Talk:1828: ISS Solar Transit

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 16:02, 23 February 2018 by (talk)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

The staging of this comic is really confusing... Top to bottom, right to left is just a weird order. It took me a little while to figure out that the solid white space in the top row is actually a double high, and not a solid white beat panel. I was thinking that the picture was completely whited out. Andyd273 (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ....Oh my god, you're right, you can read it backwards, right to left, and it still works as a comic! 04:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The comic reads left-to-right, not right-to-left... Raj-a-Kiit (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the description that's posted. The joke is that Cueball is not trying to take a picture of the sun - he is trying to take a picture of the ISS while it passes in front of the sun. So it is true that the object being photographed (the ISS) is in direct sunlight, just as the label says. The problem with the label is that it's incomplete: in context, it really means something like, "The object being photographed is in lighting equivalent to direct sunlight falling on the surface of the planet Earth with no intervening filters." The ISS (and the moon, as mentioned in the title text) are being directly struck by sunlight but do not fit the rest of the implied context of the label.

So shouldn't it then use the 'Shade' option for the ISS? ;) -- Denny
Technically, he's trying to take a picture of the shadow of the ISS, since he's not looking for the reflected sunlight. Since the Sun is incandescent, that filter would also apply, but only for the background, not the object in question. Also, isn't that kind of the joke, here? 22:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Photographically, incandescent filters are used to correct color when using standard tungsten light as the primary light source. Without supplemental lighting (e.g., electronic flash), images appear more yellow. 35mm film can be corrected using a blue filter over the lens. 12:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The side of the ISS that he is photographing is not being struck by sunlight. The other side of the ISS (the side facing toward the sun and away from earth) is being struck by sunlight. He is photographing the side facing away from the sun and toward the earth. 02:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that no matter HOW you try to white-balance image like this it wouldn't be correct. The idea behind white balance is to show how the photographed object would REFLECT white light, and Sun certainly doesn't reflect enough for it to be visible over the light it radiates. -- Hkmaly (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the joke that that a solar filter is really a physical piece of hardware while Cueball is incorrectly using a software filter? Yeah, you might need to use a software filter to color correct the picture in reality, but this being Cueball he is probably trying to do it in software alone. -- 10:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The title text is wrong though. A reflection of direct sunlight (the visible moon for a full moon) isn't direct sunlight. 11:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The Moon is in direct sunlight. If something that is hit by sunlight and then this sunlight gets to your camera with out interference then that must be what is meant by direct sunlight. Else nothing is in direct sunlight (except when taking a picture directly into the sun, which is not what is meant by direct sunlight). But taking pictures of something on Earth in moon light is not direct sunlight. So title text is correct but more is needed on why that option would also make no sense. --Kynde (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we need a Category:Camera?? Or photography? Randall has made many comics with this as the subject. Two are already linked above. Then there are 1314: Photos and 648: Fall Foliage etc.--Kynde (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding if direct sunlight is the correct white balance for photographing the moon: There could be a slight difference in color, because the sunlight is reflected by the moon before being filtered by the atmosphere instead of being filtered by the atmosphere first before being reflected by the photographed object, but this should be negligible. Condor70 (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Photographer here. The proper settings for photographing the moon at night (including white balance and exposure) are indeed the same you would use to photograph a rock in daylight, as that is exactly what you're doing. Atmospheric effects don't factor into it since what you see is the same whether the filter is between the light and your subject, or between the subject and you. -- 15:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wondering about a description of what the resulting shot would actually look like if he used that setting. Somebody who knows more about cameras than me should probably say something about that, even if the answer's obvious. 00:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Smarter Every Day did this for real, you can look it up on youtube. It's pretty neat