Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

First photo with new scope

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
51 replies to this topic

#1 lineman_16735

lineman_16735

    Tak-o-holic

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,118
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2004

Posted 02 March 2006 - 09:21 PM

1 hour on E-200. William Optics ZS 105 APO. LXD 75 mount and DSI as autoguider. So far I am liking this little scope.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 850804-IC434.jpg

 

#2 garyc11

garyc11

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,039
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2004

Posted 03 March 2006 - 12:39 AM

WOW! that is a very nice shot, one of the best i've seen. congrats.
 

#3 Suk Lee

Suk Lee

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,566
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2003

Posted 03 March 2006 - 12:50 AM

Chris:

Very nice!

Suk
 

#4 SaberScorpX

SaberScorpX

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,410
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2005

Posted 03 March 2006 - 01:57 AM

Beautiful image, Chris.
And congrats on the new addition!



Stephen Saber
PAC/Astronomical League
http://www.geocities...corpx/home.html
 

#5 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,588
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2005

Posted 03 March 2006 - 04:24 AM

That is fantastic! :waytogo:
You show two things...
1. Film is still a very viable medium.
2. The LXD75 works.

Wonderful!

Did you image through the 10" SN and guide with the 105 or the other way around?

CF
 

#6 giorgosgr

giorgosgr

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 122
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2005

Posted 03 March 2006 - 04:38 AM

Wow!
Man, this is kewllllllll!
 

#7 lineman_16735

lineman_16735

    Tak-o-holic

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,118
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2004

Posted 03 March 2006 - 09:07 AM

Thanks guys! I think I scanned the slide backwards though. I shot it through the 105 and guided through a ST-80 with barlow.
 

#8 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,588
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2005

Posted 03 March 2006 - 09:40 AM

I see a small amount of Vignetting, is this a cropped photo?
Can I DL a copy of the original, untouched, uncropped negative?

Thanks!

CF
 

#9 Big Dipper

Big Dipper

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 73
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2005

Posted 03 March 2006 - 05:07 PM

Yes, it is backwards - but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is excellent. Well done. Nebulae looks very 'smooth' for a single, non-stacked frame.
 

#10 lineman_16735

lineman_16735

    Tak-o-holic

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,118
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2004

Posted 03 March 2006 - 05:19 PM

I see a slight vignetting in one corner of all my slides. I am unsure why. Maybe my camera was not being held square to the focuser? This is NOT cropped. I will upload a copy of the raw scan to my website later. Also worth mentioning is that I do very little processing on my photos. I did a slight curve adjustment, set black and white points and a slight high pass sharpening. The slides look far better through a projector than anything I can get with my scanner. I have a couple other shots of the horse head from that night with and without an IDAS filter. Without the filter one hour is a good exposure time for me, no sky fog but nicely exposed. 75 minutes with the IDAS the slides are very dense, telling me 90 minutes would be no problem. I doubt another 30 minutes would show much more in this particular shot. This was a test roll with the new scope to get an idea of field and exposure times. Regarding the slide being backwards...I don't know what happened. I scanned with the emulsion side down as the scanner specifies. I am also a little disoriented, as I have always had Newts so the refractor has me scratchin' my head to get my bearings. So slide backwards or is this what I would see with a refractor?
 

#11 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,588
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2005

Posted 03 March 2006 - 05:33 PM

Oh, your camera is certainly square! Otherwise the stars would be out of focus on one side. This may be caused by the aperture of the focuser drawtube. I'm not familiar with refractors, so I will leave this discussion to those who know. This is one of the reasons the SN has such a huge secondary mirror - to prevent vignetting.

As far as the saturation - I think you have an EXCELLENT image... and you're right, going deeper may not do much. Your framing is SPOT on, considering that the image was not visible in your camera... OUTDTANDING job.

E200 is such a great film! Boy I wish I had this stuff back in the early 80's when I was first starting out.

What are you scanning with?

Oh yeh.. about the image reversal... just flip it in photoshop!

CF
 

#12 lineman_16735

lineman_16735

    Tak-o-holic

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,118
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2004

Posted 03 March 2006 - 05:41 PM

The focuser is a 2.5" drawtube. With my SN-10 I would see far more vignetting though, I just didn't take the time to process it out of this image. IMHO it is not intrusive, at least not to my eyes. I am scanning with an epson RX500 flatbed. Thanks for the compliments. I appreciate it.
 

#13 lineman_16735

lineman_16735

    Tak-o-holic

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,118
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2004

Posted 03 March 2006 - 05:47 PM

BTW CF. Of course film is still a good route. You have to get over what everyone says, it is not a waste of time, and I just ignore what others say negative about film (pun intended) I am getting to the point now where i let the photo speak for itself. Some people say film exposure have to be so long. Well, CCD takes a while too. I took the exposure which was 60 minutes, then I sent the film out and had it back in 5 days, then I hit PS for about 5 minutes. Didn't seem too long to me.
 

#14 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,588
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2005

Posted 03 March 2006 - 08:05 PM

Post deleted by Suk Lee
 

#15 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,588
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2005

Posted 03 March 2006 - 08:15 PM

Chris I just saw your SETUP on Astromart. NICE!!! That looks sweet! And a good write up too!

How do you like the LXD75? I hear a ton of negatives about that little mount too.. but I find it quite pleasant to use.

CF
 

#16 raydar

raydar

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 741
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2004

Posted 05 March 2006 - 02:19 AM

Nice shot lineman. Your image is very smooth. Have you put some kind of blur effect over it? And what scanner are you using?

Cheers

Ray
 

#17 Corn

Corn

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2004

Posted 05 March 2006 - 07:41 AM

Post deleted by Suk Lee
 

#18 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,588
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2005

Posted 05 March 2006 - 08:32 AM

Yeh, the star bloat is something I was wondering about. With a refractor would a minus-violet filter help? They do with common camera lenses a great deal, but I do not know if they would do anything for a good quality APO.

CF
 

#19 lineman_16735

lineman_16735

    Tak-o-holic

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,118
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2004

Posted 05 March 2006 - 10:36 AM

Thanks Raydar, and no blur although I may be able to benifit from a slight median blur. An Epson RX 500 flatbed scanner was used to scan this slide. I think that the star bloat is just caused by overexposing the bright stars. I don't think a MV filter would do anything but add a color cast, at least with an APO. I had very good guiding in this exposure, which is pretty evident in the tiny stars when blown up at high resolution. A dark sky is needed to go this long with film. My skies are dark but not VERY dark, not NM, or AZ, but probably 5.5-6 on the best of nights. Again thanks for the kind words.
 

#20 Corn

Corn

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2004

Posted 05 March 2006 - 10:43 AM

My best guess is that besides the development of the film that could bloat the stars a little. There is that fact the light that passes through the film and donĀ“t get trapped by a silver crystal then gets reflected on the backplane of the camera and goes through the film again (but this time defoscused) and result in "bloated" stars.
 

#21 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,588
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2005

Posted 05 March 2006 - 11:02 AM

Hey Corn... that's the first time anyone has explained that. Thanks!
So... what can we do to modify the back to stop reflected light?
My OM-1 has a shiny black backing... how can we flatten it to reduce reflection but not add anything that will scratch the slide? Would flat black paint work, or will it scratch or flake off?

Lineman.. my house and observatory in NM is vacant at the moment. You are welcome to go out and stay out there for a week and enjoy 6.6 skies with 70-75% chance of them being clear every night (>80% in May). You can se M33 with your naked eyes. Or drive southeast for just over an hour and reach 7.6 to 8.0 skies - so dark, the Milky way casts a shadow and confuses some into thinking it's dawn. Anyway, the home is empty, and just sitting there collecting dust.

CF
 

#22 redvis

redvis

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,178
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2005

Posted 05 March 2006 - 02:04 PM

Chris,

An awesome shot! I love it. Great focus - the whole thing has a very 3D effect to it. Can't wait to see more!

About the uneven illumination, you may need a focal reducer/field flattener to eliminate and provide a nice, evenly illuminated 35mm frame. I use one made by Borg. You can get more info here but you'll probably need to contact Ted at Hutech to get the specs about attaching it your scope.

Great stuff! I hope to some day get out under a nice dark sky for hour long exposures. Keep up the great work and I am really looking forward to more of your shots.

Cameran
 

#23 Suk Lee

Suk Lee

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,566
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2003

Posted 05 March 2006 - 02:31 PM

Hey Corn... that's the first time anyone has explained that. Thanks!
So... what can we do to modify the back pain to stop reflected light?


You don't need to worry about this - films have an anti-halation layer specifically designed to prevent the back scatter that you're discussing.

Cheers,
Suk
 

#24 Corn

Corn

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2004

Posted 05 March 2006 - 04:11 PM

How about scatter inside the film it self?
Besides, how exacly does this "anti-halation" layer work?
After it has been developed you can see through it that would indicate that the back scatter is possible (unless this layer gets removed during development), no?
 

#25 Suk Lee

Suk Lee

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,566
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2003

Posted 05 March 2006 - 04:17 PM

That's what the anti-halation layer does - it absorbs the light that would otherwise get scattered back up into the film.

It is removed during processing. Sacrifice a piece of unexposed film - it isn't clear, it has an opaque backing.

Suk
 


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics