Look, if the guy is in shadow to the extent that he cannot even see where his feet are then there is no way that a camera could see the details of where hes standing
I disagree, and I'm a photographer. ISO 160, f/5.6, 1/60 second. Do the math and prove your point.
Secondly, the LM was between Armstrong and the Sun, so no direct sunlight was hitting that area
Nobody is claiming direct sunlight penetrates the shadow. The sunlight is interreflected from several sources through several lighting "nodes".
Shadow means 'lack of light'.
In whose dictionary? Shadow is the occlusion of a light source. It does not mean lack of light.
... I say that your wrong!
Prove I'm wrong. Photographers do exactly this all the time, on purpose, with similar effects. Have you ever been on an exterior film set? I have. Several times. Guess what they use for fill light: reflected sunlight.
Also in an earlier conversation somebody said that the suits were so reflective because they were made from pieces of glass. If this is the case, doesn't glass melt at high heat?
I was the one who made the comment, and this rejoinder is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
How would the glass heat up? Well, you could say it's in the sunlight and the sun is heating it up. But how much does the sun heat it up? Not very much: the glass was chosen because it's reflective. And in that way it reflects away the light which would have been converted to heat. It was chosen because it has the optical properties that keep it from heating up.
You could say it's in contact with hot surfaces. But what hot surfaces? Aluminum? Steel? Other equipment brought with the astronauts? That all reflects away light too so it doesn't get very hot. The lunar surface and lunar rocks? They absorb a lot of heat and get up to 180 C. Well, that's after hot-soaking in the lunar sun for about a week, not just after sunrise which is when the lunar landings took place.
But let's take the worst case scenario -- a very hot rock at 200 C at high noon on the moon. What would that do to a suit whose outer layer is made of glass, when glass melts at the lowest at 500 C, and typically around 1600 C?
This discussion is deteriorating very rapidly. Unless you can provide evidence, aside from handwaving and foot stomping, that there was insufficient light for photography in the LM's shadow, I don't think you're going to make much headway. I'm an engineer. I require proof in the form of luminance, radiant power, and excitation energy for the films in question. If you can't provide that, you can't claim it was impossible.
|