Moon Shots Raw vs JPG

[John Rayner]

Yea... but I was shivering while trying to take the picture. It is also not a very good idea to try and figure out how to use a lense in the dark...

Hi Maya, You might be interested in a digital SLR. I know I have a bulb setting on mine. So timed shots should not be a big problem. I might be able to get my father in law to set up his big telescope this summer. Was going to try it with my other digital, but there was just too many limitations with that camera.

Why don't you post a shot or two for us to take a look at.

Here is tonights shot, handheld, autofocus... more specs available upon request... this does not look too bad.

[Crow Haven]

http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Hey John that's MUCH BETTER!
Nah, for long exposure photography my fully manual slr is better BECAUSE it doesn't require any batteries AT ALL. I have the LAST fully manual Canon F-1, even has a titanium body and is a brick you-know-what designed for things like this speciality. I have a few digital cameras too, they can be used for very short exposure things like the moon.....but they (the chips)lack the required sensitivity for deep space photography of high quality. They are getting better though. In that case for "serious" astrophotography some even resort to "baking" their film to further light sensitize it. Today's fast films do a fair job without that though, if you use some PS work on the pics later.

I have an optics fetish http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif. I have a 10" (this is the DIAMETER of the objective lens on the front of the telescope tube as well as the diameter of the mirror system)SCT Meade telescope, an 8"SCT Celestron (both with motordriven axises -- one German Equatorial mount, one fork mounted, a 5" SCT fork mount/computer driven/tracking Celestron, a TeleVue APO 70mm Pronto refractor, a 5.5" Celestron Schmidt-Newtonian design, several pairs of binocs -- one nice set for moon gazing is 11x70.
I may dig through some pics tomorrow and perhaps post something. http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Crow Haven]

http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Another tip --- I could go on and on with these....

If you are going to be trying to do star photography and don't want to ruin your night vision -- yet you need some light to see your lens and other gear with from time to time -- get several pieces of clear red plastic from a red shopping bag or newspaper wrapper or something and take a few layers to wrap around the front lens of a flashlight -- tape it on or just use a rubber band to hold it in place -- viola! Now you can have something to see by and not ruin your night vision. Works great if you care to use a star chart also to find your way around the universe.....I'm pretty good at this as I had to learn the constellations before all the computerized digital charts arrived on the scene....I like knowing what stars/planets I'm looking at when I look up at night. http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[John Rayner]

hi Maya,

PErsonally, I do not own a telescope but my father in law has an 18 inch reflector type... I think. He used to do a lot of star gazing.

How is the light noise in your part o the woods? East of the hills it is almost clear... Nothing there 'cept cows for about 150 miles. The towns on either end are about 60K so not even that much from the towns. Get away from town and you can actually see something... http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Crow Haven]

http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/eek.gif http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif WOW!!! John that is really a huge reflector for a hobbiest and I've looked through some owned by others at various star parties (gatherings of astronomy club members out for an evening at a great dark sky site). In an 18" reflector you can even see some faint greenish coloring in the orion nebula naked eye--and everything is BRIGHTER in larger telescopes, plus the resolution is generally better also as long as the seeing conditions (sky conditions, clarity, transparency, etc. and steadiness of the air is good -- otherwise sometimes smaller scopes having to actually look through a smaller swatch of air can reveal a steadier view)...things like globular star clusters -- like a very famous one in the Hercules constellation (M13)-- are just so brilliant and gorgeous in such a large optics system. I envy you if you get the chance to view through that telescope!

I'm up 200 ft elevation in the woods -- but 5 miles from the coast (Oregon/Coos Bay)so there's not much light pollution but there is a lot of cloudy weather and fog which limits my outtings. I lived in St. Augustine, Florida, a couple of years and while there I belonged to the Ancient City Astronomy Club -- the high humidity was a problem but it was a great group of people. The best observing I've had was when I lived for 7 years in Sacramento, California (I was born in San Francisco, CA) and I belonged to an astronomy club there known then (in 1984)as the Sacramento Valley Astronomical Society. We used to drive up to Blue Canyon above Baxter/near Tahoe at an old small airport then used for a weather lookout. Elevation was over 5000ft and the sky was soooooo incredibly dark there that the sky looked like it was covered solidly with brilliant stars! It was sooo peaceful and quiet, the other members were a joy to be with too. That amount of visible stars was most disorienting at first = to find things -- but soooo beautiful. Most people don't know what a truly dark sky is like any more if they live near a town. It really shocks them.

Coos Bay is 5 miles from here, so there is some light pollution, but not too bad (it's a small town), when the weather is clear. http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[inabottle]

Here is a good link to a website, where I am considering getting my telescope attachment. Im buying a highres field telescope, for birds and what not. FIgured I would share the link since you all might be interested.

http://www.scopetronix.com/

[John Rayner]

Maya,

We are just about 4000-5000 feet here, but very dry. We can go weeks at a time without any moisture. We have more problems with contrails than clouds most days.

If I can get my father in law to set it up, I will try to take some digital shots and post em here. We do get the dark night pleasure many times here, but in the hills or away from town it is great all the time.

rian,

thanks for the Link.

[Crow Haven]

http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Here's a company Rian where I've purchased several of my telescopes and LOTS of accessories -- check it out before you buy elsewhere = Orion Telescopes and Binoculars http://www.telescope.com/jump.jsp?it...TEWAY&itemID=6

They have EVERYTHING and the quality of their own name brand items is also very good. I've never had any trouble with this company or anything I've purchased from them in many many years. You will find lots of excellent info on how to decide which telescope would best suit your needs. There are camera attachments, eyepieces, filters, etc. There are the ccd imagers, computer apps, drives, EVERYTHING. They are also very helpful and can answer your questions about all of it. They will send you a regular print catalog too if you request it. Shipping is fast and reliable. Depending on the exact use for the scope you need to study on the lens systems....some will work fine for just viewing, but if photography is the main need then avoid maksutov lens systems if you can as they can have ghosting problems. Lens coatings are a must also to suppress reflections....consider the fl of the lens/the f/value, but remember the field of view is very important also. There are some really nice short and fast refractor/spotting scope designs which are very very portable, not too expensive, quite large aperature and would do for a lot of deep space photos as well -- these have objectives of 70-80mm, a few are larger. Larger will give brighter images and higher resolution for viewing -- but for photography what is important is how long the exposure you can make for the picture quality and how steady the tripod/mount and if tracking is necessary. A shakey mounting will be enormously frustrating. The ability to motorize the mount for tracking is a great advantage not only for photography but for just viewing as well. For example, if you ever want to look at some of the planets like Mars or Saturn you will find it hard to keep them within the eyepiece without tracking, they will seem to swiftly leave the view as soon as you get them within it. Also photography of them requires extreme magnification and this requires attaching your camera to an attachment which will hold also an eyepiece (a simple ortho occular of around 18mm will do) and this in turn attaches to the prime focus back of a telescope. You can not do planetary photograghy without a motorized drive on BOTH axises...and a drive corrector is handy also as you will find that no drive commercially is perfectly accurate and fine adjustment corrections during long timed exposures are still needed to keep the target object within a crosshair eyepiece (also very necessary and one with an adjustable lit crosshair is best)...........

John, are you in the SW somewhere? The conditions and location you have really sounds great for astronomy from your own yard! For many years I toyed on and off with the idea of moving to Ruidoso, NM, I even took the local newspaper for a year to find out more things about it....but I'm pretty sure Oregon will be it for quite a few years anyway, the climate here is not good for astronomical pursuits but it is wonderful just for living---never too hot or too cold, a real garden spot on this rock. http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif I just have always felt a pull to the SW -- Ruidoso is at high elevation up in a pine forest and about 70 miles west of Roswell. There's another area not too far from there called Cloudcroft which is also a sort of haven for astronomers. Ruidoso is sort of becoming the new artist colony a bit like Taos/Santa Fe. It's very nice there and about 20 degrees cooler than the Roswell area down on the desert floor.

[Crow Haven]

http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Okay -- here's one of mine -- moon 35mm Canon F-1 and APO refractor (450mm fl w/ 21mm eyepiece afocal = 1050mm f.l. @ f/15 1/30 sec. ASA400)
Scanned off my 35mm print (my scanner isn't the best).
---Maya

[Crow Haven]

http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Here's one I did with the generous help and use of a friend's 7" APO refractor setup while in Florida, he has his own backyard observatory (lucky!) -- he did solar photography and this is using a very expensive hydrogen alpha filter, which is electronically heated as well, to aid in resolution. There are other filters far less expensive which will allow viewing in regular light, and you can see sunspots and photograph them. You cannot get these details of the sun's surface without a hydrogen alpha filter however. Viewing or photographing the sun ALWAYS requires special filters to protect your eyes and equipment = NEVER VIEW THE SUN THROUGH ANY LENS OF ANY TYPE WITHOUT A SOLAR FILTER THAT IS CERTIFIED FOR THIS USE! Without it you will be blinded and the heat build up in a telescope will ruin lens, eyepieces, etc.
---Maya