Moon last night (14 June) with Canon 350D Large File

"Tony Hodge" wrote in message
om.spmblok...
Chris Taylor wrote:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tony.ho...oon18_4_05.jpg 300k
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tony.ho...4_05stitch.jpg
700k - spot the join!

Another poster has commented on focussing - I find this very hard wioth
just a simple rack and pinnion focus track (and no 'fine focus' like I'm
used to on microscopes.

Hi Tony

Besides a small notch at about 4 o' clock I can't see a join in the 700k
image. The earlier moonshot was the first I've ever taken with the Canon
350D. One of Pete Lawrence's earlier shots encouraged me to give it a try. I
took a range of shots with differing exposure lengths to get a feel for the
setting. Next time I'll take a range of shots before and through what
appears to be the focus (which was achieved through the viewfinder).

I've taken a number of moonshots with the Meade LPI that exceeded my
expectation and after mooching around your website I look forward to seeing
the results you obtain with a webcam.

Regards


Chris

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:56:16 +0100, lok
(Tony Hodge) wrote:

Another poster has commented on focussing - I find this very hard wioth
just a simple rack and pinnion focus track (and no 'fine focus' like I'm
used to on microscopes.

Keep it up, I'm sure we'll both improve!

Accurate focussing is quite tricky even for seasoned imagers. What
looks fantastic on the camera's preview screen can often be a
disappointment when blown up on a computer screen. One thing you can
do to gain confidence that your gear can actually do the business -
deliberately defocus a tiny amount - just enough so that you can see
that the moon's actually out of focus. Note the direction you need to
turn the focussing knob to achieve focus and take a series of images
moving the knob towards and through focus by the smallest amount you
can achieve each time. Take a couple (or three) images at the same
setting to hopefully eliminate wobble/wind/etc. effects. When you
review the pictures after the session, look for the sharpest image in
the set. If the sharpest isn't up to much then you may have an optics
issue.

Knowing you can achieve accurate focus with your set-up will help to
increase your confidence enormously.

For stellar images with the 350D try something like DSLRFocus
(www.dslrfocus.com).


--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Global Projects - http://www.globalobservers.net

"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message
...

For stellar images with the 350D try something like DSLRFocus
(www.dslrfocus.com).


I've been eyeing this up; but for the requirements at the bottom :-((

Please note that 20D and 350D are not currently supported on XP systems with
SP2 installed

Regards


Chris

Pete Lawrence wrote:
On 15 Jun 2005 09:19:14 -0700, wrote:

A better approach would be to offer some words of encouragement and
suggestions for improvement.

An even better approach would be to improve a bit then post images.

It depends on how you perceive why people post. If you think it's
because they are saying - "Hey look at my image it's the best there
is" then I would agree. However, most post because they are proud of
what they have done but would welcome constructive criticism. There
are different levels of competence and different interpretations of
quality. I think most would be agreeable to a bit of advice and
pointing in the right direction - I know I am.

Well, I guess we see things in a rather different way, shall I say. I'm
always astonished by people lack of self-criticism (or they won't post
such horrors).


It's very negative to just jump in and say something's poor. It
destroys the confidence of the poster and probably puts off others
that would post if only for a bit of advice. Astronomy should not be
an elitist sport. You have a lot of knowledge - so share it (possibly
with some examples of your own).

Maybe, but I never refused giving or taking an advice. OTOH I find
quite difficult lying...

Andrea T.

wrote:

Maybe, but I never refused giving or taking an advice. OTOH I find
quite difficult lying...

But you didn't _give_ advice - you just said 'poor focus' which,
frankly, was bloody obvious and didn't need pointing out.

I find it quite refreshing to find that not everyone who posts image
links here is a superb imager - yet.

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
Lost: Stack Pointer. Small reward offered if found.

wrote:
Pete Lawrence wrote:
On 15 Jun 2005 09:19:14 -0700, wrote:

A better approach would be to offer some words of encouragement and
suggestions for improvement.

An even better approach would be to improve a bit then post images.

It depends on how you perceive why people post. If you think it's
because they are saying - "Hey look at my image it's the best there
is" then I would agree. However, most post because they are proud of
what they have done but would welcome constructive criticism. There
are different levels of competence and different interpretations of
quality. I think most would be agreeable to a bit of advice and
pointing in the right direction - I know I am.

Well, I guess we see things in a rather different way, shall I say. I'm
always astonished by people lack of self-criticism (or they won't post
such horrors).

I'm astonished at how some people can only judge others by their own
standards. I expect your images are **** compared to Hubble's, but you
carry on. Why do you bother imaging when you can see something better
on the web from Hubble, Keck or any number of bigger and better scopes
than you can ever hope to own?

Perfection may be the ultimate aim (up there with world peace and a
cure for cancer), but that doesn't mean we can't take pleasure in
creating something we know is imperfect, but which is an improvement
over what we did last week.


Tim
--
Don't tell me I'm still on that feckin' island!

Pete Lawrence wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:56:16 +0100, lok
(Tony Hodge) wrote:

Another poster has commented on focussing - I find this very hard wioth
just a simple rack and pinnion focus track (and no 'fine focus' like I'm
used to on microscopes.

Keep it up, I'm sure we'll both improve!

Accurate focussing is quite tricky even for seasoned imagers. What
looks fantastic on the camera's preview screen can often be a
disappointment when blown up on a computer screen. One thing you can
do to gain confidence that your gear can actually do the business -
deliberately defocus a tiny amount - just enough so that you can see
that the moon's actually out of focus. Note the direction you need to
turn the focussing knob to achieve focus and take a series of images
moving the knob towards and through focus by the smallest amount you
can achieve each time. Take a couple (or three) images at the same
setting to hopefully eliminate wobble/wind/etc. effects. When you
review the pictures after the session, look for the sharpest image in
the set. If the sharpest isn't up to much then you may have an optics
issue.

Knowing you can achieve accurate focus with your set-up will help to
increase your confidence enormously.

For stellar images with the 350D try something like DSLRFocus
(www.dslrfocus.com).

Pete, thanks a neat tip (and something I should have thought of from my
microscopy experience). By the way I find your own pics fabulous and an
encouragement to keep trying.

I didn't mention I use a Mac so rather than dslrfocus iAstroPhoto would
help - again once it is updated to work with the 20D and 350D. Here is
the url for anyone who needs it:

http://homepage.mac.com/stevepur/ast...y/iAstroPhoto/

tony

Jim wrote:
wrote:

Maybe, but I never refused giving or taking an advice. OTOH I find
quite difficult lying...

But you didn't _give_ advice - you just said 'poor focus' which,
frankly, was bloody obvious and didn't need pointing out.

I do give advice if ask to do so. I wasn't. Were I him I would check
whether I need a prescription for glasses or a check of the current
one.


I find it quite refreshing to find that not everyone who posts image
links here is a superb imager - yet.

So you don't feel alone?

Andrea T.

In article .com, wrote:


Jim wrote:
wrote:

Maybe, but I never refused giving or taking an advice. OTOH I find
quite difficult lying...

But you didn't _give_ advice - you just said 'poor focus' which,
frankly, was bloody obvious and didn't need pointing out.

I do give advice if ask to do so. I wasn't.

So why post at all? If all you're going to post is an insult, don't
bother. It's not constructive.



I find it quite refreshing to find that not everyone who posts image
links here is a superb imager - yet.

So you don't feel alone?

Nope. This is uk.sci.astronomy, not uk.astro-imaging.snobs

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
"The voices that control me from inside my head
Say I shouldn't kill you yet." - Jonathan Coulton, 'Skullcrusher Mountain'

Tim Auton wrote:
wrote:
Pete Lawrence wrote:
On 15 Jun 2005 09:19:14 -0700, wrote:

A better approach would be to offer some words of encouragement and
suggestions for improvement.

An even better approach would be to improve a bit then post images.

It depends on how you perceive why people post. If you think it's
because they are saying - "Hey look at my image it's the best there
is" then I would agree. However, most post because they are proud of
what they have done but would welcome constructive criticism. There
are different levels of competence and different interpretations of
quality. I think most would be agreeable to a bit of advice and
pointing in the right direction - I know I am.

Well, I guess we see things in a rather different way, shall I say. I'm
always astonished by people lack of self-criticism (or they won't post
such horrors).

I'm astonished at how some people can only judge others by their own
standards.

Do you judge people by someone-else's standard???

I expect your images are **** compared to Hubble's, but you
carry on.

They're pretty nice for a 0.2m UK lowland-based scope under a thick
atmosphere compared to a 2.5m scope hanging out there in the void.

OTOH, those (posted) images are **** any way you look at them.

Why do you bother imaging when you can see something better
on the web from Hubble, Keck or any number of bigger and better scopes
than you can ever hope to own?

Because I haven't got an Hubble or Keck to play with. I just have few
lousy aperture-challenged scopes you see...


Perfection may be the ultimate aim (up there with world peace and a
cure for cancer), but that doesn't mean we can't take pleasure in
creating something we know is imperfect, but which is an improvement
over what we did last week.

And you have to dump it over here?

Andrea T.