Neil A. Armstrong...Photographer

An elated Apollo 11 Commander Neil A. Armstrong, photographed by Lunar Module Pilot Buzz Aldrin, back inside the Lunar Module after the historic first walk on the lunar surface.

Neil Armstrong, who died two days ago, was of course the first man to set foot on the moon (he always insisted that what he said was, "A small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind," but that the "a" got lost in the transmission). It's easy to overlook the fact that he also took some of the most sensational and spectacular photographs in the history of humankind.

Part of taking good, meaningful, important photographs is access—you've got to be there where the relevant events are happening. Parents often take the best photographs of their children because they're there all the time (Sally Mann made a career of it). War photographers and photojournalists go to great lengths to be where the action is. Luck plays a part; why was Sebastiao Salgado with Reagan when John Hinckley shot him, or why was Jim Nachtwey in New York City on 9/11? Sometimes, insiders are the ones with access—Danny Lyon was accepted among the motorcycle gangs he photographed, Larry Clark was part of the drug community in Tulsa, and Shelby Lee Adams photographed his own people and friends in Appalachia. "Access" is important in the time domain, too—whenever students would try to assert that they could take pictures of anything, I'd just say fine, go take a portrait of Winston Churchill.

Neil Armstrong's photograph of Buzz Aldrin descending the ladder of Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle"

One of the main reasons why press credentials have traditionally been so important is because they provide access; and one of the reason why ordinary cellphone snapshots taken by ordinary people have become important lately is because the people happen to be there when something extraordinary happens (for example, the second shot in this post).

In fact, one of the ways you can direct your own photography usefully is by anwering the question, "what do I have access to?" or "what can I get access to"?

But the ultimate examples of this idea of "access" are photographs taken from space or from the surface of the moon. It's one tough ticket. And of course by far the most important trip there was the first one; and only two people were on the surface that day. By the very virtue of the fact that he was the first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong was also the first photographer on the moon. Some of the pictures he took are beyond "iconic" (that intensifier word we are in the process of quickly wearing out). They are indisputably among the most important photographs ever made. Or that ever will be made.

Neil Armstrong's most famous photograph of Buzz Aldrin near one of the Lunar Module footpads (and its lunar contact probe bent sideways on landing)

These pictures and captions are from the Apollo Image Gallery at the Apollo Archive site. If you'd like to read about the Apollo 11 astronauts' camera equipment, there's an informative page at the Lunar and Planetary Institute website.

Mike
(Thanks to Rod Sainty and Jeff Dalzell)

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Joseph Reid: "The first picture in this post, of Armstrong by Aldrin, is my favorite. For one moment Armstrong's engineer facade slipped and he looked like a little boy just back from his first plane ride. The best ride ever. One of the best portraits ever. And Aldrin caught it for us."

Comments

[Peter Hovmand]

I quite agree. Armstrongs picture of Aldrin near the lunar module is actually on my top 100 favorite photographs on this planet ... that is on one of mankind's planets ... The picture is easily found in high resolution on the web ... with regards to NASA, Hasselblad and ... Armstrong.

[Bob Rosinsky]

Brings back memories of epic proportions. RIP NA.

[KeithB]

We are lucky that NASA has always made photographic documentation an important part of manned and unmanned missions. It must have been very tempting to save the 10-20 pounds of weight on the moonshot!

[Carl Frederick]

The Apollo 11 mission archive photos are still jaw-dropping, even 45 years later. I still get shivers looking at them. If that's not the definition of a great photograph, then I don't know what is.

[Kevin Purcell]

I still find the Duke family portrait on the lunar surface is the most emotional of the lunar surface photos. I first saw it in Michael Light's lunar photobook Full Moon.

Photographed by Charlie Duke on Apollo 16 there is something very "of its time" about this image.

The full-sized (uncropped) original is at

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18841HR.jpg

More details: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.data_trvl.html

[JohnMFlores]

LOL, being the first guy on the moon is the ultimate in access! On a more terrestrial level, I highly recommend that readers volunteer their time and photographic skills to local non-profits and/or underdog political campaigns. You'll help them communicate their message while having insider access to interesting photo opportunities.

Independent candidate for NJ Governor Chris Daggett on Election Night 2011 getting ready for his concession speech.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnmflores/4134750777/

Mother bringing her child to meet with the PAGES Medical Mission in the Philippines
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnmflores/5116056301/

[James B]

The moment was probably the greatest single human achievement in my lifetime, and while I was only 4, my parents tell me that I watched it with them on a small BW TV in our house in Northern Ireland. I don't remember it, but I do remember some of the later Apollo landings, maybe from when I was 5 or 6.

I've read a few articles from people who assert it was all some fake, but to me, I'll always think of the moon landings as being at the pinnacle of human achievement. It is going to take a lot more to beat them.

I don't think of Neil Armstrong as a photographer, merely he had a camera and took some pictures. He should not be claimed by photographers as one of them. He was an astronaut.

[Mike Plews]

All shot with Kodak film, sigh...

[Tony Rowlett]

Neil's famous shot of Buzz was taken when the camera was obviously tilted to the right somewhat. This makes the moon seem much smaller than it must be. Always loved that photo. Thanks for the post, Mike.

[robert e]

Proof of the old adage: "The best camera is the one mounted on the front of your space suit."

[Pierre Charbonneau]

So true! Access to the subject, any subject is the "thing". Getting a reasonably sharp/well exposed picture is the second one. But that is the easy part.

Pierre

[ctein]

Dear folks,

A couple of interesting photo-geeky about the Apollo photographs.

Although digital technology has improved things, almost everything the public gets to see is nth-generation dupes removed from the originals. The originals are considered an irreplaceable national treasure and scientific resource (duh) and very few people have gotten the privilege of examining them. Almost all research has been done off of first generation dupes, which are remarkably close to the originals. I imagine these days there is a concerted effort in place to produce ultrahigh quality scans of all those originals, but there is a rather large volume of material. I know a scant handful of stuff has been done for a couple of very fine books (Full Moon is not one of them; it was done off of duplicates and not, actually, very good ones). I don't know about the bulk of the photographs.

The import of this is that the photographs we've all seen, including the ones shown here, are much, much contrastier than the originals. The shadows on the moon, for example, aren't inky black; there is a considerable amount of fill light scattered back by the landscape. This is very clear in first generation dupes.

I've had the privilege of looking at some of those. (I believe the set that the Smithsonian has is a first-generation dupe set? If I'm wrong about that, then I'd been looking at mere second-generation dupes.) The differences between those and typical publication materials are impressive; it's like the difference between looking at a crisp print made on grade 2 paper and a sloppy print made on grade 5 paper, and I'm not exaggerating.

As an aside, it can be very amusing to go to the moon landing conspiracy websites and look at their photographic “proof” that the landings were faked. You can consider it a test of your photographic IQ how long it takes you to definitively and conclusively disprove each and every one of their examples.

pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

[Rod S.]

Yes, Neil Armstrong had access. He was selected for the Apollo 11 flight, the first flight that could have landed on the surface of the moon. Despite audacious odds, all the preceding flights were sufficiently successful to allow Apollo 11 to retain that role.

Also consider that Armstrong had more important things than photography on his mind that day. Flying and landing the lunar module, not the walk on the moon, was, by far, the most complex and hazardous part of the entire flight. Because the lunar module (LM) was incapable of being flown on Earth, the Apollo astronauts were limited to training for the LM on the LLTV, a highly unstable and dangerous contraption. Two of the three LLTVs built were destroyed in crashes, including one while being flown by Neil. So Neil had never actually flown a LM beforehand. And the LM’s limited fuel load demanded a precise flight line down to the surface. Remarkable? I think so.

The lunar surface photos on the Apollo Archive gallery are full-frame scans, as evidenced by the large central cross-hair mark from the camera’s reseau plate grid being centred in each frame. Before one is critical of Neil’s framing, consider that the Hasselblad Data Camera did not have a viewfinder and was mounted on a chest-plate; he had to turn and point his body to his subject and trip the shutter without viewing through or across the camera in any way. He also had to focus the 60mm Biogon lens by estimating the distance to his subject, and vary the exposure according to memorised guidelines based on the estimated angle from the sun. So the photographs are pretty remarkable in their own right.

Lastly, note that most reproductions of that most famous photograph, Neil’s shot of Buzz Aldrin, centralise the figure by cropping the foreground and inserting more black sky above the PLSS backpack. Look closely at those reproductions, and you’ll see the original line of the frame cutting across the top right of the backpack. Somebody cheated!

[Stan B.]

BTW- The outer skin of the LEM, that is, the very walls of the lunar landing module was the equivalent of three sheets of aluminum foil!

[dwig]

I've always found a special appeal in the shot of Buzz. It is, in a way, a self portrait as Armstrong is clearly visible reflected in Buzz's faceplate.

My big question is why do I always label Buzz with his nickname and use Neil's last name rather than his first.

[Chuck Albertson]

NASA did save 10-20 pounds, Keith. At least on the first landings, the camera and lens stayed on the moon, they only returned with the film backs.

I think you can still download the astronauts' photo guide from the Hasselblad site, if you dig around a bit. Access is important, but it wasn't a snap shooting Ektachrome in a completely different environment and getting it right.

[Maggie Osterberg]

My dad was a guest of NASA for the launch of Apollo 11 and it's always been "our" moonshot. So, maybe I'm biased but...

I can't help but think that Neil and Buzz's photos may be the only ones that folks are still looking at a thousand years from now.

[Peter Croft]

That very well known UK photo review site refers to Neil's photos as "unique" and "iconic". Well, duh, of course they are unique. A tautology if ever there was one.

Iconic has become the world's most over-used, most pervasive, pernicious cliche.

I do not denigrate the photos or Neil Armstrong. They are fabulous. But he had something of an advantage! Good on him for making the most of it and leaving us this legacy. I saw him in the parade when he came to Perth.

Btw, the conspiracy troglodytes are active on that site. Hard to credit.

I was 22 on that great day and I was a young technician at a TV station. It was about 11am when it happened here and I saw it come in live from Canberra. It was real, alright. I have lived through some fabulous times. "The 60s - the only decade last century worth a damn." I was there! Loved it.

[Thingo]

RIP Neil Armstrong.

It seems my life is now extending back into 'history'. I vividly recall sitting with all the other pupils and staff, in the school foyer, with my attention riveted to the single school B&W telly. And we _saw_ Neil step onto the Moon. And then Buzz. What a moment. The moment. For all of the planet's people.

On an ever so slightly different tack, there is a wonderful film set at the time of the Apollo 11 mission: "The Dish".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dish
If you have the opportunity, it's a pretty accurate view of the times -- with just a bit of artistic license.

[J]

Ctien, I knew one of the Kodak crew who processed the prints and I saw a set of "reject" prints, about 24" sq if I remember correctly, which included these two taken outside LEM. I have seen reproductions since then and I can assure you the originals were vastly superior. We took a magnifying glass to look at the reflection in Aldrin's visor and the detail was amazing! Thr reproduction of the gold foil insulation was cool too.

[richardplondon]

Of course it has to be "one small step for a man.." etc - the wording that we often see quoted, without the "a", might sound grandly mysterious - but clearly makes no sense.

This success was a triumph of clear thinking; not of awe-struck mysticism. That is, partly, what is so resonant and wonderful about it.

[Soeren Engelbrecht]

Ctein, the Mythbusters had an episode where they reproduced the photographs to prove that the lunar landing actually took place :-)

[Ed]

At least one thing we can be sure of....no one ever will step in Neils footprints...lunar quakes aside...they will remain on the moon forever as a tribute to a time when men were more then the sum of their stuf.

Greets, Ed.

[Cab]

Lunar photography... the ultimate example of "f/8 and be there."

[Will Frostmill]

Mike,

I was looking at this post this morning, and my 4 year old wandered up, and wanted to know who the nice man in the first photo was. I explained that he was an astronaut, pointed out the locking collar for the helmet, and scrolled down to show her the picture of Buzz, so she could see what the suit looked like with a helmet on.
Her: "Is he on the moon?"
Me:"Yes, and..."
Her: "I want to go to the moon! I want to learn how to fly into space! And [long, detailed, impractical imaginative narration on exactly how she was going to build a space ship]
Me: "...someday, when you are a grown-up, you might be able to"
And I said a little prayer of thanks that little girls aren't told not to try these days, and a little prayer of hope that the very small chance she would have to do this would be at least even ever so slightly greater when she's grown up.

It is good to see young people dream. It is good to see these photographs still have that quality that moves people.

Will

[Mike Johnston]

Will,
When my son was 4, he wanted to be a bird. He was greatly put out when I explained to him that he had to be a human for his whole life. He considered that to be very unfair.

Mike

[Mike Plews]

I think Aldrin's portrit of Armstrong is just wonderful. I love everything about it. You may not have to be a rocket scientist to get a good shot with a Hassy but apparently it doesn't hurt either.

[KeithB]

I got the link to the manual from Ken Rockwell's site:
http://www.hasselblad.com/media/2207875/astronauts_manual_singlepage_lr.pdf

As far as the landing goes, the bug/procedure error that caused multiple computer alarms and resets did not help much either. CF "Digital Apollo."

It is interesting that even though the computer could land the LM by itself, the astronauts took control for every landing and landed it themselves.

[Alan Fairley]

I am always struck by how well exposed the chromes are in a variety of very challenging conditions (full lunar sun, inside capsule, and so on). I'd have been hard pressed to do as well with a spot meter.

[Marshall Smith]

My access was on the living-room floor of my parents home, taking photos of our TV screen as feed came back from that lousy quality video camera they had on the LEM. Still have those prints, in the drugstore folder they came back in, stored away somewhere. What an amazing thrill to be that close, at least in time.

[Steve Jacob]

It's actually quite hard to get one's head around the sheer physical bravery and psychological resilience of these guys who were not only top test pilots but very competent engineers as well. Moreover they never boasted or sought the limelight about their achievements.

Heroes in the old fashioned sense, not self-promoting, tweeting celebrities that pass for role models these days.

The value of extreme exploration is not profit, or science, but inspiration. I wonder if anything can galvanize a nation and produce role models even half as effectively as manned space exploration?

Kids these days need something to dream about other than a new iPad.

[Mike Johnston]

"It's actually quite hard to get one's head around the sheer physical bravery and psychological resilience of these guys who were not only top test pilots but very competent engineers as well. Moreover they never boasted or sought the limelight about their achievements."

Right, and I understand Aldrin has been harassed in recent years by nutcase conspiracy theorists who think the whole thing was a fraud, to the point that he punched one of them? I don't know the facts. A sad commentary on our unglued country, if it's true.

Mike

[g carvajal]

this was the U.S.A.
at it's best.

[Wolfgang]

Would the sunny 16 rule work on the moon?

[B Grace]

Regarding protecting Neil's footprints I was happy to see this:

http://www.collectspace.com/news/NASA-USG_lunar_historic_sites.pdf

Perhaps surreal but forward thinking which is admirable. Makes a person think about the first footprints of Columbus in the new world. It almost seems absurd to have such large dreams as Apollo but everything is still possible.

[Jim Ullrich]

There is an online video interview with Neil Armstrong on CPA Australia (Australian TV). Also, interesting, he landed a 4 engine B29 with only 1 engine working. Included is a reenactment of the lunar landing.

[Jordi P.]

I always looked up their accomplishment. Back on the 40th anniversary in 2009 it popped on KR's blog and I ended up following all (he posted things about the mission on chronological fashion) and doing deeper research.
Took IT subject on my last year of junior high school and did a video of the space race, dedicating half of it to Apollo 11.

The photography is great. I didn't think about the Gen. loss that the online pics suffer (thought they weren't that sharp for a 'blad).
I like a lot of their photography. It's interesting to see how spot-on most of them are (IIRC they used an ASA 64 Ektachrome incarnation).
About Neil's portrait, it's quite a candid, showing his enormous joy. Technically, ASA64, with a f3.5 lens on interiors is quite demanding for handholding (or chestholding) capabilities!

Later missions don't seem to have the same attention, though.

Being Spanish I'm quite far of US patriotism et al. but it's quite an accomplishment for humanity.

[Ben Rosengart]

Mike — you can see Buzz Aldrin punch a really annoying fellow at about 4:30 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7KgdehBBsw

[ctein]

Dear Soeren,

But, but, but...

If you reproduce the photos here on Earth, doesn't that prove that the moon landing DIDN'T take place!? **

~~~~~~

Dear Wolfgang,

Basically, yes. Lighting's a bit contrastier there (though not as much as earthlings imagine), but the highlight illuminance is pretty much the same as on Earth.

pax / Ctein

=====================

(** Just in case there's a drive-by reader, I'M JOKING!!!!)

[J]

Images show the flags planted on the,Moon by US astronauts are still flying:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19050795
That shoule be sufficient proof.

[Rod S.]

"It's actually quite hard to get one's head around the sheer physical bravery and psychological resilience of these guys who were not only top test pilots but very competent engineers as well. Moreover they never boasted or sought the limelight about their achievements."

Steve, you've expressed my thoughts too.

[Craig Norris]

@Wolfgang: See the first photo on this page of my 2003 US Road Trip blog:
http://alkiratech.tripod.com/roadtrip/id28.html
It shows the camera checklist for Armstrong and Aldrin, and it clearly shows the sunny 16 rule setting at the top of the list.

[Rod S.]

You can read Neil and Buzz's own detailed description of the descent to the lunar surface in the post-flight technical debriefing document. Neil describes the difficulty with the computer program alarms and, later, the layer of moving dust from the engine exhaust that obscured the surface.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11TechCrewDebrfV1_2.pdf

Start with the "Preparation for DOI" on p 9-5, or, at least, with "Final approach and landing" on p.9-18.

[ctein]

Dear J,

Why would you imagine that pixelated fuzzy pictures from orbit, that I could fake up in Photoshop in an afternoon, released by NASA, would constitute proof to the loonies (I used the term advisedly) when they've chosen to reject a zillion immensely more detailed and definitive photos?

You can never dissuade genuine nutters with evidence-- either it's faked by someone else or you're just part of the conspiracy.

pax / Ctein

[Kevin Purcell]

The lunar surface exposure and focusing guidelines were simple and familiar to any vacationer in the 1960s. It's a nicely thought through process to get good images and reducing the load on the astronauts as they worked though the EVA.

Use a fixed (1/250th) shutter speed and choose aperture f/5.6 in shadow and f/11 in sun.

The film was Kodak Ektachrome EF ASA 160.

The exposure (1/250 f/11 == 1/125 f/16 at ISO 160) is a 1/3rd stop more exposure than "sunny 16".

They only used three (focus) distances. The focus was set by roughly estimating distance and setting "near", "medium" or "far" on the camera.

The surface cameras used a 60mm wider than normal lens (about 36mm 135 equivalent).

http://sterileeye.com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/

[J]

Ctien,
Nor, I suppose would the fact that you can still use the retroreflectors left on the moon for laser ranging experiments?