PDA

View Full Version : It's the White Persona on film!



Comixx
2003-May-13, 03:08 AM
Actually...now that I look at it, it's our own Luna. (http://elegant-insanity.com/xericstudios/art/Moon.jpg) :)

Taken prime focus through my brother's SCT on 400 ISO B&W Kodak and 1hr processed and printed. Exposure 1/4th of a second.

This, folks, is what a professional photographer comes up with when he images the sky, not those hokey digital pieces of garbage the PX hoaxers put up. In case you wondered, I shot an entire roll of 24 frames, bracketing my exposures for +/-2 stops (under and over exposing by 2 settings besides what my meter said was "perfect"), 1/3 roll was 25mm projected plossl, 1/3 25mm plossl with red filter, and 1/3 prime focus. The picture linked above is prime with a red filter. The images through the 25mm were only focused at the center, rapidly blurring out towards the edge, I assume due to the spherical nature of the plossl design.

edit: I forgot to mention my camera has a nifty mirror lock-up option, where the mirror that lets you aim the camera moves up, but the shutter remains closed until you press the remote trigger again...that way I dont get the fuzzies caused by the vibration of that mirror's weight moving around...for the same reason, I use a remote trigger (also called a cable release).

WolfKC
2003-May-13, 04:26 AM
Mine aren't as nice and sharp as yours but I'm still proud of um :)
Solar Eclipse and Moonrise by UT Tower (http://www.chipman.org/moon/moon.htm)

Not to get to far from the silly side, here's NancyMoon (www.chipman.org/starhoax/NancyMoon.jpg) :o :roll: :) Oh does my head hurt.

girl101
2003-May-13, 04:36 AM
I shot an entire roll of 24 frames, bracketing my exposures for +/-2 stops (under and over exposing by 2 settings besides what my meter said was "perfect"), 1/3 roll was 25mm projected plossl, 1/3 25mm plossl with red filter, and 1/3 prime focus. The picture linked above is prime with a red filter. The images through the 25mm were only focused at the center, rapidly blurring out towards the edge, I assume due to the spherical nature of the plossl design.

10 bucks says that not one of the people shooting pictures of the sun and sending them to Nancy has any idea what ANY of this means.

Girl 101

WolfKC
2003-May-13, 04:53 AM
Solar Eclipse and Moonrise by UT Tower (http://www.chipman.org/moon/moon.htm)
Feel free to mention that my pics are really nice too. :D

Comixx
2003-May-13, 07:05 AM
Solar Eclipse and Moonrise by UT Tower (http://www.chipman.org/moon/moon.htm)
Feel free to mention that my pics are really nice too. :D

Quite nice indeed! See, not only are our pictures of recognizable things, but we can easily and readily duplicate our shots on demand (well, except the eclipse, ya kinda have to wait on that one)

I plan on shooting a sequence of the Lunar eclipse through my bro's scope in 2 days...I'm jazzed! I hope they come out...

SarahMc
2003-May-13, 11:38 AM
Make yourself a Hartman mask or difraction aid, and you'll be able to get the focus a little sharper. It's next to impossible to focus with most stock focus screens. Mirror lock is a great asset for 35mm SLR cameras and astrophotography, I use it all the time on my Nikon F.

Charlie in Dayton
2003-May-13, 03:47 PM
Actually...now that I look at it, it's our own Luna. (http://elegant-insanity.com/xericstudios/art/Moon.jpg) :)

Taken prime focus through my brother's SCT on 400 ISO B&W Kodak and 1hr processed and printed. Exposure 1/4th of a second.

This, folks, is what a professional photographer comes up with when he images the sky, not those hokey digital pieces of garbage the PX hoaxers put up. In case you wondered, I shot an entire roll of 24 frames, bracketing my exposures for +/-2 stops (under and over exposing by 2 settings besides what my meter said was "perfect"), 1/3 roll was 25mm projected plossl, 1/3 25mm plossl with red filter, and 1/3 prime focus. The picture linked above is prime with a red filter. The images through the 25mm were only focused at the center, rapidly blurring out towards the edge, I assume due to the spherical nature of the plossl design.

edit: I forgot to mention my camera has a nifty mirror lock-up option, where the mirror that lets you aim the camera moves up, but the shutter remains closed until you press the remote trigger again...that way I dont get the fuzzies caused by the vibration of that mirror's weight moving around...for the same reason, I use a remote trigger (also called a cable release).

...wooga wooga wooga...would that I could take such things...practice time here is rapidly shrinking, what with the cloudy skies and other things occupying my time. Hopefully I'll get a shot or three on the eclipse, but I doubt if things will cooperate. Oh well, at least it'll all be set up.

Great shots, all. If and when I get some, I'll post/link them.

Comixx
2003-May-13, 08:13 PM
Make yourself a Hartman mask or difraction aid, and you'll be able to get the focus a little sharper. It's next to impossible to focus with most stock focus screens. Mirror lock is a great asset for 35mm SLR cameras and astrophotography, I use it all the time on my Nikon F.

I'm new to the astro-photography, what exactly is a Hartman mask? A diffraction aid? More info please :)

My brother and I are looking into getting a lighted reticle, which has the camera at one end and an angled mirror out the side with an eyepiece at the same distance as the film plane...at least that's how my brother describes it...and it allows you to see, center, and focus on objects much dimmer than you can with the camera eyepiece. Anyone ever used one of these?

edit to add: I'm using a Canon Elan 7E, just fyi.

Glom
2003-May-13, 08:17 PM
That's a nice one. I don't know how you do it. I've tried so many times to properly expose Luna, it never works. I got some properly exposed ones at prime focus (when I say prime focus, I mean standing my camera with a 50mm lens in front of the eyepiece of the telescope) but the quality isn't nearly as good.

Glom
2003-May-13, 08:19 PM
Not to get to far from the silly side, here's NancyMoon (www.chipman.org/starhoax/NancyMoon.jpg) :o :roll: :) Oh does my head hurt.

Isn't that Toad from Super Mario Brothers?

Comixx
2003-May-13, 08:33 PM
That's a nice one. I don't know how you do it. I've tried so many times to properly expose Luna, it never works. I got some properly exposed ones at prime focus (when I say prime focus, I mean standing my camera with a 50mm lens in front of the eyepiece of the telescope) but the quality isn't nearly as good.

The trick to my shot was this: A t-ring adapter and a camera-to-telescope adapter tube which can house an eyepiece (for small object projection). the t-ring fits on my camera in the place of a lens, and the adapter tube threads onto the t-ring. Prime focus is achieved by using the telescope as the lens, with nothing between the mirrors and the film plane. Between that and the telescope's tracking abilities, I can get exposures as short or as long as I need to.

As far as properly exposing Luna: At full moon, expose for daylight optimal (f/16 @ 1/125th of a sec with 400 ISO film, for example). Using your camera's meter function can be confusing if it meters an average (that is, it meters both the Moon and surrounding darkness and averages the reading) which will overexpose the Moon. If you have a spot-metering capability on your camera, use that instead and you should get much better exposures. And, as always, bracket your exposures (mine has a ring which allows me to select + or - up to 2 stops at 1/2 stop increments) by metering on Automatic, then selecting Manual and changing the time of the exposure. For example, if your Auto setting told you to shoot at f/4 @ 1/15th, then you'd shoot that, plus you'd shoot one at 1/30th and one at 1/8th, giving you +/- one full stop of over and underexposure, correcting for any mistakes your meter made. I usually shoot 5 brackets for each shot, which looks like -2, -1, optimum, +1, +2.

I hope that helps. I'm still a newbie at this, and taking "normal" photography training and applying it to night-shooting is a challenge at best. But, I'll try to answer questions as best I can :) Hope that helped.

Comixx
2003-May-13, 08:46 PM
Oh, I Googled the Hartman and diffraction aids, and I know what they are now. Sounds like they're mainly for CCD focusing, but they may be useful to me too...I'll have to try the Hartman, since it's so simple to make.

Also, I never used the telescope's Fine Focus motor, just the hand-focuser...I wont make that mistake again :)

SarahMc
2003-May-13, 09:05 PM
Make yourself a Hartman mask or difraction aid, and you'll be able to get the focus a little sharper. It's next to impossible to focus with most stock focus screens. Mirror lock is a great asset for 35mm SLR cameras and astrophotography, I use it all the time on my Nikon F.

I'm new to the astro-photography, what exactly is a Hartman mask? A diffraction aid? More info please :)

My brother and I are looking into getting a lighted reticle, which has the camera at one end and an angled mirror out the side with an eyepiece at the same distance as the film plane...at least that's how my brother describes it...and it allows you to see, center, and focus on objects much dimmer than you can with the camera eyepiece. Anyone ever used one of these?

edit to add: I'm using a Canon Elan 7E, just fyi.

A hartman mask is an aperture cover with two or three holes or triangles, evenly spaced around the center of the aperture. You focus by bringing the two (or three) images to single point on the camera focus screen.

A diffraction aid is just two strips of tape, wooden sticks, or bungy cords placed across the aperture. They create spikes on the image in the focus screen, and again, you focus by bringing the diffraction spikes together. Obviously, once you focus you remove the mask or diffraction aid.

Your description of a lighted reticle sounds more like an off-axis guider, with a lighted reticle attached. Those are fine (some people will disagree, and prefer a guide scope) for guiding a long exposure, but not really needed for lunar or most planetary photography - as the exposures are fairly short. The problem you'll have here is that you still need to focus the camera first, then focus the reticle EP by sliding it in and out of the holder, finally locking it down when the image is in focus. The EP and the camera aren't normally at the same focal plane, so focus the camera first, then focus the EP by manually moving it - don't touch the focuser (then check the camera again :o) .

If your brother's SCT is on a wedge and has a RA drive, you should have no problems with images up to a minute or so without guiding -as long as he has a decent polar alignment. Even at the eclipse maximum, I doubt you'll need exposures longer than a couple minutes. I'd be more concerned in ALt-Az mode, and maybe select a faster film (more grain, but less chance of field rotation). If his SCT isn't driven, you may need to guide for the images leading up to and during totality.

Hartman mask info here (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mwconte/focus.htm)

Exposure settings for the eclipse here (http://www.mreclipse.com/LEphoto/LEphoto.html)

Comixx
2003-May-13, 09:15 PM
My brother has the Meade LX200GPS (http://www.meade.com/catalog/lx/8_10_lx200gps.html) (which I incorrectly reported as the LX90 before, which was the scope he had planned on buying before the LX200GPS went on sale), but no wedge. According to the scope's literature, we can take up to 4 minute exposures without risk of rotation.

Since my profession is freelance photographer, I have the advantage of being able to log all the mileage getting to and from sites, film, and developing/printing costs as business expenses :) making them tax-deductible.

edit to add: while planets and the Moon are spectacular, what I really want is galaxies and nebulae...but they are too faint to focus on with my camera's focusing screen...what I've ended up doing is focusing on a bright star before slewing the scope, then guessing at the exposure...which has yielded nothing as-yet, but that was before we'd perfected the somewhat tricky alignment of his scope, and was developed at a 1hr place, and was 400 ISO film...I've got some 1600 ISO color that I'm going to use next time...

SarahMc
2003-May-13, 11:01 PM
edit to add: while planets and the Moon are spectacular, what I really want is galaxies and nebulae...but they are too faint to focus on with my camera's focusing screen...what I've ended up doing is focusing on a bright star before slewing the scope, then guessing at the exposure...which has yielded nothing as-yet, but that was before we'd perfected the somewhat tricky alignment of his scope, and was developed at a 1hr place, and was 400 ISO film...I've got some 1600 ISO color that I'm going to use next time...

The LX200 GPS will work fine for your eclipse session. Focusing on a bright star for Deep Sky work is an excellent way to focus for your image. I beleive the LX200 GPS can do a "sync" with the Autostar (I'm only familair with the 497 Autostar, not the Autostar II), so you can Sync on a nearby star, focus, and then GoTo to the coordinates for your object, even if you can't actually see it. He'll have to get an OAG and at least a reticle EP for guiding and setting up the PPEC, and of course, you'll need a wedge for long film exposures. The best route would be a CCD guider and an OAG or guide scope. You might want to investigate some sites like Gerry Lodrigus' or Rod Wodawski's sites, lots of great information there.

Comixx
2003-May-14, 12:11 AM
The LX200 GPS will work fine for your eclipse session. Focusing on a bright star for Deep Sky work is an excellent way to focus for your image. I beleive the LX200 GPS can do a "sync" with the Autostar (I'm only familair with the 497 Autostar, not the Autostar II), so you can Sync on a nearby star, focus, and then GoTo to the coordinates for your object, even if you can't actually see it. He'll have to get an OAG and at least a reticle EP for guiding and setting up the PPEC, and of course, you'll need a wedge for long film exposures. The best route would be a CCD guider and an OAG or guide scope. You might want to investigate some sites like Gerry Lodrigus' or Rod Wodawski's sites, lots of great information there.

Thanks for the excellent tips Sarah!

His scope's Go To function works perfectly now that we actually know what stars we're aligning on...that first week was a doozy though: "...it wants to align on Dubhe?? Where is that? Maybe it's that one...hmm...it's still 10 degrees off Jupiter now...sheesh..." Hehe, an hour with Starry Night Backyard and a little cheat-sheet in hand, now it puts whatever we're looking at, no matter how faint, in the center of the eyepiece :) We even saw Pluto at mag 13.1 (averted eye even in the scope, but it was there by golly!) So, next session we're bringing the 1600 ISO and just trusting the scope to do it's job ;)

Comixx
2003-May-27, 08:10 PM
Well, not to dredge up an old post and all...but I'd rather continue one than add a new for the same kinda topic...

To get on with it: We watched the eclipse...it was really cool! Had the scope out tracking, and had another camera on a tripod taking multiple exposures every 10 minutes. The kids were just amazed at it all (and so were we) so staying up late on a school night was justified :)

OK Here's my pics (http://www.elegant-insanity.com/xericstudios/photos/skies/lnr-eclps.jpg), first is the multiple exposure, second is prime-focus through the SCT.

WolfKC
2003-May-27, 08:17 PM
Very nice! :D

Comixx
2003-May-27, 08:23 PM
How long before you go photoshop my pics WolfKC? hehe...just waiting for you to circle all the stars as anomolies that prove PX was buzzing the moon at the time :) especially that long white smeared anomoly at the top of my multiple exposure...heehee...

BTW: I may use some of these for commercial ventures or in my portfolio, so please credit me when you use them since they are copyrighted by me at the time of creation...that not only protects me, but also protects you. (post credit as: copyright: Brad Garner, 2003)

SarahMc
2003-May-27, 08:36 PM
Agreed, very nice! And - please keep those pics of "PX" to yourself. :lol:

WolfKC
2003-May-27, 09:14 PM
post credit as: copyright: Brad Garner, 2003)
I think we have enough camera flare PXs. :) But if you do put your pics on the net and are concerned, you should consider putting your copyright notice in the pic. Not necessarly like this, but somewhere inside the pic (http://www.chipman.org/starhoax/lnr-eclps-1.jpg).

Comixx
2003-May-27, 11:20 PM
Oh, I'm not concerned...the laws on photographs posted to the internet are becoming quite well clarified :) I only mentioned as a joke, really...if you visit the rest of my site, you see that I have a copyright "warning" at the bottom, but I dont watermark or put my logo inside my pictures because that detracts from their overall impact.

Fark.com and /. would practically go out of business if they had to worry about creditting copyrights with all the photoshop contests they do, I doubt your personal site has much more to worry about than they do ;)