Paul Attivissimo, with the help of Diego Cuoghi
In a previous article I pointed a vintage example of how the Apollo photographs were published in the years immediately following the events in the form significantly degraded and retouching that may have contributed greatly to a sense of artificiality or alter real that would fuel the argument for staging. However
Cuoghi Diego, author of Moon Hoax? No thanks! , tells me that there is also a modern case-editing rather striking: the book Full Moon by Michael Light, published by Mondadori in Italy under the title Luna in 1999. Cuoghi cites, for example, the photo number 70 of the book (the pages are not numbered). This is a partial scan of the picture as presented in Full Moon.
This however, is the original photo, the AS15-85-11470, published by NASA here and available in much higher definition and cropped at http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov (get this latest version is a bit 'complicated Cuoghi the offer directly to your website here ).
The comparison reveals a striking and controversial digital image processing, subject perhaps to give drama to a photograph taken with the aim of only documented. The most observant will also notice the elimination of a real detail: the stone from the rover's wheels, shown below.
Explain Cuoghi: "[Michael Light] has closed all the shadows turning them into a single black spot, e tutto il contorno dell'astronauta e del Rover sul fondo nero è alonato, come se in stampa (faccio sempre l'esempio della camera oscura) avessero esagerato con l'esposizione della carta. Queste foto non sono state stampate su carta e poi scansionate, sarebbe assurdo, ma l'effetto è quello. In digitale si può ottenere con PhotoShop, lavorando su diversi livelli sovrapposti, uno sfocato che scurisce il sottostante, poi uno esageratamente contrastato che si sovrappone parzialmente, poi un altro.... Insomma bisogna lavorarci molto per rovinare in quel modo "pittoresco" una foto scientifica."
Cuoghi nota che quasi tutte le fotografie in bianco e nero hanno lo stesso "effettaccio" , while the color "have suffered, I think, only a high contrast." He also cites the photographs 75 and 76, compared with the original ( AS15-82-11102 and AS15-90-12233 ): "Just look at how the poor were reduced shadows: the depths of black 100% , gray and white shot non-existent when originals are full of nuances and details. And always fuzzy halo below, to make sense of artifacts and dirt ... maybe the originals were too realistic, not sufficiently attractive , glamor, shocking. "
Find incomprehensible "the heavy processing that are in what is considered one of the best recent picture books about the Apollo missions. " He adds: " A lot of black and white photos were processed to make it more "dramatic" with an incomprehensible abuse of contrast mixed with pulping details, feathered edges as if they were were cropped with the airbrush, shades closed, lights burned ... The comparison with the best original scans published in the NASA sites is daunting. The author confesses that he spoke only four photos' deleting using a digital some small parts for cosmetic reasons, 'but it is not, the pictures ruined with that black and white "quaint and charming" are many more. "
Michael Light's book, in short, has the advantage of rekindling interest in the Apollo lunar missions, but does so by sacrificing the authenticity and realism. it must be considered more as art book as an objective document of the moon landing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment