Nobody could have achieved a sequential ‘hit rate’ the way they did - impossible.
The Hasselblad cameras had no useable viewfinders. We are to believe manual exposures were set, manual focus set, framing a photo set. All with gloves on with their ‘special’ modified cameras. The most iconic photos in American history were all ‘perfect’ one after the other - perfect shots while just literally goofing off in 1/6 gravity like kids.
(edit to remove comment on sequencing data being ‘lost’ by nasa - it is still there).
I’d challenge anyone skilled at manual photography to cover up their viewfinder and frame 25 out of 100 shots of their car in their own driveway from 10’ to 30’ away, whilst manually exposing using a chest mount. And if you achieve that, the next level will be to do it while walking / moving at the same time. Hell, for starters, lets keep it simple: cover up your iphone screen and try it.
I’d challenge anyone skilled at manual photography to cover up their viewfinder and frame 25 out of 100 shots of their car in their own driveway from 10’ to 30’ away, whilst manually exposing using a chest mount.
True, it is difficult. Now, practice it for 2 years straight, and then try again - I bet you'll do a fine job. Unless of course, you're a tard, or unwilling to succeed
Watch some of the film footage when they were taking some of the photos - no way it happened that way - bouncy - bouncy - smile - snap. Trust your eyes 😀.
As someone who spent the 1970s shooting wedding photography, I can tell you that operating a camera with a light meter in manual mode is not that difficult. Even without looking through a viewfinder. I learned on a Rolleiflex and while it had a viewfinder, it wasn't the same light path as what entered the aperture. You had to use a light meter or just be good at estimating your shutter speeds (comes with experience) to get a good exposure
Take a real good look at the video footage again, the parts when they are taking the photos, give it a bit of a critical eye from a photographers’ perspective - just might hit you like a ton o bricks - or maybe not.
At the very least, the photos were faked.
Nobody could have achieved a sequential ‘hit rate’ the way they did - impossible.
The Hasselblad cameras had no useable viewfinders. We are to believe manual exposures were set, manual focus set, framing a photo set. All with gloves on with their ‘special’ modified cameras. The most iconic photos in American history were all ‘perfect’ one after the other - perfect shots while just literally goofing off in 1/6 gravity like kids.
(edit to remove comment on sequencing data being ‘lost’ by nasa - it is still there).
I’d challenge anyone skilled at manual photography to cover up their viewfinder and frame 25 out of 100 shots of their car in their own driveway from 10’ to 30’ away, whilst manually exposing using a chest mount. And if you achieve that, the next level will be to do it while walking / moving at the same time. Hell, for starters, lets keep it simple: cover up your iphone screen and try it.
True, it is difficult. Now, practice it for 2 years straight, and then try again - I bet you'll do a fine job. Unless of course, you're a tard, or unwilling to succeed
Watch some of the film footage when they were taking some of the photos - no way it happened that way - bouncy - bouncy - smile - snap. Trust your eyes 😀.
As someone who spent the 1970s shooting wedding photography, I can tell you that operating a camera with a light meter in manual mode is not that difficult. Even without looking through a viewfinder. I learned on a Rolleiflex and while it had a viewfinder, it wasn't the same light path as what entered the aperture. You had to use a light meter or just be good at estimating your shutter speeds (comes with experience) to get a good exposure
Take a real good look at the video footage again, the parts when they are taking the photos, give it a bit of a critical eye from a photographers’ perspective - just might hit you like a ton o bricks - or maybe not.