Goalpost stays, in "space" the stars would be extremely bright and you would be able to see them if you had real photographs and not proven fakes.
Your whole cosmological conception depends on concepts which break the laws of physics. You have been duped into an idiotic religion crafted to limit your understanding of reality to state approved dogma.
You are making a false analogy assuming the studio light reflected from the soft suit that would never protect you from being in zero air pressure is equivalent to pointing a camera at a bright light.
There are thousands of fake photos and not one shows any stars or hint of stars. Again, it is impossible to fake the complex array of stars so they just make the background blank and tell religious zealots a story why they cannot be seen.
There should be stars in the background as they would be very bright. Since the concept of "space" as described by the satanic pedophiles is impossible according to physics, a sane person would just assume the pedos are lying.
There is a device called a "light meter".... It can objectively measure the brightness of an object.
Put a white suit in direct sun light.... And point the light meter at the suit.
Then point the same light meter at a street light at night...
The suit will be brighter....
Dynamic range means the camera has to select which area of the image it's focusing on. It can either capture the detail in the dark areas, at the expense of turning the light areas all white. Or it can capture the light areas, at the expense of turning the dark areas all black.
It can not photograph both at the same time because that's not how cameras work.
Moving goalposts... How much would I bet that your grasp on physics is as laughable as your understanding of photography? A lot.
Goalpost stays, in "space" the stars would be extremely bright and you would be able to see them if you had real photographs and not proven fakes.
Your whole cosmological conception depends on concepts which break the laws of physics. You have been duped into an idiotic religion crafted to limit your understanding of reality to state approved dogma.
Then you should also be able to see them when focused on a street light, since a street light is dimmer than a white suit being hit by the sun.
Take the picture and prove me wrong.
You are making a false analogy assuming the studio light reflected from the soft suit that would never protect you from being in zero air pressure is equivalent to pointing a camera at a bright light.
There are thousands of fake photos and not one shows any stars or hint of stars. Again, it is impossible to fake the complex array of stars so they just make the background blank and tell religious zealots a story why they cannot be seen.
There should be stars in the background as they would be very bright. Since the concept of "space" as described by the satanic pedophiles is impossible according to physics, a sane person would just assume the pedos are lying.
Let me explain it again...
There is a device called a "light meter".... It can objectively measure the brightness of an object.
Put a white suit in direct sun light.... And point the light meter at the suit.
Then point the same light meter at a street light at night...
The suit will be brighter....
Dynamic range means the camera has to select which area of the image it's focusing on. It can either capture the detail in the dark areas, at the expense of turning the light areas all white. Or it can capture the light areas, at the expense of turning the dark areas all black.
It can not photograph both at the same time because that's not how cameras work.