Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I have been photographing the night skies.

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Sell your camera... Take up a new hobby...




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by zayonara
 


Hi I just got a new DSLR myself and was thinking of doing this during the nice crisp winter nights I would use a wider angle lens than 50mm most of the top guys on the net doing this use fisheye,18mm 24mm lens you can see the start of star trailing even at 15 secs with your 50mm.

A lot of the videos on the net are done at 1600, 3200 iso and still look good.

Here is a really nice one from 260,000 stills


Purely Pacific Northwest

Some other great ones here

Alex Cherney's Videos

edit on 13-9-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-9-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Then....using scanner, you can scan the picture, and zoom in.....then instead of wondering if it's thermal noise or a hot pixel.......you can instead wonder if it's the grain of the film!



The problem with this approach is that you still have digital technology in the equation, and a scanner can have hot/stuck pixels too.

I think a better approach would be to use a DSLR, and shoot some dark frames (which would clearly show where your hot/stuck pixels are) at the start and end of your observing session, then compare the darks with your other exposures.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I would say that in terms of identifying objects, having your stars trail a bit might be an advantage since they will all be trailing fairly consistently (in comparison to adjacent stars), making it easier to tell what is a star and what is not.

As for proffered focal length, whilst wider lenses will take in more sky area (giving you a better chance of catching something), they also tend to be slower, which can make capturing fainter objects much harder. With recent DSLRs tat have less noisy high ISO settings, this isn't so much of a problem, but if you can only use ISO 800/1600 before the noise gets too much, having a fast lens will help.

If you can afford fast and wide, so much the better. I prefer 24mm/1.4 lenses (I have 4 of them), but use everything from 14mm/2.8 to 50mm/1.8 lenses.

Better yet, use multiple DSLRs with shorter focal length/fast lenses (50mm/1.8 lenses are relatively cheap and suitable for this approach) to capture a "mosaic" of the sky. Whilst this throws up all kinds of logistical issues (especially if you are imaging away from home as I have to at the moment), you will get more detail in your shots, and have a bit more light gathering ability compared to using slower/wider lenses.

I should also say that there is a distinct advantage to using DSLRs with full-frame sensors since they have bigger pixels spread out over a greater area. This usually translates to less noise at higher ISOs, making them effectively more light-sensitive, as well as having an increased field of view. I sue a mixture of crop and full-frame DSLRs, but if I could afford it, I would only use full-frame.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FireballStorm
 


Well since you put your £0.02 worth in I may have a new DSLR it doesn't mean I am new to photography bought my first SLR in 1979 manual focus,manual exposure best way to learn.

Have been looking at the time lapse lots of nice ones done at 25-30 seconds f2.8 28mm and below and even up to iso 6400 with many new DSLR's

Although I live near large towns and cities I can get to some nice dark countryside within 30-60 mins drive so I will see what happens over the next 3-4 months weather wise, hopefully some nice crisp clear winter nights.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
For artistic purposes, I can do way better than my OP. This is about the "things you catch" in the sky.

Here I used my 8mm for an artistic shot:



I use DSS for stacking. The free one,
edit on 13-9-2012 by zayonara because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zayonara
For artistic purposes, I can do way better than my OP. This is about the "things you catch" in the sky.


That's my point. For artistic purposes, you would want to close down your aperture a little to help correct aberrations such as coma and vingeting, at the expense of light gathering ability.

Using high ISO (above 800/1600) will make up for smaller aperture/slow lenses to some degree, but going for fast lenses (faster than f2.8), or opening up the lens aperture would allow you to capture even fainter/faster moving objects.

There is a balance to be struck between light gathering ability, field of view (which is also linked with resolution), and cost when choosing a lens for this type of work. Unless you have cash to burn, there will usually be tradeoffs, and (in reply to wmd_2008's post), I don't think buying wide lenses is necessarily a good tradeoff unless you can afford "speed" too.

50mm f1.8 lenses are fast and cost effective, but the field of view is less than ideal, especially when used on a cropped-sensor DSLR.

Something like a 24mm -35mm f1.4, if you have cash to burn, makes more sense.

I'd go for either of the above two options before I went for something like 18mm f2.8, based on nearly one and a half decades experience of trying to photograph meteors (mostly) with all kinds of lens/camera combinations.

At the end of the day people should use what they have, but some combinations will work better than others.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireballStorm

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Then....using scanner, you can scan the picture, and zoom in.....then instead of wondering if it's thermal noise or a hot pixel.......you can instead wonder if it's the grain of the film!



The problem with this approach is that you still have digital technology in the equation, and a scanner can have hot/stuck pixels too.

I think a better approach would be to use a DSLR, and shoot some dark frames (which would clearly show where your hot/stuck pixels are) at the start and end of your observing session, then compare the darks with your other exposures.


I'm afraid you misunderstood why I said what I said. I was referring to the "good ol days" prior to digital cameras and how we used to get images onto a computer.

Today, you can take your shots and when you are done (even if it's a very long exposure with a tracking mount), you can instantly see how that frame turned out.

In the days that I started doing this, you had to wait until the film was developed.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I realized that - I also started off with 35mm film cameras and used to scan my film once I got it back from being processed. I see your point now, and fully agree with your sentiments



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I shot the OP with a Canon 50mm f/2.5, some old glass.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
there's a flickr site you can submit images to and it scans them with it's software to identify stars etc in photos.
www.flickr.com...
more info on the "blind solver"can be found at astrometry.net



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by gillyp17
 


I haven't used flickr but I would love to try that feature. Thanks.

Check out Stellarium too.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
www.spencerscamera.com...
Astrophotography Digital Camera Modifications & Conversions

Personally, we need to get beyond all this.

I can't think of anything more important than take the real technology out of the hands of the wealthy. Who can ever afford a 3 500 piece of hobby equipment? A few, but not most.

Build your own telescope. Polish your own glass, lenses and mirrors.

Hook up a modded Ultra Violent, Full spectrum video camera or camera, and take really cool pics.

Thats our goal, if we can start to get the boys learning to operate small businesses this year, to add an extra step in the businesses.

Then form a local meditation sky watching group and get others to build even small telescopes and some UV modded equipment, and have some fun.

Don't charge money like Greer does, just pass the hat for coffee pots, and snacks, and to add to equipment for the group from time to time.

Include all



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
People that work really hard, can sell their skills, and set their goals, can afford 3 500 cameras.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join