Congrats to Pete Lawrence

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list690714

Shocked, you could say that when I followed the url above from a NASA email,
well done Pete. How much of the image was used from the original?

Graeme

"gp.skinner" wrote:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list690714

Shocked, you could say that when I followed the url above from a NASA email,
well done Pete. How much of the image was used from the original?

Graeme

Brilliant stuff - don't tell the Mrs you spent all that money on an
ORDINARY camera...

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

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 10:12:43 +0100, Martin Frey
wrote:

"gp.skinner" wrote:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list690714

Shocked, you could say that when I followed the url above from a NASA email,
well done Pete. How much of the image was used from the original?

Graeme

Brilliant stuff - don't tell the Mrs you spent all that money on an
ORDINARY camera...

Oh dear - I'll have to remember not to tell her about this.

Especially as the first camera I bought (D60) second-hand, that I then
decided to sell just 5 weeks after purchase to pay for the 10D, is
still sitting in a cupboard at home with no sign of an advert written
yet!

--
Pete Lawrence
http://www.pbl33.co.uk
Astronomy & digital astroimaging

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 09:41:19 +0100, "gp.skinner"
wrote:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list690714

Shocked, you could say that when I followed the url above from a NASA email,
well done Pete. How much of the image was used from the original?

Graeme

Thanks Graeme. Bit of a shock here too ;-)

SpaceWeather.com (who I submitted the image to) are pretty good at
handling the images. It can't be that easy to wade through the
submissions (I was contacted by a chap the other day that, IIRC,
mentioned the fact that Tony Philips gets in the order of 5000 images
a day to pick from!).

The last two that were published on SpaceWeather.com at the weekend
were pretty faithfully reproduced. The first, which was sent up
without any annotation, was annotated by SW and cropped for the title
page which then linked to the full unannotated original. That's a
fair amount of effort to go to every day - I'm impressed.

Only issues that I have with this entry are a) the date of publication
(why today ;-) - no one will believe it's real !! ) and b) the fact
that my undriven tripod managed such an accurate shot. I don't know
where that came from - the shot was taken with my camera piggybacked
on my GP-DX mounted/driven refractor!

Still - I'm not complaining :-)

--
Pete Lawrence
http://www.pbl33.co.uk
Astronomy & digital astroimaging

Congrats, beautiful photo!
"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 09:41:19 +0100, "gp.skinner"
wrote:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list690714

Shocked, you could say that when I followed the url above from a NASA
email,
well done Pete. How much of the image was used from the original?

Graeme

Thanks Graeme. Bit of a shock here too ;-)

SpaceWeather.com (who I submitted the image to) are pretty good at
handling the images. It can't be that easy to wade through the
submissions (I was contacted by a chap the other day that, IIRC,
mentioned the fact that Tony Philips gets in the order of 5000 images
a day to pick from!).

The last two that were published on SpaceWeather.com at the weekend
were pretty faithfully reproduced. The first, which was sent up
without any annotation, was annotated by SW and cropped for the title
page which then linked to the full unannotated original. That's a
fair amount of effort to go to every day - I'm impressed.

Only issues that I have with this entry are a) the date of publication
(why today ;-) - no one will believe it's real !! ) and b) the fact
that my undriven tripod managed such an accurate shot. I don't know
where that came from - the shot was taken with my camera piggybacked
on my GP-DX mounted/driven refractor!

Still - I'm not complaining :-)

--
Pete Lawrence
http://www.pbl33.co.uk
Astronomy & digital astroimaging