tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post4673403089752802696..comments2024-03-27T11:02:08.037-05:00Comments on LEICA Barnack Berek Blog: LEICA CAMERAS USED BY NASALEICA Barnack Berek Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09055435560407011075noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-10705287789291187202017-05-10T09:24:54.449-05:002017-05-10T09:24:54.449-05:00I thought John Glenn used a different camera.I thought John Glenn used a different camera.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-6990898949934311832017-05-10T09:22:53.573-05:002017-05-10T09:22:53.573-05:00I have wondered about that as well. I am sure they...I have wondered about that as well. I am sure they did not plan on using flash on the moon, and even if they did, that would not require an especially heavy duty top plate. The reason might be that the heavy duty top plate with its accessory shoe was part of the mounting system for the camera. I am fairly certain that it was planned to have the camera mounted on the chest of the space suits as was done with the Hasselblads. The accessory shoe would have been a practical means to remove the camera when necessary. Of course other means to fasten the camera might have been devised as well, but the camera shows no other means to mount it.LEICA Barnack Berek Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09055435560407011075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-30433361196903444372017-05-10T09:22:32.034-05:002017-05-10T09:22:32.034-05:00I wonder why they beefed up the top plate and then...I wonder why they beefed up the top plate and then mounted an accessory shoe onto that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-67467739908184051662017-05-10T09:22:01.873-05:002017-05-10T09:22:01.873-05:00Overexpose and underdevelop. That can yield at lea...Overexpose and underdevelop. That can yield at least a two stop wider exposure range and I am sure, Kodak had a few more tricks up their sleeves to go beyond that if necessary.LEICA Barnack Berek Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09055435560407011075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-10412882009771097182017-05-10T09:21:26.852-05:002017-05-10T09:21:26.852-05:00What do you have to do to lower the contrast of fi...What do you have to do to lower the contrast of filmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-44457873548961358172017-05-10T09:20:56.214-05:002017-05-10T09:20:56.214-05:00Yes, the sunny 16 rules works just as well on the ...Yes, the sunny 16 rules works just as well on the moon as it does on earth. However, because of the lack of an atmosphere, lighting has a substantially higher contrast on the moon. With some simple exposure/development adjustments, that can easily be compensated for.LEICA Barnack Berek Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09055435560407011075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-58276658704634855012017-05-10T09:20:39.828-05:002017-05-10T09:20:39.828-05:00Wouldn't the sunny 16 rule be applicable on th...Wouldn't the sunny 16 rule be applicable on the moon as it does on earth? Wouldn't that eliminate exposure problems?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-71162690514358992012017-05-10T09:20:10.529-05:002017-05-10T09:20:10.529-05:00That certainly seems to make sense. But Ektachrome...That certainly seems to make sense. But Ektachrome offered substantially more extensive development corrections in case the films were not correctly exposed. Ektachrome simply was a more versatile film and, if properly stored, can last virtually as long as Kodachrome.LEICA Barnack Berek Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09055435560407011075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-83133216941469060902017-05-10T09:19:51.683-05:002017-05-10T09:19:51.683-05:00Wouldn't Kodachrome have been better in terms ...Wouldn't Kodachrome have been better in terms of sharpness and especially longevity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-59133921687996917982017-05-10T09:19:26.185-05:002017-05-10T09:19:26.185-05:00As far as I know, all the films were Ektachrome.As far as I know, all the films were Ektachrome.LEICA Barnack Berek Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09055435560407011075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-2185815073875056732017-05-10T09:19:10.627-05:002017-05-10T09:19:10.627-05:00Do you know what film the used on the moon?Do you know what film the used on the moon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-46785867318476411742017-05-10T09:18:36.851-05:002017-05-10T09:18:36.851-05:00That is an excellent question. It would make sense...That is an excellent question. It would make sense to leave the cameras and just bring back the exposed film, unless during testing and practicing with the cameras it became apparent that it was too difficult to rewind and reload the film. I am not positive, but I do believe that NASA used films with a special, very thin backing which allowed at least twice the exposures of regular 35mm film. With at least two cameras (or possibly more) for for each astronaut, that would have been at least 140 to 150 exposures.LEICA Barnack Berek Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09055435560407011075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1320126156594375642.post-73871913274966570932017-05-10T09:18:02.441-05:002017-05-10T09:18:02.441-05:00It appears that the Leica was modified with large ...It appears that the Leica was modified with large levers to the extend that even the film could be rewound and the baseplate removed for reloading; why else would there be a need to rewind and removal of the baseplate. In view of that, wouldn't even more weight have been saved of the astronauts simply removed the exposed films and brought those back, leaving the cameras on the moon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com