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This topic has been archived.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

#26 Corn

Corn

    Vanguard

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

Posted 05 March 2006 - 04:28 PM

All right, but there is still the scatter inside the film and that will not get removed by this layer. This scatter effect is probably rather small, then again stars has quite high flux. The back scatter effect is probably worse on IR films than normal light.
 

#27 redvis

redvis

    Apollo

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

Posted 05 March 2006 - 05:51 PM

Corn is right. Kodak HIE infrared film lacks an anti-halation layer which gives pictures shot on it an ethereal glow. I've attached an example shot a few weeks ago. You can see the glow on the plants.

Cameran

Attached Thumbnails

  • 855127-img145.small.jpg

 

#28 Corn

Corn

    Vanguard

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

Posted 05 March 2006 - 05:55 PM

Cameran, thats a beauty :)!
 

#29 Suk Lee

Suk Lee

    Aurora

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

Posted 05 March 2006 - 06:52 PM

My point was that you can't do anything about the scatter inside the film by modifying the camera back.

Cheers,
Suk
 

#30 lineman_16735

lineman_16735

    Tak-o-holic

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

Posted 05 March 2006 - 08:45 PM

Thanks Cameran. I have a William Optics FR/Flattner. It is a .8 which puts me at F/5.6. BTW CF I would love to take that place off your hands if i could afford it.
 

#31 Rammysherriff

Rammysherriff

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,967
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2004

Posted 10 March 2006 - 01:56 PM

Chris,

your image is mighty! Firstly guiding for this length of time impresses me immensely (I will have a party when I reach 10 min exposures) But secondly the framing is beyond superlatives.

I've had a try at this subject myself, and nealr y all images I see from my fellow DSLR users have about only 50% the fov you have achieved. It is beautiful to see the Ha region fade away into the black of deep space, and the noticeable tendril/thread of more intense Ha that starts at Alnitak and passes behind the Horsehead seems so real and touchable.

I wish I was that good - but I stick to a DSLR where I get all the help I can need. I take my hat off to you!
 

#32 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 10 March 2006 - 02:02 PM

Rammy... the image was autoguided, not manual. If you can go 10 minutes on auto, why not 60?

On another note.. Have you considered not limiting yourself to only one technique. The increased FOV is one advantage of film cameras at prime focus. Try film.. you already have the expensive parts.. and a used film camera is cheap these days.

CF
 

#33 lineman_16735

lineman_16735

    Tak-o-holic

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

Posted 10 March 2006 - 04:36 PM

Rammy,

Thanks for the lavish praise. CF is right this was autoguided, in my defense though I have manually guided for 60 minutes. I chose to go to an autoguider once I built my observatory. I have 2 children, and my wife almost never lets me escape the madness of our home for 60 minutes. I can now open the roof, align the scope start the guider and be shooting in under 15 minutes. Then I just sneak out to close the shutter and chose another target.
 

#34 Rammysherriff

Rammysherriff

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,967
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2004

Posted 12 March 2006 - 04:10 AM

CF you are right that I should try film - but I probably won't as I don't think I'll measure up. However I don't autoguide as you know ;) but still find a 60 mins exposure awesome in concept even if Chris makes it sound easy! However a 40 minute manually guided exposure is even more awesome - so there! :bow:
 

#35 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 12 March 2006 - 04:39 AM

"I don't think I'll measure up". Really.. if you set up your scope accurately, the rest is easy. The guiding will be far less demanding and you'll have lots of successes. I would guess that 90% of astrophotography failure is due to inaccurate polar alignment and 9% are focus issues.

Then there's 1% for all the other problems... In well over 90% of my failures as a beginner, I was trying to image with poor polar alignment. Once I started shooting ONLY when I had excellent alignment, did my failures drop so that only about 10% were bad... and ALL of them were due to focus, usually when the camera slipped.

If you can guide for 5 minutes, you can go 10.
Once you get to 10, you can shoot for 20.
Before you know it, you are guiding for 40.

I agree with you about autoguiding.. except I wouldn't just say it was girls. But it certainly does take you away from the hobby, and IMHO, you may as well download an image from the Internet then to setup your camera and go inside to watch TV while your EQUIPMENT is taking the shot. The day I let an autoguider do my work, is the day I get a new hobby. Just MO folks.. nothing personnel. I would never be able to tell someone that "I" took the photo... because in reality I didn't, a computer did. I saw the same thing when I worked at the US Fish & Wildlife service. When I looked at great photos of wildlife I imagine the photographer camping out all night in the cold, hidden in a blind, just waiting for the right moment.. when in reality it was an automatic camera that took the shot from a remote desktop in NY. That's not photography to me.

CF
 

#36 Hutman

Hutman

    Comfortably Numb

  • -----
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005

Posted 12 March 2006 - 04:32 PM

I have manually guided many times, I now use an autoguider,I find I have plenty of time to look at the night sky with binoculars, or just look up and sometimes see meteors. I also understand were Chris is coming from,he has a family that is important to him and I know he enjoys the hobby, and if that is the way he has to enjoy it, good for him.But to make a statement that if you use an autoguider that the computer did it ,and you may as well down load a picture from the internet is totally bull.
You should know, that the scope has to be aligned and balanced, the sky conditions have to be taken in account for , the exposure time, the film that is being used, there are many things that need to be done. You don't just start an autoguider and get a great shot.

Nice shot Chris I like it the way it is ,very little proccessing.It seems everyone around here thinks the sky is black, and tend to over process their exposures. I also notice that when someone gets a great shot, all you manual guiders have to throw the negative comments in there sooner or later.

Great shot Chris

Girl Bill
 

#37 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 12 March 2006 - 07:11 PM

That's why I said "Just MO folks.. nothing personnel". this is MY feelings. I have tried autoguiding, and this was how I felt afterward. Also.. I too have a family that I love.. fortunately they were all fast asleep by the time I head outside.

I think Chris's shot is fantastic, and I have shown it off many times on other forums. It's a perfect example of what a talented astrophotographer can do with film.

CF
 

#38 lineman_16735

lineman_16735

    Tak-o-holic

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

Posted 15 March 2006 - 07:23 PM

Well, everyone has opinions, but I am happy with what I have and what I do so to me that is all that matters. The logic behind the "You may as well have downloaded the image" is at best idiotic, IMHO. If you want everything to be perfectly natural, you would have to draw your images on a cave wall with a piece of coal. Autoguiding allows more time for the hobby for me, I can grab the bino's or another scope and observe, while I am shooting. I mean really what does staring at one star through a short focal length eyepiece do for you? Also the "I didn't take the photo the autoguider did" shows me you are a little out of touch with reality. I took that photo as much as you have taken any of yours. Did you make the film, did you develop it, did you design and build your own scope and camera? Comon...get real. Obviously you scan your slides and manipulate the *Word deleted by the CN gnaughties gnomes* out of them...well not really you but the computer. BTW the guider is a computer as well so I guess you are at least as dependant on them as I am. You know CF you really turned me off in the past with some of your comments and your holy ways, but lately I was starting to warm up to you a little, even after you decided to butcher my image. I appreciate that you are a film guy, but please don't take the liberty to use my photos as they were your own. It is only commen sense to ask someone their permission to alter or manipulate their hard work, even if my computer did it and not me. Just my opinion I could be wrong.
 

#39 Suk Lee

Suk Lee

    Aurora

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

Posted 15 March 2006 - 10:17 PM

Let's play nice folks... let's remember that some of the nuances of communications can get lost in text and we're all here to enjoy and share photos, techniques, and *opinions*.

Best,
Suk
 

#40 lineman_16735

lineman_16735

    Tak-o-holic

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

Posted 15 March 2006 - 11:28 PM

Suk,

I thought I was playing nice. I apologize if I offended you or the others in the forum, but do you not agree that someone should ask before taking the liberty to manipulate your image? I will refrain from posting in this forum in the future. Although, I just thought it was time for someone to speak up as CF is not the definition of astrophotography, nor anyone else for that matter. We all have our own ways and some may post better photos than others but that does not give anyone the right to talk down to anyone else in the forum. I'm not saying CF, or anyone else for that matter was talking down to me or others but some more etique is needed. I try to be constructive and not the authority. My feelings remain the same though, please don't feel as though my photos are intended to be a project for each and everyone to play with as they see fit. I have and planned to give CF a raw scan to play with, but the idea of him or anyone else taking the image without asking first IMHO is dead wrong. I may be overly sensitive, but that is how I feel. I have no problem with critisism, but I do have a problem with people attacking my dedication. Again Suk, I'm sorry if I was out of line or offensive.
 

#41 Suk Lee

Suk Lee

    Aurora

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

Posted 15 March 2006 - 11:57 PM

Chris:

My comment was not directed at you specifically but at the turn the thread was taking. (unfortunately the system makes it look like I was addressing your post specifically)

I *did* say "folks", plural :)

I think there are points both valid and inappropriate made on the part of multiple posters, just reminding everybody that one of the things that makes CN great is we all try to get along.

Best,
Suk
 

#42 Suk Lee

Suk Lee

    Aurora

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

Posted 15 March 2006 - 11:58 PM

PS I hope you continue to post in the forum - your pictures are great.
 

#43 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 16 March 2006 - 02:07 AM

First, your comment that "We all have our own ways" is absolutely true.
I simply expressed by own views on one small aspect of the hobby.

I in no way meant to say anything derogatory about your work.
In fact, you will find I have given your image a great deal of praise on this forum and others. In the "Beginners Astrophotogrphy" forum I have referenced you as an experienced and talented astrophotographer when discussing what you have done with film.

Yes, I "played" with your image. So have others. That's what we do here.
In every AP forum people "play" with other's work. We're not using it against your copyright or posting it on other website as our own, or anything like that. I looked back at my posts regarding that image and all I see are positive comments and praises. The only criticism about that image was a "small amount of vignetting" which you agreed was there, and in which Corn helped remove (not sure if Corn asked for permission).

I do hope you continue to post here. Your images are fantastic and showcase that film is indeed a valuable medium, in a hobby where more and more people are ignoring it.

Yes I'm a but rough on autoguiding. So what? That's me.
Oh.. manual guiding is not just simply staring at a star for 30 minutes. That would indeed be a useless adventure.

CF
 

#44 JBull

JBull

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005

Posted 16 March 2006 - 03:14 AM

I agree with both opinions about manual and autoguiding. I think manual guiding is more of a "purist" approach and provides a great satisfaction when shots come back. It also puts one in touch with the sky and the scope in a way autoguiding cannot.

However after a few rolls of manual guided film I am getting lazy. Its nice to continue observing with binoculars while the computer does the guiding work.

I'm working on a mod for my cheap dual axis controller pad made by Orion (Synta). A parallel cable has been wired to the hand pad. With the addition of four relay switches it works good with K3CCDTools and an $8 Logitech Quickcam VC from ebay. I still have the ability to use the hand pad manually for those nights when I'm in the mood for a simple setup. I haven't tested it in the field yet.
 

#45 Corn

Corn

    Vanguard

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

Posted 16 March 2006 - 03:35 AM

@ Suk Lee,
If you could be so kind to remove the image I posted in this thread.

@ lineman,
I am sorry for the edited version of your image. Normaly it is easier to show (with a picture) than with words when it comes to processing. However you are correct, it is your work and if you feel that way about your images then it is definitely your right. In the end your picture is still pretty as it is.

Cheers
 

#46 ClownFish

ClownFish

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 16 March 2006 - 04:21 AM

Better take mine off too Suk. I tried, but it's too late and I can't delete it.

CF
 

#47 lineman_16735

lineman_16735

    Tak-o-holic

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

Posted 16 March 2006 - 10:11 AM

Guys listen don't worry about the photos. I may have over reacted a bit. I just would like a, "Hey Chris you mind if I try playing with your photo?" Thats all. I guess my idea of being a "purist" is different than others, I try not to process my shots as much as possible. I habor no hard feelings, as I just say what I think.
 

#48 Suk Lee

Suk Lee

    Aurora

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

Posted 16 March 2006 - 10:13 AM

Oops, too late, I already deleted them.

Cheers,
Suk
 

#49 raydar

raydar

    Viking 1

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

Posted 16 March 2006 - 11:54 AM

I still consider myself a noob. I have been surfing this forum for a couple of years now. I and other noobs used to post our images here and then more experienced Astrophotographers would take them, manipulate them and repost them.

It was great for me to see a before and after image. It showed me what was possible with digital manipulation.

It also motivated me to get photoshop, pixinsight etc. I studied this software well, and now I really enjoy pulling everything out of my images.

Personally, if someone can take one of my images off this forum, improve on it then tell me how they did it all for free, then I think that is great.

It is also good because, when they repost the image, I can then go into photoshop and try and recreate what they did.

On another note -

Suk, may I suggest a forum rule, that all photos can be manipulated unless the poster asks for them not to be? Because I think it is a good practice that helps all the noobs here and if people have to ask, then wait for an answer I think people won't bother asking in the first place. This would eliminate future problems (hopefully).

Ta

Ray
 

#50 Mark L

Mark L

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 29 May 2005

Posted 16 March 2006 - 06:33 PM

It has always been the rule or should I say the law that you do not copy, reproduce or manipulate another persons work. Be it canvas, print or photography without permission from the author.
Taking someones photo and posting it at another site would be no different than making a copy of Peter's and Suk's guiding article ( excellent article btw ) and editing it to your taste and posting it all over the Internet.
The rule should be, if you want others to do their magic on your photo, make it clear on your post that it's okay to do so. Otherwise either ask for permission or just leave it alone.
We all put our heart and sole in this hobby and for some of us that passion runs pretty deep. Lets respect that.
.......Mark
 


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