STS81_v_c_o_FPP (S81E5436)
Space Shuttle Atlantis as seen from the Mir space station during the STS-81 mission, with Earth’s limb in the background.
Although a striking photograph, note the crappy pixelated resolution, despite my thoughtful, considerate & magnanimous 1200-dpi scan.
Google’s AI-generated declaration states that NASA officially discontinued publishing/issuing hard-copy STS photos in the mid-2000s. By the looks of this – if this is indeed an ‘officially’ produced NASA photograph – it looks like they’d already half-assed their ‘efforts’ to put out a quality physical photographic product…in 1997. At least the online versions are of reasonable resolution.
Further, the presence & format of the date/time stamp indicates that the photograph was taken with an electronic still camera. Again, according to Google, NASA transitioned to digital photography for immediate transmitability, distribution, analysis(?), etc…with the first flight of the Nikon F4 Electronic Still Camera during STS-48. This allowed for images to be digitized & sent back to earth electronically in near realtime. So…maybe the subsequent requirement? for expedited processing/printing of photographs, combined with the likely inept & lackadaisical effort by NASA photo processing ‘experts’ yields this level of quality. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I wonder if the photo processing/development associated with “FUJIFILM PICTRO PAPER” also contributed to the disappointing resolution:
www.photo.net/forums/topic/135228-fuji-pictro-vs-frontier/
Credit: photo.net website
Nah…it’s gotta be because of buffoonery by the NASA photo clowns’. Or, NASA went with the lowest bidder for photo processing. That is, if they’d outsourced the process at this point.
Finally, the image color is much truer (less yellow) in person. However, when I edited it to accurately reflect such, the white border was an unrealistic pure white. Granted, I only have the stock POS Microsoft photo editing package that comes with a PC. This is my best conscientious effort at splitting the difference.
As if the above isn't enough:
www.reddit.com/r/flickr/comments/1nzy9iu/photos_not_fully...
So, who knows what kind of shitty image quality you're currently seeing on Flickr. And, since arrogant, obnoxious, punk-ass Flicker management is probably too busy getting high with their part-time IT pros/bros that are moonlighting from the local computer repair shop, there's probably no urgency in resolving the issue.
8.75” x 12”.
The image was featured on the dust-jacket of “Space Shuttle: The First 20 Years – The Astronauts' Experiences in Their Own Words”, by DK Publishing, 2002.
STS81_v_c_o_FPP (S81E5436)
Space Shuttle Atlantis as seen from the Mir space station during the STS-81 mission, with Earth’s limb in the background.
Although a striking photograph, note the crappy pixelated resolution, despite my thoughtful, considerate & magnanimous 1200-dpi scan.
Google’s AI-generated declaration states that NASA officially discontinued publishing/issuing hard-copy STS photos in the mid-2000s. By the looks of this – if this is indeed an ‘officially’ produced NASA photograph – it looks like they’d already half-assed their ‘efforts’ to put out a quality physical photographic product…in 1997. At least the online versions are of reasonable resolution.
Further, the presence & format of the date/time stamp indicates that the photograph was taken with an electronic still camera. Again, according to Google, NASA transitioned to digital photography for immediate transmitability, distribution, analysis(?), etc…with the first flight of the Nikon F4 Electronic Still Camera during STS-48. This allowed for images to be digitized & sent back to earth electronically in near realtime. So…maybe the subsequent requirement? for expedited processing/printing of photographs, combined with the likely inept & lackadaisical effort by NASA photo processing ‘experts’ yields this level of quality. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I wonder if the photo processing/development associated with “FUJIFILM PICTRO PAPER” also contributed to the disappointing resolution:
www.photo.net/forums/topic/135228-fuji-pictro-vs-frontier/
Credit: photo.net website
Nah…it’s gotta be because of buffoonery by the NASA photo clowns’. Or, NASA went with the lowest bidder for photo processing. That is, if they’d outsourced the process at this point.
Finally, the image color is much truer (less yellow) in person. However, when I edited it to accurately reflect such, the white border was an unrealistic pure white. Granted, I only have the stock POS Microsoft photo editing package that comes with a PC. This is my best conscientious effort at splitting the difference.
As if the above isn't enough:
www.reddit.com/r/flickr/comments/1nzy9iu/photos_not_fully...
So, who knows what kind of shitty image quality you're currently seeing on Flickr. And, since arrogant, obnoxious, punk-ass Flicker management is probably too busy getting high with their part-time IT pros/bros that are moonlighting from the local computer repair shop, there's probably no urgency in resolving the issue.
8.75” x 12”.
The image was featured on the dust-jacket of “Space Shuttle: The First 20 Years – The Astronauts' Experiences in Their Own Words”, by DK Publishing, 2002.