>>42199850It means that the humiliation ritual is working
You already have the godless normies reinforcing the nihilistic view that the ball earth suggests by expressing their awe at how amazing it is that we live in infinite space when in reality we're in a holographic prison cell ruled by the demiurge.
bro.. Nasa
never a straight answer
>>42199850>schizos think that the astronauts immediately posted these pictures to xitter as soon as they took them
>>42199850Right now I'm guessing they turned up the brightness for the left one, same photo. Like how they add color to nebulae to seem cool to normies.
litteral glow niggers
>>42200018Every statement on his tshirt is unironically correct
>>42200018I need that shirt
>>42201102>they turned up the brightnessOther way around.They took a long exposure to get the Earth visible in the low light reflecting off the moon.Then they darkened the photo to bring attention to the city lights.you know - like the caption is doing.Pic related - this is a crescent moon in long exposure. Normally you wouldnt see the stars or the dark parts of the moon at all.
>>42201847You could theoretically do it that way, but I don't think they did. Call it a hunch but the brighter photo has "photography bullshit" written all over it. Playing with parameters for 10 minutes until it looks "cool".
>>42201872https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8323099020/the-first-photos-from-artemis-ii-are-here-and-they-are-stunning>Nikon D5 | Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm F2.8G ED | 22mm | F4.0 | 1/4 sec | ISO 51,200These are the specs for the shot, notice the exposure time of 1/4 second.A normal exposure time lasts for 1/125th or even 1/250th of a second.
Why is it the same photo, just different brightness?
>>42201900Because that's the one everyone likes and is spreading around.https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/journey-to-the-moon/
space is not real,im a right,fellow USA haters!?kek
>>42201888I think it was pretty f***ing dark though, like if you were using your eyes.
>>42201847That looks nothing like the nasa cgi earth.
>>42201931>like if you were using your eyesI wouldnt think so. Our eyes dont have shutter speeds, and take in light almost continuously, so things we see look a lot brighter than they appear in a picture.Have you ever tried to take a picture of fireworks, for instance? The pic always looks way darker because it only grabs a tiny instance of the light, and our eyes take in great big spans of time comparatively.>>42201937What aspects of the pictures do you think I am trying to compare?
>>42201948>Have you ever tried to take a picture of fireworks, for instance? The pic always looks way darker because it only grabs a tiny instance of the light, and our eyes take in great big spans of time comparatively.With 1/4 sec shutter speed and f/2.8 and iso 51200?Here it says Lightroom was used on the photo with at least auto white balance: https://images.nasa.gov/details/art002e000192
>>42201972>With 1/4 sec shutter speed and f/2.8 and iso 51200?What? How is that comparing the difference between your eyes and the standard shutter speed of a camera?I dont think I get what you are trying to say.If you care, would you go back and make it very clear what your point is?>it says Lightroom was used on the photoYes? Wasnt the topic we were considering the direction of alteration? That it was altered was always understood.
>>42202019Apparently they're two different shots, 192 and 193, with different camera settings. We might as well stop debating it because I won't believe 192 (the bright one) wasn't shopped to make it prettier unless NASA says so.>How is that comparing the difference between your eyes and the standard shutter speed of a camera?1/4 second isn't the typical shutter speed of a camera, and certainly not for fireworks unless you want a lot of motion blur. Long exposure, more light.
>>42201847no. the darker shot was taken first and then the brighter one was taken 19 seconds later using different exposure settings
>>42199850>no 33im disappoint
>>42202033> two different shotsWell there we go.>1/4 second isn't the typical shutter speed of a camera, and certainly not for fireworks unless you want a lot of motion blur. Long exposure, more light.Right, which is why it confused me when you brought it up in response to talking about average shutter speeds vs vision.
>>42202049>Right, which is why it confused me when you brought it up in response to talking about average shutter speeds vs vision.Because you said>things we see look a lot brighter than they appear in a picture.When we were talking about a photo with 1/4 second shutter speed. It probably wouldn't be darker.
>>42201847It's fascinating how many of these types of conspiracies rely on people not understanding how cameras work.It's almost fascinating, how everyone has a miniaturized computer and camera in their pocket 24/7 and yet tech literacy is through the floor
>>42202041Why is the lighter photo numbered earlier?https://images.nasa.gov/details/art002e000192https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-art002e000193/>>42202054>When we were talking about a photoI see. At that time, I thought we were talking about what it looked like for the astronaut's vision because you said> like if you were using your eyesSo I responded that IN GENERAL, what you see with your eyes is brighter than what a camera would show.
>>42202063>Why is the lighter photo numbered earlier?i dont know. just the way things got uploaded to the site. what does it matter?
>>42202071Why do you think the darker one was taken first?
>>42202077seems to me it was the first try to get the shot but the exposure was a bit too low to really get it properly. the second shot had a better aperture and shutter setting so it looked better.
>>42202083So you arent going by anything the people that took or sent or (if they did) edited the photo, and you are rejecting the observed data that one photo was an earlier ID number.And you are instead relying on what it seems like to you?
>>42202063>Why is the lighter photo numbered earlier?Looks better to normies so they uploaded it first. Remember they went through Lightroom, not beamed from space.>I thought we were talking about what it looked like for the astronaut's vision I was. It was a terran eclipse so the earth would be dark as hell.
>>42202104>I was.And it is your stance that a person's vision would have the Earth appear DARKER than what it would appear like in a photo with your average shutter speed?
>>42202085perhaps there was some fine tuning of the exposure for the published version just to make it the best it can be.i really dont the ID number matters at all. the EXIF data is right there and shows the time they were taken.i think you're just trying to make something out of nothing at all.
>>42202113>the EXIF data is right there and shows the time they were taken.So there IS something beyond "it seems to me."You would sound competent if you led with this instead of whatever the fuck you were on about.
>>42202119what? you're making less and less sense as you carry on trying to invent something that you think you've noooticed. you remind me of a flerf...perhaps one from a small european country on the adriatic.
>>42202126>what?>>42202041>the darker shot was taken first>>42202063>Why is the lighter photo numbered earlier?>>42202071>i dont know.>>42202077>Why do you think the darker one was taken first?>>42202083>seems to me>>42202085>So you arent going by anything>>42202113>the EXIF data>>42202119>So there IS something beyond "it seems to me."
>>42202137>Why do you think the darker one was taken first?I think this was the issue.I was trying to determine what evidence you were using to come to a conclusion.You seem to have interpreted the question as asking for the astronaut's motive to taking a second photo.
>>42202137its just how the guys who runs the nasa site put them up anon. thats literally all it is. they probably both got sent to him at the same time and being taken so close together they were just uploaded in that order. i really cant imagine what nefarious deeds you are imagining this means but im sure its retarded and schizophrenic, as usual.
>>42202111>And it is your stance that a person's vision would have the Earth appear DARKER than what it would appear like in a photo with your average shutter speed?No, and that's not what I said, and you have a learning disability because I already pointed out that the context was 1/4 sec shutter speed.
>even in darkness, we glow Can't even be mad about that desu, touche
>>42202145>what nefarious deeds you are imagining this meansNone whatsoever.>>42202147>NoThen we are in agreement.
>>42202150so whats the big deal about two photos taken within 20seconds of each other being uploaded in the 'wrong' order?
>>42202150>Then we are in agreement.I don't want to be. I said B is darker than A, and you said actually C is darker than B.
>>42202155Nothing? where did you see a deal?My POV:>op asked about different brightness levels>post made saying one was lightened>I said it was darkened>both wrong - two different photos>i got the order wrong because i was looking at file number, and not exif data>i was accused of glowing and being a nose
>>42202165If your answer to that question was "no", then we agree.We can also NOT have a fight, anon.It's okay.
>>42202168>We can also NOT have a fight, anon.This isn't true, and it's not okay. Autism has consequences.
>>42202174I'm sorry I wasnt clear enough with what I meant.
>>42202183>I'm sorry I wasnt clear enough with what I meant.You were though, and you referred back to the same C vs B comparison here >>42202150Which wasn't relevant to A vs. B.Dark compared to 1/4 sec shutter speed isn't the same as dark compared to 1/50 shutter speed.
>>42201930Somebody post the video where the screen turns off.
>>42202223its not any screen turning off. its just a replay of then the nose cone detached.
>>42201907But it's the same angle, only different brightness. There should be variations in angle if time has passed.
>>4220245819 seconds passed
>>42199850It means they raised the brightness to make it 'prettier', schizo.
>>42202560it means the guy just took another shot with a wider aperture and longer shutter speed.
>>42201908Thanks for admitting its a politics thing to you.
AI slop
>>42202283Space X is subsidized by your US gibberment.Your tax dollars paid for this apparatus.What are the spiritual implications?
>>42203224
>>42199850Do you know that the rosicrucians do not believe in heliocentrism?
>>42203427The Earth is obviously the actual center of the system, and these bodies revolve around us.
>>42200012well if the dysgenic sand goblin says it, it must be true
>>42201122how many boosters did you get from the "vaccine" that was created in 6 months and never tested?
>>42202042Getting sick of it, just watched The Platform where floor 33 was one he stopped on, and the bottom was floor 333
>>42200901Or that the time stamp is even in the same time zones pictured Flerfers deserve to be shot
>>42201847>>42202056It takes almost nothing to get these idiots to freak out. Even if you took a photo of them 10ft away and showed it to them, they would find an alien or some trace of AI to point at and get an absolutely unwarranted smugness about being so "smart" that only they can see the evidence... it's pathetic. Oh well, the human race is large and full of morons.
If these were photos NASA would say photos but they never do. They say images, just like they did on the post because images can mean anything. They also use the term picture. When they post an actual photo like of people at NASA team building picnic they use the term photo. Fake and gay
>>42202149Yeah, it's a nice touch
