Why are they so bad at taking photos?
>>4503837Because their education spans a variety of science and engineering and operation of highly sophisticated equipment apart from their high skill in piloting and are not selected for their camera autism levels alone.
probably because the selection process for astronauts filters for people with extremely low neurosis. they aren't thinking about it. more broadly they have never considered it as a category of thing that could be that bad or good
>>4503839Nonsense. The old batch was goat, it's the latest collection of dimwits that are utterly incompetent.
I mean, wtf is this? Can't nobody there into photoshop to normalise these fucked up colours?
>>4503855its because people used to give a shit
>>4503837>Brings a fucking D5What the actual fuck
>>4503878to be used by token, badly
>>4503873this is an objectively good photo. it’s well composed, tells the story it sets out to tell, and portrays the strange lighting conditions experienced in spaceships cockpit. what did you want him to do, step outside, open the door, and get a zoomed in dutch angle shot on the pilot?
>>4503878NASA bought that camera ages ago. Nikon hand picks and spaceproofs however many cameras NASA orders, they get tested to make sure they won’t break mid-mission, and then they keep them until they’re about to fall apart. They aren’t mass market cameras.
>>4503909space is not magenta, it's digital fuckup, or bad processing, or both
>>4503882Uggggh how can a fucking spaceship have such terrible cable management???There is no excuse for this.
>>4503951It's fake. That's why. They already got caught using green screen.
>>4503878Nikons and in the past Hassleblads are for making history, Canons and Sonys are to larp on IG.
>>4503960>he fell for the marketing stuntnot one single production unit nikon is good to take into spacethey individually modify these cameras and all they really did was charge NASA less money than everyone else and be more buddy buddy with themalso, nikon has advanced manufacturing facilities in the US which helps the relationship
>>4503911Buzz aldrin isnt bright pink either. They corrected a color cast here. You know you can color correct film right? And that they actually made pre-corrected film? And even shot with color correction filters? Right?Digital just scans whats real so if the light is actually magenta tinged it makes it obvious, more obvious than your eyes would perceive (ie: most people cant see the green cast in LED lighting)
>>4503965>not one single production unit nikon is good to take into space>they individually modify these camerasBelieving headcanon isn't healthy.
>>4503974Please look this up. Nikon modifies cameras for NASA and then NASA tests them before using them in space. This is why they are still using a D5.
>>4503983>modifies>it's actually just been done in the past moon missions>current cameras are literally off the shelf >even added a Z9 as a last minute additionNeat. It's even better than I tought.
which photographer would (You) send into space?
>>4504008Bruce gilden.
>>4504008Terry Richardson
>>4504008Moopco
>>4504008wtf is this real?
>>4504043without a suitor a capsule
>>4503985>...requiring roughly 90-100 liters of propellant per kilogram of payload>The Nikon Z9 weighs approximately 1,340 g roughly 110 liters of fuel for the Z9 alone
>>4503855You had to actually know how to use a camera back then, it wasn't as simple as just opening an app and pressing the shutter button. Cameras in the 60s were still manual focus, manual shutter speed, manual aperture and you'd have to balance all that to get the exposure right (and if you weren't blessed to have a light meter on that camera, you'd have to know the math of getting the exposure right). They also used a medium format camera for it, pic related.t. still using old film cameras
>>4504078Just leave the woman on earth and it's fine.
>>4504086The Hassy 500 they brought with them on Apollo was also modified to be used with their big gloves, also single lens fitted with limited controls. Basically they made a Hassy function like a Kodak Brownie, simple point and shoot, lens fixed in hyperfocal distance with two modes, close focus for inside the module and documenting closer stuff and far focus for everything else.So no fine details on focusing and exposure just the most basic stuff. It didn't even have a focusing screen.
>>4504088Hasselblad should put these on the market for the lomography shitters.
>>4504008The astronauts will suffice like we just saw, people who just made some of the most important photos in history without being pretentious. Someone being a "photographer" by career is just retarded. Anyone can take a good photo. Send a "photographer" in space and to prove he is one would take blurry bokeh rich pictures of floating nutella jars instead of picture of the moon/earth.
>>4503837>Why are they so bad at taking photos?We should launch our best /p/hotographer in space
>>4504092Nasafag cope
>>4504105>nasafag copeAnon, the best pictures ever taken in the past 50 years have just come from an astronaut in the past week from either smartphones or a camera brand that is always ridiculed by you snobs. Nobody but you faggots care about a random bw picture of a mixed race beggar with fent puke dripping from the corner of his mouth. You're sniffin your own fart and crying perfume! The one coping here is you.
>>4504115Nasacuck seethe
>>4504116>look at me! I'm an artist! Respect me!
>>4504119>t.
