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.

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 and 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.

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.