There are two basic workflows for scanning images: 1. use the scanner program that came with the scanner. These used to be universally awful, and lacked basic features. You'd end up with a file that you would then have to open in an editing application to do anything useful. 2. control the scanner from within Photoshop. The files would come in directly into the editing environment, allowing you to skip a bunch of steps and avoid dealing with the awful scanner software.

Of course all the photos from space missions 40+ years ago were photoshopped. They just had to photoshop Photoshop into existence 40 years before it existed first. Easy. I find anyone who claims "CGI" easy to ignore anyway. Even in the late 90s, CGI was basically Toy Story III.

I worked at a metropolitan newspaper and every image was color corrected using Photoshop to match press settings. What the photographers were not allowed to do was to stage shots.

Dave, as a fellow photographer I enjoy your video's. As someone whom has actually shot for NASA even more so. Keep up the great work! Look forward to seeing more in the future!

Only discovered you a day or 2 ago, have binged since! Amazing content, explained so well. Keep up the good work!!!

Speaking of satellites, a great way to disprove flat earth is with GPS. If you look at the data your device receives while GPS is active, it's just timestamps and coordinates from 4 different satellites - there's nothing at all about your own location in there. Then, the math to calculate your location only works if a) you're on a globe, b) the speed of light is accurate, and c) the reported positions of each satellite, including their altitudes, are accurate. If any of these are false then the result is easily thousands of miles off.

Every photo on your phone has some level of filtration done to it, from color vibrance to denoising. Try turning on RAW image mode and see how grainy and flat the photos are. This is basically what NASA is doing to its images, in addition to tiling multiple images into one wider panorama, and remapping colors to make them more presentable. They are not painting out space rats or buildings, or fabricating planets.

Best defense and explanation for a lot of the space photographs. This and the moon light fall off video clearly show that you have a knack for explaining technical things in a way, which answers the obvious counter-arguments, and doesn't leave too much pointless ambiguity in the discussion. Thanks.

I tried to explain them that midle focuspoint never distorts(bends) image. Their answer was only that "it's bent","it's fish eye" bla bla. So i left this group. Nicely done mate.Keep it up.

I’ve worked around professional observatories and been involved in the design of several very large telescopes since the mid 1980s. The current images of objects in space in color are relatively modern. Astronomers have long taken black and white images with color filters, blue, red, etc to determine the color of stars. They did not bother with actual color images. I believe that it was William Miller that first published color images of objects in the sky in 1959. These were widely circulated and can be seen in the backgrounds of many movies. Science has long had a problem understanding the importance of good PR. These color images could hav been produced long before. I believe that even NASA was initially caught off guard at the level of public interest in the Hubble images.

Aaah, finally. Someone who actually understands optics explains what the images are all about... I have often thought that those poor flat earthers just need a couple of workshops from a photographer and much would become clear even for them.

The earth completing one “spin” in a 24 hour period is exactly what I use to refute claims that the earth spins “too fast” and that everything should be “flinging off” I ask them to physically complete one “spin” themselves, but that they have to take 24 hours to do it, you can literally see the aha moment take place when asked face to face, while in chat rooms the conversation just abruptly comes to end 😂😂😂

A textbook example of how expertise can make an already settled topic interesting in the way good documentaries are re-watchable…our memories won’t retain it all so when the presentation is top notch the result is perfect entertainment, imo.

Dave, this is just a brilliant defense of reality. Thank you 🙂

As a side note to the "the details show it's been edited with Photoshop" - that entry from the file's metadata can easily edited out/changed without great effort. If anything the fact that NASA left them in is evidence that they're not trying to cover anything up. If that was their goal, they'd simple change stuff like that.

I’m glad you’re channel has been growing a lot lately. But please don’t stop with camera and photography related content. Greetings /Albin

Flerfs: there are no satellites with live view of Earth. Let’s pretend next week a space agency launched one that could do it -> flerfs would be like: CGI…. 😅 you just cannot win against a flerf….

5 min in basically, flerfs are the same as music "purists" that hate vocal layering. vocal layering is when a singer pre-records a line, so they can sign a different line at the same time. layering the two lines over each other. allowing one singer to sound like there are two. a LOT of songs do this, and there is a small population of music loving individuals that think its "cheating" or "fake"

I can explain country size proportions changing. I took a photo of a highly decorative mug at close range and fit it to the frame veritically. Then I backed up to the back of the room and zoomed in and again fit it to the frame vertically. The mug sizes in the different images appeared the same but I could see more edge detail in the one that was taken from a distance. With a curved surface such as a mug or a sphere, you see more of the edges with distance.

Excellent, as usual, thanks!! Your dog is so patient 👏👏

As an astrophotography using a filter wheel, I don't necessarily use photoshop but from data gathering to instragram, there is a software workflow.

It's hilarious when flerfs ask to see photo's of "upside down" objects such as planes and ships from orbit. They simply cannot grasp that there is no "upside down" on the globe.

Every photo taken by a P900 or P1000, the camera of choice for a flat Earther, is CGI. Those cameras use a digital sensor whose bit stream is processed into a colour image by a built in computer and then processed further into a compressed JPEG image. So ALL flat Earth P900 & P1000 images are Computer Generated Images, aka CGI. Yet all flat Earthers are absolutely ecstatic to use such images to "prove" flat Earth. The flat Earther's own expectations are their measure of reality or fake. If it matches what they expect it must be real, but if it doesn't match, why then it must be FAKE! One newbie flattie made me laugh when he claimed Space photos all showing a black background meant they must be fake as they only ever showed night time photos. He couldn't conceive of a sky being black in the daytime. On certain very dry hot completely clear days with no clouds, I have laid back and stared straight up into a strangely dark yet still intensely sky blue sky. The sky shades from a blue white at the horizon up to an intensely blue black zenith in the right conditions. Using a wide angle lens to capture that range of blue shades gave me some beautiful shots.

Great channel. Clear, precise and easy to understand. Thanks for your efforts to make us all a little more informed. 🙂

12:40 Soooo they believe that “someone” has the ability to hide the fact that the earth is actually flat, but that they’d also be so careless as to overlook something like editing a photo? Come on now 🙄 The cognitive dissonance is REAL with these people

As a once great(and still great) Albert Einstein said: “Arguing with a fool is like trying to teach a fish how to climb a tree.”

I hope they pick you up to do the narration for a space documentary. Opening monologue gave me carl sagan vibes. Would watch. 10/10.

I had no idea about that site where you can get even the raw files. Learning something new everyday.

At 9:45 - you were too fast with the rotation, 15° per hour is much slower. I like to compare it to the rotation of a clock's hour hand - which is already 2 times faster than Earth! Edit: I just took a quick look at "March to the Moon" - no wonder those images had to be "photoshoped", many of them look just awful! But perhaps they are scanned in linear mode to retain as much data as possible (they were meant for scientific research, not as pretty vacation snapshots), and would therefor need some grading to be applied to look "natural".

I love how thorough you explain the concepts and debunk the flat earthers' and Moon landing deniers' cherry picked claims.

Best scientist quote: are ya bored yet?

Oh man, thank you for this video! I'm so glad to see the original images and that they don't have that apparent look of trickery. I really appreciate your channel and your work!

Dave McKeegan, your clear and concise explanations here completely DESTROY the whole Flat Earth movement! Keep it up!

Today all images we view are "Photoshopped". UV glass on the lens. Lens hood. Lens artifacts/flares. Countering the Bayer filter. Applying basic contrast curve. Applying high pass filter. White balancing. Initial sharpening. Refined contrast curve/tone mapping/exposure. Color balancing. Size reduction and cropping. Sharpening for final media. Compression if desired. Many/most of which are done by the glass and camera itself if you ever view the "final result", as the RAW file is usually quite bland and uninteresting. Hell, even Ansel Adams "Photoshopped" his images, using different developing techniques in the dark room.

It's not exactly the same, but when I was a kid and my parents switched their TV provider to Dish Network, I distinctly remember being quite enthralled with the Dish Earth channel. Basically, Dish strapped a camera to one of their satellites, and used that to broadcast a live feed of the Earth from a geostationary point of view. Apparently they ended that broadcast some years ago due to technical issues, but I still remember it quite fondly.

Satellites are not sent to space to take pretty photos of the Earth. That would be a waste of money. They are there to collect data. You can create photo of the Earth by combining certain variables collected by the satellite. For example, you can combine data collected for the light wavelength 470nm, 555nm and 645nm. Those data variables need to be spread on a curve to replicate what our eyes sees. They are then combined to create a "photo". Also, those satellites are pretty close to the Earth. They only "see" a small region of the Earth. They go around the Earth from pole to pole, creating a "band" of data. You need to wait for the satellite to come back to get the next band and so on. When you stitch all those bands, you get a full picture of the Earth. Obviously, the clouds won't be on the same place when the satellite comes back, because clouds move. Sometimes, that creates a strange "copy/paste" effect. It's not because NASA copy/pasted clouds around, it's simply because clouds move... [EDIT] Turns out he is covering all those points in that video. I should have listen to it before commenting :)

Unfortunately you're talking about people who don't even understand the science that was available hundreds of years ago when we first determined the Earth was a sphere, so what hope is there they'll comprehend digital photography? Frankly anyone can do the experiments at home and see the proof of it, but not without first understanding what they're doing. (Say, maybe NASA should use GIMP; then people could proclaimed "that image is GIMPED!" *LOL*)

so all in all flat earthers just dont know how photoshop works or photos in general

What a guy, no insults just facts.

I’ve found you the answer to all my questions well done 👍🏾

The phrase that comes to mind is..."You're preaching to the choir...". But thank you for doing the homework Dave. You'll never convince someone who has made up their mind and won't listen to reason or logic but for the majority of us you've done an outstanding job in these recent videos, Thanks!

You're better at handling the flat earthers than others like Sci Man Dan. As entertaining as he is to watch, there's a lot of antagonizing going on that doesn't happen here. It's facts here that are delivered in an easy to understand way that also seem to go as far out of their way as possible to favor flat earth, while still disproving it. It's great!

Don't understand Photoshop Don't understand fisheye lens Don't understand science Don't understand mathematics Don't understand normal language nuances ~ every flatearther ever

I subbed for photography stuff, but stick to your channel because of these beautifully presented contents. Cheers from Indonesia

The majority of the big flerf channels know about all of this but ignore it. #GottaLie2Flerf

Another fascinating video….thank you! 7:02 I found really interesting with the side by side comparison of the two images taken at two different distances from the globe 👌

Dave McKeegan, your one stop shop for debunking ridiculous FE claims.

When you stop to think about it, any photo taken with a digital sensor, such as a camera or phone is computer generated!

these videos are so interesting and it still involves photography so I'm gud

Another fantastic video that sticks to concisely made arguments without the need for insults and mockery. Informative, educational and on target. It shows once again that the Flat Earth guru's are manipulating data themselves and/or inadvertently passing around flawed information as "proofs" in order to either A) Keep their belief system going, or B) To continue to grift people out of their money. Neither one is good. You also sound like another fellow Lancastrian, Dave, which is always an extra bonus if it is the case. Cheers.

also it's kind of funny because they DO live stream. they live stream from the iss either constantly or very frequently. sometimes i just open up the iss livestream and watch it for a little bit. it shows multiple views from multiple different cameras, though the turn of the earth is not really something you can discern in my opinion because the iss orbits quite fast at 16 times a day so any rotation of the earth is something you don't really notice i think as the iss whizzes by

This is my biggest annoyance with flat earthers, Photoshopped does not mean fake! Flat earthers could actually learn a lot about photography if they put those P1000 to actual use :D

Did anyone else actually really like the look of it the moment the video went monochromatic?

As somone who worked in this field (maynly building satelites or parts for them) I can tell you that every step in computing you can avoid up there will be done back on earth The most obvious reason is weight saving but there are other more important factors Computer parts need to be extremly shielded against radiation wich makes cooling very hard while cooling itself is already a very big problem In vacum the only way to get rid of heat is do to heat radiation wich is very inefficient itself, while every other object that radiates heat near your satelite also heats your sattelite so avoidung complex computational components makes things easyer a lot of satelites out there have computational powers compareable to devices ranging from a calculator to an simple arduino uno, another reason is reiability in general simple electronics have less posible points of failiure wich is not that big of a deal here on earth if your motherbord brakes you will probably be anoyed but simply replacing it will solve your problem, if a main bord up there fails there needs to be a redundant system ore the entire satelite yust became a verry expensive pice of trash Also batteryes are usually verry heavy and can only be charged while ther is sunlight so the satelite needs to sustain on them during its time without a direct line of sight to the sun such as beeind on the side of the earth wich currently exporiences a phenomen usually refered to as "night" So the reasonable thing is to have as simple and power eficcient (usually power efficient devices produce verry litle heat but tu go thru those reasons would turn this already huge comment into a entire textbook) devices wich are light and than have additional ones as redundency just in case something fails also there will be a bit of redundancy in the batteryes but due to only one of the computing devices running each time only one needs to be supplied with power, you even can cicle tru this devices to let one cool when others work or to balance weare and tear Another benefit of sending each picture as one color shade is that you can work with verry litle memory ( we are talking often in terms of bites and kilobites your sd card in your phone wold likly not last longer than a view houres up there) and memory usually is the one kind of Electronic wich is verry sensetive to radiation, also if the transmission gets interrupted there is a chance that you at least get the other parts wich does not make a great picture but it is enought to have reliabla and usable data And sorry for my english, my first languarge is german

This makes sense, but is there a place I can look at the raw photos and data?

As someone who makes digital art, seeing people "say something was processed through photoshop so it isn't real" hits personally

Flerfs incoming, ready the logic and evidence.

You could have mentioned the early color photography of Prokudin-Gorski, which were done in three filtered shots; some of them show amusing motion ghosts.

It's amazing how many times you can destroy the flat earth argument and yet it just never dies

Can someone explain why in some images they have replicated the same clouds over and over?

I remember when I was working on a Doom background I used a picture the Mars Rover took of a Mountain Range. This massive Panorama. But the thing was the Panorama was made up of seceral pictures sewn together so that it is a consistent straight image. I remember seeing that and thinking it was a bit odd. And in all of a minute I realized why the picture was shaped like that. That's how it has to be done for Panorams of such massive things. You just turn the camera a few degrees and take several pictures and stitch them together. Otherwise the inage isnt a long straight inage but an akward circled one. Actually reminds me of those shitty Panorama options phones had some time ago and when I messed with them in my highschool filmography class.

fish_eye lenses and portrait mode photos should be banned. on topic: im a sceptic too; im sceptic about the existence of flath earthers. they are simply trolls.

As a graphic designer, I understand a lot of what you said here way more than most of the other viewers.

Image stitching can be VERY precise. I've worked with industrial processes which rely on image stitching to attain nanometer-level accuracy on decimeter-scale objects. None of the images get run through Adobe anything, but they are stitched together to create a high-accuracy mosaic. But all of the sub-images have to be REAL and ACCURATE to achieve these results--they can't be fabricated. Stitching is legit.

9:48 He asks if we are bored, but he's spinning it way too fast. For real, he is.

9:46 2 Answers: Yes I am, and that looked significantly faster than once every 24 hours. Which just goes to show how excruciatingly boring it would be, and what a waste of resources to post this essentially just so flat earthers can dismiss it as fake anyway.

I have to wonder if Nasa ever had to photo shop out a drunk uncle ?😁😁

I’d like to see all the flat earthers club together / crowd fund to get a small rocket built to take a camera out to space and take a pic of the “flat” earth. The under side would be nice to see as well. We have hundreds pics of a round earth and not a single one of a flat earth. I wonder why that is 🤔 🤣

i still stand by the fact that it was way easier to actually go to the moon than it was to fake going to the moon.

i hate resorting to "common sense" as an argument because it's rather flimsy on its own, but flat earth is something that can be disregarded with relative ease by merely thinking about the unfathomably massive undertaking that would be necessary to not only hide the evidence that the earth is flat, but also prop up an equally massive lie that the earth is spherical AND (!) make that massive LIE somehow be scientifically verifiable in every conceivable context.

I was for a substantial time contributing to crowdsourced mapping by tracing aerial photos, often taken from planes or drones as well as satellites. Many of these photos, even the ones taken from drones in relatively low altitude was taken with a NIR color filter, that is Near Infra Red, since such photos to some degree can see through vegetation. Useful to trace streams and paths in dense foliage or to discern agricultural fields from wild vegetation. Since NIR photos are actively used in mapping of all sorts, meteorological, military, official, commercial, and crowdsourced, maps are obviously fake.

Even if NASA had a live feed of the Earth rotating, flat earthers act like this would change their opinion about anything. You know if you bring them any evidence that they ask for, they will just shift the goalposts or try to debunk your debunk, both cases beginning and ending with belligerent, unintelligible screeching

I watch Dave's videos for two things: (1) Dave disproving flerfs. (2) *RUSTY!* 😊

It's stupid that they complain that NASA Photoshops photo's, but do not complain about other world famous photographers doing the same. Lots of (even award winning) photographers Photoshop their pic's, using filters and so on. Also they are seeing those NASA pic's as "evidence". Well...they are not. They are just pictures, mostly for PR reasons. (Look what we have done, etc.) So even if the pic's are real (which they are, but ok) it's not a shame to use Photoshop to make them look a bit better. Who cares. Even my ex removed her acne on her FB photo's. Everybody does it.

I have just recently started watching your channel after discovering that my best friend has come out as a flat earther! And I must say I truly appreciate all of your knowledge you have and even more appreciative that you share it. Now I can have more information to share with my friend and try to stop his nonsense babbling. I’m seriously considering finding a new BFF🙄😒

No explanation why you couldn't just take a real picture without editing.

13:25 anyone know the number and mission for this photo, i wanna download it but id have to go through THOUSANDS of photos

I can't believe people need to be reminded that photoshop, and PCs for that matter in general, didn't exist during the Apollo missions, and the conversion of the images to digital form must be very recent.

Explaining things to conspiracy theory people is pointless.

How much are you paid 😅 ?

I really like this video, but i do have issue with the"why arent there live streams of the earth orbiting? That proves its flat!" Argument is uh. There are Livestreams? NASA has a livestream camera pointed out the iss towards the earth

The telescopes used to see untra far objects usually operate on frequencys of electromagnetic waves that are outside visible light because visible light does not reach us very well. That does not mean we can't accurately estimate the colors these photos would have if they were taken by capturing visible light. The only thing that's being done is literally just applying these colors to the image so we can see it. It's a lot like going to a doctor and taking an X-Ray. You can't see they x-rays but the machine does, It then translates it and displays it on a monitor using visible light.

Maybe because they don't want people to see the truth, if you zoom in on the stars you will see that they are actually what Ezekiel described in the Bible in Ezekiel chapter 1 KJV. A wheel within a wheel. God has left us a perfect example of His creation right above our heads.

In Apollo show they washed stars totally out. When press asked that did they saw stars, Apollo 11 crew denied. Why stars are visible in earth but not in the space? In some practice modul was star map on the wall and in other, sextant for navigation.

Wait till conspiracy theory folks find out that the original Blue Marble photo showed the Southern Hemisphere on the lower half of the Earth! Publishers figured that would confuse people so the photo image was/ is almost always rotated.

Don't forget that Photoshop was released on 19 February 1990. I have a degree in multimedia and games design and I was sticking images from Juno in Photoshop myself to have look at Jupiter. Very cool experience.

I love how channels like The Why Files conveniently leave out ANY of this explanation in its videos about space and NASA. Thank you for doing this! Ppl need to understand ACTUAL science and realize all the charlatans out there grifting them for content 🤦‍♂️

It depends on what the image is taken of, by and with. Not all, and in fact very few these days, observatory/telescope images are taken using visible light. They utilise other parts of the spectrum because a lot of info is encoded in those wavelengths...... but they don't make a "photograph" as is generally understood. Not to mention that some telescopes don't use light at ALL. Many orbiting sattelite images are mosaics, many smaller images stitched together. *sigh* the trouble with conspiracy theorists is they demand the truth and then when it's given to them, because they can't understand it, they deem it fake!

NASA's annual budget is currently around $20B - that's at least double what all the movie studios in the world spend collectively. You'd think if they were really faking all these photos and videos they would have more than enough money to do it right...

The "boring stream" part got me. Haha

me taking photos of people i hate, editing their eye colors and then they cease to exist

you really over estimate flatearther if you think they not gonna call google photo fake hahaha

Dave, I have learned so much about photography from your Channel! Thank you!

Thanks Dave for you thoughtful, temperate analysis. My sister has joined the flat earth position, so in discussing this with her I am finding that flat earthers exploit knowledge most people lack. Many objections they raise to a globe cites evidence that only someone with expertise in that area could refute. Everything from Aeronautics to Astronomy, from can water bend to how much rocket fuel is needed to get to space. And yes, aerospace photography is a main target for them since they must debunk pictures of earth from space. So thank you, thank you for your well thought out presentation on this topic. It really helps “illuminate,” and I will definitely be passing this video on. By the way, I also watched your video on fisheye vs rectilinear lenses, since flat earthers love to use this notion to try to argue the curvature of the earth in space phots. That was also helpful.

So, im not a photographer, but isnt all video, be it film, digital, etc, just really really fast single shots that feel “real time”. That is, if so e insect who’s brain perceives more images per second, (yes, this is real, flying insects see ‘in between’ the spaces our mind cannot) then they would see the flim “jump” the way we do for time lapes. So there is no such thing as “real” video, in the way flatties need it. Right?

They will never understand perspective

Editing a photo don't mean that it's fake, don't make it fake. A photo being in false colours is not a fake photo. PNG format is non-lossy. JPEG for mat is lossy and introduce those squarish artifacts.

NASA need to get in the habit of Posting both actual picture And beautified picture side by side on their website. This way everyone can see the difference.

After digging my feet into the mud of flat earth KZfaq, come back here to find some solid ground. P.S. you and your videos have actually made me more interested in photography now. 😊 I wish I could like your videos 100x

So flat earthers keep calling pictures of earth from space as photoshopped, but where are all the original actual flat earth pictures that have never been edited? If its flat, why are there no actual photos of the entire earth surface?