2:29 AM
2:50 AM
There are also frame grabs from the B&W TV camera that showed Armstrong descending the LM ladder at the beginning of his famous moonwalk. A 16mm movie shot taken through the window of the LM by Aldrin before he began his own EVA shows Armstrong walking on the Moon's surface. Here's a single frame extracted from it.
3:14 AM
Can we also agree that photographs of objects where the light path includes a mirror does not cease to be a photograph nor the object ceases to be the object?
3
Yes, there is no hard distinction between a telescope and a camera with a long focal-length lens. When it's stuck directly to a camera body, it's often referred to as a "mirror lens" because they still want to call it a "camera lens" but it's made from a mirror: But when it's stuck directly to ...
Are photos taken of objects using camera optics that include mirrors no longer photos of those objects, but only photos of reflections of those objects?
In both cases the optical path from object to focal plane includes reflections from curved mirror-like surfaces. I don't see the distinction, beyond an adherence to a particular set of semantics.
20 hours later…
11:08 PM
@uhoh There's a HUGE difference between using reflective elements inside a lens and a reflection of a secondary object from another object in the composition of a scene. Particularly when the subject (Aldrin) is at least 100X larger in terms of area than the tiny reflection of Armstrong on his visor. The image is an image of Aldrin that includes a very small reflection of Armstrong in his visor.
No sane person would consider this a photo of Armstrong as the primary subject (unless they mistakenly thought Aldrin was Armstrong).
If a person were standing next to Armstrong and looking at the same view the photo depicts, they would not be looking at Armstrong, they would be looking at Aldrin. If they used a pair of binoculars, they might be able to see Armstrong's reflection in Aldrin's visor, because they were looking at Aldrin's visor.
11:27 PM
@MichaelC Well I certainly make no claims to sanity, nor is sanity a prerequisite for participation in Stack Exchange! But there's no rule that a photograph can't be "of" something if it was not the intended subject.
For example, if someone photographs the milky way and a meteor unexpectedly passes through and is captured, we don't say "Nope! That's absolutely not a photograph of a meteor because I wasn't trying to photograph a meteor."
My concern is that the other photograph is purported to be the ONLY photograph of Armstrong on the Moon, and its valuation is attached to that claim. And I am thinking "Hey, not so fast there, I can see Armstrong in this photograph also." It's the "absolute onliness" of the other photo that I question.
« first day (3725 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1264 days later) »