Quote:
Originally Posted by el_draco
Simple answer... as with most photographers... take lots of images and use the best... 
Every hoaxer who has come out has been resoundingly discredited and there is a mountain of evidence to refute the claims:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV5QYg_KYdU
Tada....
unless they show me the landing sites, sans evidence they are wankers...  |
I am talking about the photos.
Have you looked?
The point is near 100% of photos are perfect.
Superb framing, composition. exposure lighting.
Look you are in the presence of the worlds most sceptical man.
Do you think I am easily fooled?
Don't you think the things I raise I would dismiss faster than anyone else here?
But if you don't need to look before you reject my observation I understand but if you did look I would be surprised if any photographer would not think that it is studio material.
I am not for a moment suggesting they did not go but I certainly am inclined to think the shots could well have been generated in the studio...and really why not.
They had the stuff, sets simulation things so it is quiet possible.
And frankly doing studio shots makes sense from a PR view point.
Anyways I don't care I just thought given the photographers here it would be neat looking at the photos and considering if you could get near 100% perfect photos.
Framing the perfect shot each time every time does not happen... Who here has shot 100 that are perfect.
And I am sorry that I started this thread you all now think I am a hoaxer and that was never my point and I doubt if anyone has considered what I am saying...all that your head is saying is we went to the moon, we went to the moon...
Alex