folly of astrophotography

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:07:48 GMT, Simple Traveler
wrote:

What they have are skills, and they are skills that
anyone can learn. And a very important part of the quality of their work
comes
from their use of very high-end equipment.

........wrong again, you can't do it without high end equipment, but
that doesn't mean that buying high end equipment alone will let you
generate the same quality of work.

Well, I'm an imager, and within that community I see dozens and dozens of people
producing images of very high quality. The vast majority (I won't say "all", but
I don't know of an exception) of imagers using very good equipment are also
producing very good images. And I know quite a few imagers using rather ordinary
equipment who have managed to produce very nice results from nearly the very
start (not Gendler quality, perhaps, but as good as many images I see published
in S&T).

There is this myth of the difficulty of astroimaging. IMO it is just that, a
myth. The good equipment that is now available is very good indeed. Taking fine
astroimages simply isn't that difficult a skill to develop. I'm not saying it is
trivial, but it is no different from the sort of skills that people develop for
other hobbies. I'd say fine woodworking is much harder to learn than
astroimaging, for example.


Of course your statement above that Tony Hallas and Robert Gendler have
no appreciable inherent talent makes it hard for you to even hear what
I'm saying.

I do hear what you are saying, I just disagree. And I didn't say these imagers
have no talent; I said that their ability to produce fine images is primarily
about skill, and not talent.


This is the Usenet, and I should know better, but .........I'm not
saying that nobody should take pictures, I'm saying that the industry is
misleading beginners into thinking they can take these pictures the day
after they set their scope up.

That's called marketing, and it is the same everywhere. Canon commercials
mislead people into thinking that if they buy a 300D, they will instantly be
producing first rate sports photos; BMW misleads people into thinking if they
buy a new car, they'll become race drivers.

In fact, I'm not even quite sure which "industry" you are talking about here. If
the manufacturers of astronomical equipment are guilty of shady marketing
practices, it seems to me that these are much more directed towards visual
astronomers than imagers.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Simple Traveler wrote in
:

saying that nobody should take pictures, I'm saying that the industry
is misleading beginners into thinking they can take these pictures the
day after they set their scope up.

To some point, it is indeed trending in that direction. It really depends
on what one does understand by "beginner". In a way, I am a beginner, after
a 25 year blackhole, and I after a bit more than a year back into the
hobby; I am still stunned by what the industry has to offer today. And
yes, I was able to take pictures as soon as I set up my telescope.

--
Pierre Vandevenne - DataRescue sa/nv - www.datarescue.com
The IDA Pro Disassembler & Debugger - world leader in hostile code analysis
PhotoRescue - advanced data recovery for digital photographic media
latest review: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1590497,00.asp

Per Erik Jorde writes:

"seen" that night. At the telescope, the CCD camera in its "find" mode
serves as a very sensitive electronic eyepiece, displaying objects in
near real-time that would be largely invisible on the same telescope
if used with an ordinary eyepiece. Hence, visual observing and
astrophotography may not be that different activities at all.


I see your point, but no matter how good the image is, there's no
comparison between the ethereal feel of looking through only glass to
observe an object and looking at a computer monitor to see it. In
this respect, even "electronic eyepieces" lose me. It's difficult for
me to relate this point to many good imagers, but for me, visual
observing is uplifting in a way that imaging cannot be. They are both
great aspects of the hobby.

I have been an avid amateur astronomer for 40 years, and until
a few weeks ago I though I'd never end up photographing anything.
With the acquizition of an advanced dSLR, this has changed, I
am going to give it a try. But not with my eyes closed!

One of the strange things I learned in the first few weeks of
dSLR ownership, is that digital changes all the rules. A) each
'shot' is free, however, b) the cost structure to be able to take
that shot is quite steep. The other thing I have learned is that
even with an excellent camera and all the electronic gizmos that
take the hard work out of the picture taking process, one shoud
not expect more than 10% of their shots to be keepers. With the
added difficulty of astronomy of extrememly dim objects and the
problems of tracking that object during the course of the exposure
this 10% will drop into the 1% (or less) range. Even short exposures
are subject to the camera movements setting up vibrations in the
telescope that blur the very detail one is trying to capture.
Indeed, some of my bets images of terrestrial subjects are long
exposures of landscapes taken at twilight. The longer exposure,
it seems, the better the image. I believe that the camera movements
are setting up lens/tripod vibrations that take a few seconds to
damp out.

In general, I fully agree with the new amateur astronomers would
do themselves well by staying away from astrophotography (film or
digital) until they get a few years under their belts and understand
the delicacy one needs to focus a telescope without inducing large
vibrations and the delicacy of focusing at all. In addition to the
polar alignment issues, and all the other stuff, its a simple time
issue. If it takes 1/2 the night to set up all the gear and the
results don't turn out so well, it sericously degrades the astro
part of the equation without making the photography part any fun
whatsoever.

Mitch

On 19 Nov 2004 11:31:48 -0800, (Tom Polakis) wrote:

I see your point, but no matter how good the image is, there's no
comparison between the ethereal feel of looking through only glass to
observe an object and looking at a computer monitor to see it...

And I just don't get the attraction of looking through an eyepiece at some
faint, fuzzy thing. But the thrill of seeing an image appear on the screen,
well, that's just visceral.

But of course, that's the difference between a visual astronomer and an imager,
isn't it?

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Mitch Alsup" wrote

The other thing I have learned is that
even with an excellent camera and all the electronic gizmos that
take the hard work out of the picture taking process, one shoud
not expect more than 10% of their shots to be keepers.

That's because most people are careless and/or are just not good
photographers. With a roll of 24 or 36 exposures in a film camera, the
tendency is to shoot shoot shoot and hope for a good one. A monkey can do
that. Most of my photos are keepers.

Now, who ordered the banana daiquiri?

Howard Lester

With "ordinary" good equipment, like a nice SCT and a $2K camera, many, many
people are happily producing very nice images that they can be proud of.

I really think that Alan Dyer's comments were intended for the first timer and
aimed at the person who wants to do visual astronomy now but also wants to buy
a scope capable of astrophotography because at some point they think they might
want to become involved.

For that person, I think buying a scope that suits their current visual needs
is probably a wiser choice than trying to buy something that will work for
both....

I think astrophotography is something that takes money and the more you throw
at it, the easier it becomes. If I remember correctly, Robert Gendler has not
been doing this thing for very long nor has Russel Croman but both have taken
some fine photos.

My interests in the photography field are simply to recreate images as I have
seen them in the eyepiece. Capturing experiences that have been particularly
aesthetically pleasing to me, some way to remember and share a particular joy.
This is not so hard to do..

Jon

On 19 Nov 2004 20:30:05 GMT, (Jon Isaacs) wrote:

I really think that Alan Dyer's comments were intended for the first timer and
aimed at the person who wants to do visual astronomy now but also wants to buy
a scope capable of astrophotography because at some point they think they might
want to become involved.

For that person, I think buying a scope that suits their current visual needs
is probably a wiser choice than trying to buy something that will work for
both....

I agree, and said just that in my initial post.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Mitch Alsup wrote:


One of the strange things I learned in the first few weeks of
dSLR ownership, is that digital changes all the rules.

It doesnt change the rules in making photographs. It changes the
'medium' one uses to capture an image. There are photographers... and
then there are "those" digital imagers.

Cathy

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:43:23 GMT, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

On 19 Nov 2004 11:31:48 -0800, (Tom Polakis) wrote:

I see your point, but no matter how good the image is, there's no
comparison between the ethereal feel of looking through only glass to
observe an object and looking at a computer monitor to see it...

And I just don't get the attraction of looking through an eyepiece at
some
faint, fuzzy thing. But the thrill of seeing an image appear on the
screen,
well, that's just visceral.

But of course, that's the difference between a visual astronomer and an
imager,
isn't it?


Agreed. But you live at a dark site, Chris. For you, does viewing even
the best image of the band of the Milky Way compete with the experience of
gazing at it from your backyard? Does it give you that same feeling of
being carried out there? I'm not passing judgement here; it's just an
interesting difference to me.

Tom