gear. To the contrary, those factors would add up to ‘worse’ photos. They are just too perfect.