Astro Photos Wanted!

Have you taken images of the Moon, Planets, or maybe Deep Sky objects?

There's lots of websites out there with these images but I'm designing a
site that will act as a comparison tool.

I'm not interested in professional images...

This site is for newbies who are wondering what an object looks like through
a particular scope.

Have you taken shots of Saturn with a ETX 70, 90 or 125?
Or perhaps a LX90?

If so, this is what I'm looking for.

Mail to them, with all the relevant details

Gareth
--

This site is for newbies who are wondering what an object looks like
through
a particular scope.

I think it's impossible for a picture to show what objects look like through
a particular scope. The camera will _always_ make the image look far
better. I think the best way to convey what the image actually looks like
is to use sketches or drawings. Have you considered drawings instead? I
once saw a book written for the astronomy newbie (sorry, don't remember the
name of it), with drawings of popular celestial objects as seen through
different size amateur telescopes. This information was really helpful, as
most newbies don't know what to expect if and when they actually find the
object they've been looking for.

Al


"Gareth Slee" wrote in message
...
Have you taken images of the Moon, Planets, or maybe Deep Sky objects?

There's lots of websites out there with these images but I'm designing a
site that will act as a comparison tool.

I'm not interested in professional images...

This site is for newbies who are wondering what an object looks like
through
a particular scope.

Have you taken shots of Saturn with a ETX 70, 90 or 125?
Or perhaps a LX90?

If so, this is what I'm looking for.

Mail to them, with all the relevant details

Gareth
--

"
This site is for newbies who are wondering what an object looks like
through
a particular scope.

Have you taken shots of Saturn with a ETX 70, 90 or 125?
Or perhaps a LX90?

If so, this is what I'm looking for.



Thanks a lot! What makes you think people with scopes like that are
"newbies"?
I know people who have done this for years and have smaller scopes. This
isn't a hobby
only for the big!

Have you considered drawings instead? I
once saw a book written for the astronomy newbie (sorry, don't remember
the
name of it), with drawings of popular celestial objects as seen through
different size amateur telescopes. This information was really helpful,
as
most newbies don't know what to expect if and when they actually find the
object they've been looking for.

Al


The definition of "amateur" has nothing to do with "newbie". Also, many
people can't draw or
don't want to be bothered with that. The amount of photographed material
dwarfts the amount of
drawn material so much that it just doesn't fly.

Thomas M wrote:
[...]
Thanks a lot! What makes you think people with scopes like that are
"newbies"?

If you read what he *actually* wrote (usually a good basis for internet
discussion) you will find that the word "newbies" is qualified with the
auxiliary clause: "who are wondering what an object looks like through a
particular scope", and not, as you appear to believe, with: "who have
taken images with these objects through a particular scope".

IOW he very clearly wants pictures from experienced people (presumably
like yourself) in order to assist newbies, many of whom are unaware of
what they can expect an object to look like.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

He did not ask for pictures to help amateurs, he asked for pictures to help
newbies. You are correct about a lot of people who are unable to draw, but
that leaves at lot of people who can draw. Finally, a photograph or image
of a celestial object is almost useless (in my opinion) in showing what
size/type of amateur telescope was used to take the picture. A camera will
_always_ show far more detail, as it allows light to accumulate on the film
or on the chip. The eye can register only a brief micro second of light.

Al


"Thomas M" wrote in message
news:bSz0c.38927$A12.31097@edtnps84...

Have you considered drawings instead? I
once saw a book written for the astronomy newbie (sorry, don't remember
the
name of it), with drawings of popular celestial objects as seen through
different size amateur telescopes. This information was really helpful,
as
most newbies don't know what to expect if and when they actually find
the
object they've been looking for.

Al


The definition of "amateur" has nothing to do with "newbie". Also, many
people can't draw or
don't want to be bothered with that. The amount of photographed material
dwarfts the amount of
drawn material so much that it just doesn't fly.

"
IOW he very clearly wants pictures from experienced people (presumably
like yourself) in order to assist newbies, many of whom are unaware of
what they can expect an object to look like.



Well, sure, but lets face it, anyone with even a speck of astronomical
intelligence can do a search
on the inet and get as many astro pics as they want. This would be just
another astro URL amongst
thousands! All they do is enter "astrophotography" and voila!

"Thomas M" wrote:

Well, sure, but lets face it, anyone with even a speck of astronomical
intelligence can do a search
on the inet and get as many astro pics as they want. This would be just
another astro URL amongst
thousands! All they do is enter "astrophotography" and voila!

Actually it isn;t like that. 99.9pc of all photos I find on the net
bear absolutely no resemblance to what I see with my eyes through my
telescope. The 0.1 pc that do give an impression of what can be seen
are rare because, as photos, they're crap.

If someone's prepared to do the work of collecting and collating such
pictures, more power to his elbow. I'd love a site that showed me what
that extra inch of aperture might actually provide as opposed to what
the advert says it will..

We could derive a new universal constant for sales material -the
"patter factor" with a preliminary estimated value of 1000. It may
turn out to be far larger.

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

In message
Martin Frey wrote:

"Thomas M" wrote:

Well, sure, but lets face it, anyone with even a speck of astronomical
intelligence can do a search
on the inet and get as many astro pics as they want. This would be just
another astro URL amongst
thousands! All they do is enter "astrophotography" and voila!

Actually it isn;t like that. 99.9pc of all photos I find on the net
bear absolutely no resemblance to what I see with my eyes through my
telescope. The 0.1 pc that do give an impression of what can be seen
are rare because, as photos, they're crap.

If someone's prepared to do the work of collecting and collating such
pictures, more power to his elbow. I'd love a site that showed me what
that extra inch of aperture might actually provide as opposed to what
the advert says it will..

We could derive a new universal constant for sales material -the
"patter factor" with a preliminary estimated value of 1000. It may
turn out to be far larger.

Don't forget the difference a dark sky will make. Advertising photos,
and those that Thomas M seems to think are available from a quick
web search, will probably have been taken under ideal conditions.

Most amateurs don't have to put up with both light pollution and
'dirty' air.

Barry
--
Borrow money from pessimists -- they don't expect it back.

In message
Barry Smith wrote:

I'll try that again :-)

Most amateurs have to put up with both light pollution and
'dirty' air.

Barry
--
One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.