Photographic Specifications (APOD 24 Mar 2007)

Comments and questions about the APOD on the main view screen.
Post Reply
stanl
Asternaut
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:51 pm

Photographic Specifications (APOD 24 Mar 2007)

Post by stanl » Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:13 pm

Re: Lisbon Moonset.

An absolutely georgeous photograph. As an amateur photographer, it would be useful to have, if available, information on exposure, digital or film sensitivity and photo equipment used. Is such a thing possible?

Dr. Stanley Lotzkar

User avatar
BMAONE23
Commentator Model 1.23
Posts: 4076
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: California

Post by BMAONE23 » Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:37 pm

I believe that APOD generally includes this information when it is supplied by the photographer but I don't think it is a requirement. It would be nice to know though.

User avatar
orin stepanek
Plutopian
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Nebraska

Re: Photographic Specifications (APOD 24 Mar 2007)

Post by orin stepanek » Sat Mar 24, 2007 4:31 pm

stanl wrote:Re: Lisbon Moonset.

An absolutely georgeous photograph. As an amateur photographer, it would be useful to have, if available, information on exposure, digital or film sensitivity and photo equipment used. Is such a thing possible?

Dr. Stanley Lotzkar
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070324.html

It is a stunning photo. I copied it so I could use at as wallpaper later on.
Orin
Orin

Smile today; tomorrow's another day!

User avatar
iamlucky13
Commander
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:28 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by iamlucky13 » Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:34 pm

If you save the full size image, you can access the EXIF data using a program like Microsoft Picture Manager (File > Properties > Camera Properties > More). This does not work on all pictures, but it does on most, if they haven't been resized by a program that ignores the data.

Believe it or not, the picture was taken with a simple HP Photosmart C850 (probably on a tripod), a relatively cheap prosumer model.
Camera Model: HP Photosmart C850
Equipment Make: Hewlett-Packard
Date Taken: 1/11/2002 2:45:13 PM
Color Representation: sRGB
Subject distance: 65.54m
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 10.86mm (1.4x zoom)
F-number: F/2.8
Exposure Time: 4.3 sec.
"Any man whose errors take ten years to correct is quite a man." ~J. Robert Oppenheimer (speaking about Albert Einstein)

User avatar
NoelC
Creepy Spock
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 2:30 am
Location: South Florida, USA; I just work in (cyber)space
Contact:

Post by NoelC » Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:11 pm

Good info, iamlucky13. Did you know that even just plain old Explorer can show the embedded information from within photo files, known as "EXIF info"?

1. Save the file to a temporary folder.
2. Click the right mouse button on the file in Windows Explorer.
3. Choose Properties.
4. Click on the Summary tab along the top.
5. Click on the [Advanced >>] button.

Image

Image

-Noel

User avatar
iamlucky13
Commander
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:28 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by iamlucky13 » Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:51 pm

I did not know that. I think this may be a new feature added to the XP version of Windows explorer, because I don't recall stumbling across it on W2K. Thanks.
"Any man whose errors take ten years to correct is quite a man." ~J. Robert Oppenheimer (speaking about Albert Einstein)

User avatar
DavidLeodis
Perceptatron
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 1:00 pm

Post by DavidLeodis » Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:30 pm

I did not know that either, so I tried it and it certainly works.
As a result though I am now confused, as the explanation to the APOD of March 24th 2007 states the picture was "recorded on March 20" and thus by implication (and the subject matter) that was March 20th 2007. The date it was taken is however given as 1/11/2002 in the information. Is there a reason for the different dates :?:

Dave :)

FreebirdsWB
Ensign
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:29 pm

Post by FreebirdsWB » Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:14 pm

The date on the guys camera was never set. He probably changed his batteries and never bothered.

Post Reply