Ulysse2K wrote:
Gerªrd wrote:
Ulysse2K wrote:
Gerªrd wrote:
The light of the cities crossing the clouds? oO 'It looks like a bad layer … thank you photoshop
Another con … Plot player Learn before coming out of such norms!
Why are you so violent? Can't I have a question? The atmosphere is dense enough to attenuate sources of light, especially clouds. It is probably touched up like all the current photos.
Did you click on -1 while having fun? Why are you talking about conspiracy I don't see the report … oO?
It was a bit dry but I don't see where the violence is.
It is true that as soon as we see images on various subjects, there are always a bunch of morons who find it to be false, retouched, purely imaginary. With theories as far-fetched as stupid and without the slightest verification (characteristic of conspiracies)
Especially since these images are not the first (ISS) and you just have to go to a bunch of sites to see them (NASA, ESA). So as soon as I get a statement like "thank you photoshop" without inquiring, it increases my tension by a notch.
The link you give are "low altitude" images. It is from a stratospheric balloon (25-35 km max) while the ISS is 400 km away. Not to mention that their optical systems have nothing to do with that of an amateur who hung a GoPro on a balloon.
Once again, this is not proof that the images in this news are "photoshop"!
But hey, we're not going to take the coffee maker for the polar aurora
"It was a little dry but I don't see where the violence is."
Insulting people at first is as stupid as going to hasty conclusions without foundation.
"It is true that as soon as we see images on various subjects, there are always a bunch of morons who find it to be false, retouched, purely imaginary. With theories as far-fetched as stupid and without the slightest verification (characteristic of conspiracies) "
I do not see what is true you speak early alone … between presuming that a photo is not neutral and too contrasting and going to the theories that you cite there is quite a margin. The characteristic of people too sure of themselves is to speak of a conspiratorial with all the sauces, baseless … (like the bunch of morons who wallow in anti-Semitism or homophobia at the first opportunity .. )
“Especially since these images are not the first (ISS) and you just have to go to a bunch of sites to see them (NASA, ESA). So as soon as I get a statement like "thank you photoshop" without inquiring, it increases my tension by a notch. "
Because these photos don't have a filter? Contrast, saturation have not gone up a notch or two? Pujadas is also not made up when he shows up at 8 p.m.?
"The link you give are" low altitude "images. It is from a stratospheric balloon (25-35 km max) while the ISS is 400 km away. Not to mention that their optical systems have nothing to do with that of an amateur who hung a GoPro on a balloon. "
Whether you stick an L lens or a lens to take Grandma's picture, the light source will be the same. The sensor will be important, if only for the noise … the video that I have linked is very noise but at a lower altitude the light remains less "filtered" than by traveling 400km through the 'atmosphere…
"Once again, this is not proof that the images in this news are" photoshop "! "
No, they are raw sensor you're right …
"But hey, we're not going to take the coffee maker for the polar aurora"
No worries, I have no problem with my blood pressure
