No stars
Discussion
Ektachrome at 1/250s and f11....try photographing stars with that setting - or even with a digital camera...stars are many orders of magnitude dimmer than the moon and earth in full sunlight, flim or digital photography don't have the dynamic range to show both at the same time. To properly expose for stars you need many seconds of exposure, and a tripod with a motorized equatorial mount (or high ISO film that will be less resolution)
just some quick calculations, with Ektachrome (iso 100) and shooting at f11, you would need 120-240 seconds (2-4 MINUTES) of exposure to properly expose the stars....vs 1/250s (4 milliseconds) this exposure was shot at
There's nothing in the space vacuum to get lit by the sun. What "full sunlight" are you talking about?
Stars around the moon are easily seen at night from earth, while it sits in "full sunlight" in space, allegedly.
On the inverse square law in regards to light:
https://odysee.com/@GLOBEBUSTERS:c/globebusters-bob-knodel-2019-feic:1
really? you can see stars around a full moon? maybe the very brightest, maybe -- now take a picture - photography does not have the dynamic range of a human eye
My shit phone camera can't even make a good moon photo, imagine Nasa giving such an excuse for a cool $90-100 million a day budget.
You can see a lot of stars during a full moon, outside of the cities tho. Nothing like the empty blackness Nasa has been pushing as space photos for decades.
I've shot a broad range of film (including Ekta) and digital, including some astrophotography and 2 solar eclipse totalities. You can accept the knowledge I'm offering, go out and test it, or take the blue pill continue to believe what you want to.
I shall, intrigued.
Blue pill is the mainstream pill, tho. Moon landings were all faked, you have missed the 90s leaks of Nasa footage staging "deep space" photo of earth during supposed moon missions, with the A-team of masons-astroNOTs.