Ostensibly the light reflected by the earth is so much brighter than the stars, so they don’t show up in those photos.

The same as, if you were to take a photo of the moon, you wouldn’t see any stars (unless you messed with exposure etc).

Can you take a picture of the dark side of the earth?

After an aperture beyond f11 you would have to leave the shutter open for several minutes for the shot to be exposed at a similar brightness than the sunny side of the earth, and that’s with the moon out. The problem is that if the photo is taken from a stationary (in relation to the earth’s rotation) vessel, the movement would blur the image. The short answer is yes, the longer answer would need more information around what the purpose for be photo is, but in general, yes, you can take photos of dark sceneries and expose them to get them to visibly usable levels.

Example
(details here)

It’s a nice shot, but also a composite and it’s a composite because of the reasons I described before.

I hear this bullshit excuse every time somebody asks. So are these pictures fake then? https://petapixel.com/2018/03/16/this-u-2-spy-plane-pilot-photographed-the-northern-lights-up-close/

Having seen the northern lights a number of times, I can say it’s rarely that vivid in real life. So not fake, but likely enhanced.

The fact that the stars are so bright in those photos attests to that.

So they turned up the saturation, big deal answer about the stars then.

High exposure I guess. Post-editing. It’s not unexplainable.

I do amateur photography too. This guy was going 500+ mph and the star trails show that the exposure couldn't have been but a fraction of a second at best. There is no reason that stars are not visible especially the brightest ones unless they are edited out of the photos.

Also he was flying at 70,000 feet, where the atmosphere is thinner, so less light pollution from the sun.

Not like it's bouncing off the earth or anything really? It doesn't matter anyways forget about it. I was only pointing out everybody says the same thing about ISS photos and the earth reflecting too much Sun and these pictures prove that's not the case.

Because Earth is a very bright object and you have to adjust the exposure so that the picture is not too bright. Stars are orders of magnitude darker than the Moon so they are hardly visible to begin with (that's why you don't see them during the day - unless you're under the eclipse). Same with the photos taken from space.

Please explain this. https://petapixel.com/2018/03/16/this-u-2-spy-plane-pilot-photographed-the-northern-lights-up-close/

What do you need me to explain? Northern Lights are quite dim, e.g. they are almost invisible when viewed from within a city e.g. Edinburgh, Glasgow. These pics were taken with a decent exposure at a high altitude, spy planes go 20km high, so the atmosphere is a lot thinner, so it's easier to take photos of dark dim objects.

You've got the bright earth with stars. The plane is going 500+ mph. The star trails show that exposure isn't a "decent" exposure. Maybe a fraction of a second. I take pictures too and I'm tired of the exposure garbage being used.

ISS is going 30 times faster. There are stars visible at night photos...

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-astronauts-stars-space-station.html

Photography dynamic range is much narrower than the range our eyes can see. Exposure needs to be reduced so that the earth’s reflected light doesn’t appear washed out. This means that the exposure is then too dark for the stars to show up. A solution to this would be to use HDR photography (high dynamic range), but the way this is done is by taking several pictures at varying degrees of exposure that are later combined digitally making dark areas lighter and too bright areas darker. We know how much those guys love to shit on edited photos, so the only way to make the earth and the stars who up would be to fuel the FE fires with digital manipulation.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2011/09/28/where-are-the-stars/

NASA gets that question a lot it seems.

Thank God the explanations are all b.s. https://petapixel.com/2018/03/16/this-u-2-spy-plane-pilot-photographed-the-northern-lights-up-close/

They always say you can't see the stars because the earth is too bright. Have they never sent someone into the sky with the goal of capturing the stars instead of the earth? You'd think we would have it both ways--pics with the stars underexposed/earth visible and pics with the stars visible/earth underexposed.

If it really was a conspiracy do you not think they'd Photoshop them in I mean they could have a detailed star map that they could line up fake constellations for different photo locations so as to make it seem real so if they really were lying about flat earth why wouldn't they put stars into photos

This makes me think...

Have you seen the conference of the first men on the moon? When asked about stars, they said they didn't see any. Their camera settings are one thing, but their eyes should have the ability to see the stars, even if it's something that can't be captured via photograph.

I took these photos from my backyard with my smart phone, making no special adjustments to the camera other than turning off the flash.

You can faintly see more than one star in each photo. So if you want to believe that they can't possibly adjust the exposure settings to see a star scape from space, during any of the Apollo missions or ever since, you are free to believe that. But I'm showing photos taken from earth's atmosphere in a suburban backyard that have visible stars.

Now try to take that photo with your car’s headlights shining directly at the lens in the same frame. The problem is not exposing for the stars. The problem is exposing for the stars AND the sun reflecting off the earth in the same frame. Without you knowing it, and especially in auto settings, your camera is adjusting many settings and doing post processing. Your photos don’t prove anything.

They prove that with a 2 year old iPhone I could accomplish a feat that has eluded NASA for decades even with vastly superior technology.

I think you’re missing the point. The problem is not photographing the stars, it’s photographing the stars in the same frame as a very bright large object.

What exactly is the "very bright large object" that prevented the Apollo astronauts from panning the camera upwards into the void and taking a star photo, or anyone aboard the ISS doing the same?

NASA has images of stars...

Hell even the ISS has produced star images.

Not sure what your point is

This is what happens when you’ve lived in the city for your entire life. We are waking up to a new generation who has never seen the stars.

aren’t there entire fuckin galaxies up there we can see with our bare eyes?

There are a few, but they're visible as not much more than amorphous smudges of slightly brighter sky, unless you're an eagle-eyed observer in a very dark area (no light pollution). The two brightest are only visible from the southern hemisphere. (But don't tell the Flat Earthers that. They won't believe you.)

Yes, as I said, there are a few. (Literally, fewer than ten.) M31/Andromeda is about the only one that's relatively easy to spot from the northern hemisphere though.

Note that he said "with our bare eyes" there. If you add good binoculars or a telescope, that's a game-changer.

There's no photograph of Earth. There are images created from data and composited together by NASA artist.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

Go camping. Get away from the city lights.

Why hasn't someone linked the video with all the conflicting astronauts interviews and descriptions of stars?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1q8fVyvh5k

first result on "astronauts o stars" on YT

NASA has images of stars...

Hell even the ISS has produced star images.

Not sure what your point is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1q8fVyvh5k

first result on "astronauts o stars" on YT