And, why is the picture quality of the 1972 image better than the one taken in 2026?
>>532365656Both fake
>>532365656Probably the difference between actual film and taking a digital image that is inherently compressed.
top is an image of the day side.bottom is an image of the night side.
>>532365656Don't worry, this thread will have all sorts of photography experts in here to tell you why these two cartoon images are real because they are composites or some shit
>>532365930Idk about the old one but the Artemis one is a single shot from a Nikon
>>532365656Early days the artists had to rebuild the earth from multiple photos. None of the nice looking full earth pics nasa provided were just one photo. If you took a full pic of earth 50 000 km away it would have looked shit. So in a way, pics of earth are fake.
>>532365930Earth isn't real? Of you think it should be flat on four elephants on top of a giant turtle?
It's literally just white balance.
>>532365656>What changed?Photoshop has improved.https://old.bitchute.com/video/3V0W03P6xabD/
>>532365656The Artemis picture was taken from a ten year old consumer level DSLR, with it being nighttime on that side of the Earth with a full moon just over exposed to a ridiculous level.
>>532365656Newest image is taken of the night side of earth
>>532365656Film has always been high definition.
>>532365767>compressed>RAW image from Nikon D5>compressedLeave your "probable" theories for yourself. Not to mention the difference in dynamic range on film vs digital. Film is ancient technology, long surpassed by digital.
>>532365656Both look like AI renders? Who said AI didn't exist in 1972?
>>532365806 Thank you. Are people on this board really so dumb they don't see that or is it just willful ignorance
>>532365656Different image, different artist, different technology. The first one was painted, the second one was computer generated.
>>532373333Checked.
>>532365656Because the 1972 was shot on Kodak Ektachrome MS SO-368. Digital is horrible compared to film. Welcome to the reality us photographers have to live in.
>>532365656why cant they show a constant video pointing back to the earth while they leave orbit?that seems like something you would want to recordOr how about a camera on the front showing the approach to the moon?NOPEyou get 1 shitty CGI photo to prove they are in spacelaughable when you think about it and a shame that NPCs can't ask these simple questionsspace is fake and gay
>>532370846What?Why is there an anti-film shill?How?Everyone knows the highest fidelity images are black and white on film. Do you even learn?
>>532375768>I enjoy lack of sharpness, 10-13mpx equivalent resolution, sub-par dynamic range, and 20th century post-processing capabilityHipsters were done and dusted by 2013, why are you still clinging on, anon?
