Seasoned photographers, look at the lens flare in this photo...?

Question: Seasoned photographers, look at the lens flare in this photo!.!.!.!?

Is this wide open apature!?
http://www!.panoramas!.dk/moon/hasselblad!.!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

I'd say that it's "pretty wide," although I don't know what lens this is!. Ace, these guys may have been scientists, but in the end they were probably still amateur photographers, so I'll bet it's wide open!. Look at the moon dust right behind the guy!. It's not sharp at all!. There's nothing besides the main subject in focus, so I'm going to say it may even be f/4!.0!. I say there's no way it's f/16!.

~~~~~
ADD'L
~~~~~

Okay, Ace says it's a 60 mm lens!. This was 40 years ago, but today, I see a 60 mm f/3!.5 lens!. He also said that it had special polarizers in your other question!. Certainly, the space program could have have had any lens modifications that they wanted!. Let's guess that the optics were fine, because they chose Hasselblad for a reason, right!? What about those internal polarizers!? In the Earth world, polarizers cut two stops from the lens!. That makes this an f/7!.1 lens!. Who's to say that they didn't use darker polarizers to cut the light!? It's NASA and there was no limit to the budget!.

I see that the film was "specially modified" Ektachrome 160!. The Sunny 16 rule would say to shoot at f/16 at 1/160!. If we assume the 1/500 shutter speed, which is probably correct given that a leaf shutter has physical limits, this could translate into f/9!.0 at 1/500!. That's only 2/3 of a stop faster than f/7!.1 at 1/500!. If they only had 2/3 stop worth of ND in that polorizer, the lens could have been wide open!. If there was no additional ND and the polarizer only sucked up the usual two stops, the physical aperture for f/9!.0 would have been f/4!.5 and I could easily believe that based on the resulting focus!.

I say: f/4!.5 with a polarizer at 1/500 using ASA 160 film!.

Now if they were using a digital back with 49 MP, we could enlarge and enhance ad nauseum a la CSI and look at the reflection of the lens on the visor!.!.!. ;-)

~~~

I think the "spotlight" is the sun!. These are very different images, too!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Well you can see the five aperture leaves and since all those people are scientists, my guess it that they were shooting about three stops down !.!.!. on the Zeiss, Biogon f-5!.6/60 mm lens!. So that f/stop would be at f/16!. Since the light striking the moon is at least two times the strength of that on earth, you have to use the Sunny/moony 22 rule !.!.!. ;>)Www@QuestionHome@Com

I would say its medium if it was all the way open it would be closer to a perfect circle!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

the flare looks wide, not fine like say a f22, so im gonna guess 5!.6, !? the perpective is twisted,

its good to see he has his I!.D!. card secured on his arm!.

tilted horizon, short depth, very odd lighting and shadows or lack of and some not filled!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.

go on tell us

EDIT: didnt see the speed question!. take into account they may have been using a higher iso like 800 or so as medium at 800 is like 35mm 200 when enlarged as per grain size at enlargement - hope that makes sence

EDIT: as they were shoot on film with latertude, they could be over or under exposed then pushed or pulled in development or given less or more time exposed to light to make the print!.

its over my head now!.!.!.!.!.looks like a 5!.6 flare to me

considering and watching Bon http://www!.youtube!.com/watch!?v=gZRKf6j7E!.!.!.

EDIT3: Sam sound onto it, so looks like 5!.6 flare could easily be 4!.5, 160iso at 500th why not, they can fiddle the processing and printing also

aWww@QuestionHome@Com

So, where are all the stars!?

Ah yes, the old fake guy on the moon pic!. hhmmmmm

What I would question on this particular photograph are the peculiar crosshair things!. Some are perfectly composed, while others are a bit fuzzy!. The one that should be smack dab in the center of the austronauts helmet is either not there, or too fuzzy to make out!. The one that's just to the left of the hose fades out as well!. You'd think with that much light behind the crosshair that the crosshair would be very defined!. Either that or that whole section of the picture would be blown out!.

Just speculating is all!.Www@QuestionHome@Com