I wanted to draw a space scene, but I think I'll have problems with the way light works in a zero atmosphere environment. From my knowledge, all the rules of making distant things seem distant are due to light being scattered by the air, ex. lower contrast, desaturation, misty appearance. If I wanted to create an image of a ship in outerspace, would there literally be zero bounce light (except off the ship itself) making shadows pitch black?
Would a space scene even be visually appealing? I feel like you wouldn't even be able to see what the fuck is going on.
>>2312163
If there is no atmosphere you won't get atmospheric perspective, no. Very distant objects will still be slightly darker since the amount of light bouncing off them is spread thinner the farther you are from it, so less light will reach you. Shadows will not have any ambient sky light filling them, but may have some bounce light from the ground or other objects that fill them slightly--see the image you attached where the cast shadows on the ground are black or near black, but the shadow on the legs of the space suit are lit from ground bounce light.
>Would a space scene even be visually appealing? I feel like you wouldn't even be able to see what the fuck is going on.
Have you never seen science fiction art before? Or a movie that has scenes that take place in space? Or photographs of the astronauts or the space station?
Also you can break the rules to make an image look good. Adding in more light where necessary or making certain areas lighter or darker is all fine if it strengthens the image. Plus a lot of space imagery people are familiar with are super long exposures and false-colour, and yet people think that it's what it looks like so if you put it in the background of an image no one will think twice.
>>2312163
It's weird to think that there are only a handful of people who have seen the moon with their own eyes. Since a camera can make the lighting look slightly different and whatever.
>tfw you'll never be able to draw lunar landscapes while actually being on the moon
But anyways, just make your space art look cool, no one really cares if it's scientifically accurate unless maybe you're illustrating for some science magazine or something. Which I dout you are
>>2312163
You'd fucking see bright assed stars but don't ask NASA why there are no fucking stars because they're not going to say "set and we couldn't fake star positions exactly because the math is too hard"
>>2313394
If they would have chosen a shutter speed/aperture to make the stars visible, the moon and the astronauts would be barely visible.
They had to expose for the moon obviously. There is no film or digital sensor out there with the dynamic range to capture both at once. That's basic photography knowledge that you can find on the /p/ sticky.
>>2312163
Just remember: if you paint what people are used to seeing it will make sense. If you try to go full "space has not atmosphere so there's no atmospheric perspective" it's going to end up looking retarded.
>>2313394
lol you have seen the released photographs?
litterally 10k photos of the mission
>>2313378
>It's weird to think that there are only a handful of people who have seen the moon with their own eyes
pretty sure most human beings have seen the moon with their own eyes.
>>2313418
Earth’s albedo is 0.37. So you're saying because the sunlight is 250 % brighter we can't see any stars? I don't believe it. You don't see stars in city because of clouds, not the light. No clouds on the moon.
>>2314004
Cameras =/= human eyes, especially not decades ago.
Have you never tried to take a picture of a beautiful night sky and realized it looked like garbage?
>>2314014
Fuck even not now, cameras are fucking terrible.
Like there's sensor tricks to make it more appealing, but cameras don't operate the same way eyes do. It sucks because in order to paint well I nerd to haul 50lbs of plein air gear. Fuck.
>>2314042
>bohoo im too weak to carry brushes and an easel
Start lifting and stop being a pencil neck faggot
