|
Author
|
Topic: Photo of the week 356 (August 27, 2011)
|
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 08-27-2011 01:59 AM
   
 Space Shuttle Columbia is shown on the launch pad on April 3, 1997, after RSS rollback prior to STS-83. Visible in the sky at left center is comet Hale Bopp. Ed Hengeveld |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 08-27-2011 02:12 AM
A comet in the sky? As Harold Godwin would have told you - a portend of a great disaster. |
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2476
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 08-27-2011 04:29 AM
Great photo, but I am assuming it is a composite. With such a bright fore ground how would you ever get enough light from the stars/comet in the background for the same exposure? |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 08-27-2011 06:15 AM
Fred beat me to it - is this a composite Ed? It's very nice. I'd like to add a few galaxies courtesy of the Hubble - it would be a fitting tribute to the workhorse on the pad. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-27-2011 08:47 AM
Hale-Bopp was really bright. You could easily see it even before nightfall. |
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 08-27-2011 01:26 PM
The caption does not mention it is a composite, but I am assuming it is. |
canyon42
Member Posts: 238
From: Ohio
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 08-27-2011 01:33 PM
It is most definitely a composite, unless somebody put some extreme neutral density filters on all the lights shining on the shuttle!Hale-Bopp was bright by comet standards, but it wasn't THAT bright. And certainly all those stars weren't.  |
alcyone
Member Posts: 130
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 08-27-2011 02:41 PM
I observed Hale-Bopp from an urban area with lots of light pollution. Still got a good look at the comet though. I notice in the image that the lights from the pad look elongated, but Hale-Bopp and the stars do not look elongated, they appear normal. Excluding use of a composite, can someone explain this? I think it is a composite. |
PeterO
Member Posts: 399
From: North Carolina
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 08-27-2011 03:38 PM
Here is a real photo of Hale-Bopp taken over the New York City skyline.I'd say the shuttle photo is a composite too. Note how the stars end some distance from the shuttle pad, rather than continuing right up to the structures. To me that says that the original image was roughly cut out and pasted to the dark sky H-B image. |
heng44
Member Posts: 3387
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 08-27-2011 04:30 PM
Could be a double exposure then: first expose the Shuttle and cover the sky, then the other way around with a longer exposure time. |
alcyone
Member Posts: 130
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 08-27-2011 08:22 PM
Composite or not, and composites are not my favourites, the juxtaposition of high-tech spaceship and a beautiful astronomical object makes this pic a worthy selection to SHPW. |
Cozmosis22
Member Posts: 968
From: Texas * Earth
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 08-28-2011 12:09 PM
Be it a composite, double exposure, photoshop or what used to be called "trick photography"; it is not something we expect from the space agency.  These days it is only too easy to play with imagery. Still, a bit surprised to see NASA take "artistic license" with their photography. |
MarylandSpace
Member Posts: 1337
From:
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 08-28-2011 12:30 PM
Still a fun photo.And, don't a lot of us on this website still dream? |
canyon42
Member Posts: 238
From: Ohio
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 08-28-2011 01:48 PM
Can anybody with certainty identify the direction of this view toward the pad? It is definitely some sort of "trick" photo (call it a composite or otherwise), but it would be interesting to know if it is even lined up correctly with a direction the comet might have appeared. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 08-28-2011 03:37 PM
Why not just enjoy it as a photo? Surely one can enjoy it for what it is? One doesn't pull a flower to pieces to appreciate its beauty. |
randy
Member Posts: 2176
From: West Jordan, Utah USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-28-2011 05:09 PM
I agree with moorouge. Just enjoy the photo. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 08-28-2011 05:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Why not just enjoy it as a photo?
Because it's not a true photo. It's a piece of fantasy artwork created using photos. That doesn't mean one still can't enjoy it. Just be aware of what it really is. |
canyon42
Member Posts: 238
From: Ohio
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 08-28-2011 05:53 PM
Exactly. Just like I don't care for "photos" of a full moon suspended in the middle of a sunset or sunrise. Or a "flower" constructed of petals from a variety of blooms.With this, I don't much care one way or the other, as long as whoever manipulated it identified it as such. |
Philip
Member Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 08-29-2011 11:11 AM
Nice Ed but hopefully the comet is a sign of a new trend in SHPotWeek... to more (non-STS) photos.  |
Apollo Redux
Member Posts: 346
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 09-15-2011 04:51 PM
Crazy sky looks like an after-effect. |
advertisement