![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Prepare yourself... it's not a close up ;-)
It's a composite of two wide field shots of the Moon taken with my 80mm refractor. I've tried to compose the Earthshine shot with the lunar crescent - something I must admit I find extremely hard to do convincingly. It's subtle here and if your monitor isn't calibrated right you'll probably miss it. http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/lunar/2...rthshine2.html -- Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Pete
Wierd effect! 3D terminator and flat dark side. Very nice though! Thanks Paul "Pete Lawrence" wrote in message ... Prepare yourself... it's not a close up ;-) It's a composite of two wide field shots of the Moon taken with my 80mm refractor. I've tried to compose the Earthshine shot with the lunar crescent - something I must admit I find extremely hard to do convincingly. It's subtle here and if your monitor isn't calibrated right you'll probably miss it. http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/lunar/2...rthshine2.html -- Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Pete, you send in some very nice pictures, I am looking to buy my first
telescope and would like to look at the planets and galaxies. You have shown some great pictures of some galaxies using your 80mm ED telescope. I would like to use a refractor my self so my question is what size do I need to look at the planets and get a good view of galaxies? Do I need to go to a 150mm size or will smaller do an if so what would be the smallest diameter? Sorry thats 2 questions. I have been looking at telescopes for over a year now and I am still undecided. I have even been toying with the idea of a reflector or dobsan. Steve "Pete Lawrence" wrote in message ... Prepare yourself... it's not a close up ;-) It's a composite of two wide field shots of the Moon taken with my 80mm refractor. I've tried to compose the Earthshine shot with the lunar crescent - something I must admit I find extremely hard to do convincingly. It's subtle here and if your monitor isn't calibrated right you'll probably miss it. http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/lunar/2...rthshine2.html -- Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Stephen Jessop wrote:
Pete, you send in some very nice pictures, I am looking to buy my first telescope and would like to look at the planets and galaxies. You have shown some great pictures of some galaxies using your 80mm ED telescope. I would like to use a refractor my self so my question is what size do I need to look at the planets and get a good view of galaxies? Do I need to go to a 150mm size or will smaller do an if so what would be the smallest diameter? Sorry thats 2 questions. I have been looking at telescopes for over a year now and I am still undecided. I have even been toying with the idea of a reflector or dobsan. Pardon me for jumping in, Stephen, but when you say "look at" I take that to mean visual astronomy. Pete's results are photographic, which means the camera is integrating many photons over a relatively long period. Since our eyes cannot do that, the views you get looking through a scope will alway disappoint compared to astrophotographs. For visual use (not photographic) and as a first scope, a dobsonian of no less than 8" aperture would be a good compromise of cost, ease of use, transportability and optical grasp. With a larger aperture you would see more .. so that becomes a personal choice (e.g., if you have a fixed observatory, or are really dedicated to the hobby, you could consider much larger scopes). But an 8" dob ala the Orion series would be a good starting point. If your goal is to follow in Pete's photographic footsteps, then the answer would be very different. You would need an equatorial tracking mount of reasonably high quality .. and could achieve very nice results with smaller apertures, at least on some targets. Even with all that .. following in Pete's footsteps would not be easy. His shots of a variety of objects and with several scopes show he is a master of the art of astrophotography. Phil |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cheers Phil
Thanks for the advice, I would like to take photos as well at some date so would a dobsan be good for this as well? Can it be motorised as well? "Phil Wheeler" wrote in message ... Stephen Jessop wrote: Pete, you send in some very nice pictures, I am looking to buy my first telescope and would like to look at the planets and galaxies. You have shown some great pictures of some galaxies using your 80mm ED telescope. I would like to use a refractor my self so my question is what size do I need to look at the planets and get a good view of galaxies? Do I need to go to a 150mm size or will smaller do an if so what would be the smallest diameter? Sorry thats 2 questions. I have been looking at telescopes for over a year now and I am still undecided. I have even been toying with the idea of a reflector or dobsan. Pardon me for jumping in, Stephen, but when you say "look at" I take that to mean visual astronomy. Pete's results are photographic, which means the camera is integrating many photons over a relatively long period. Since our eyes cannot do that, the views you get looking through a scope will alway disappoint compared to astrophotographs. For visual use (not photographic) and as a first scope, a dobsonian of no less than 8" aperture would be a good compromise of cost, ease of use, transportability and optical grasp. With a larger aperture you would see more .. so that becomes a personal choice (e.g., if you have a fixed observatory, or are really dedicated to the hobby, you could consider much larger scopes). But an 8" dob ala the Orion series would be a good starting point. If your goal is to follow in Pete's photographic footsteps, then the answer would be very different. You would need an equatorial tracking mount of reasonably high quality .. and could achieve very nice results with smaller apertures, at least on some targets. Even with all that .. following in Pete's footsteps would not be easy. His shots of a variety of objects and with several scopes show he is a master of the art of astrophotography. Phil |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Stephen Jessop wrote:
Cheers Phil Thanks for the advice, I would like to take photos as well at some date so would a dobsan be good for this as well? Can it be motorised as well? For visual use (not photographic) and as a first scope, a dobsonian of no less than 8" aperture would be a good compromise of cost, ease of use, transportability and optical grasp. With a larger aperture you would see more .. so that becomes a personal choice (e.g., if you have a fixed observatory, or are really dedicated to the hobby, you could consider much larger scopes). But an 8" dob ala the Orion series would be a good starting point. There are ways to use a Dob photographically for brighter objects. There is a website on that he http://www.iceinspace.com.au/index.p...63,201,0,0,1,0 The most I've ever done is point a digicam at one and get some credible moon shots (as those of Starboard recently posted here). Some folks mount Dobs on equatorial tracking platforms, either homemade or commercial. Here is a reasonably priced commercial example: http://www.johnsonian.com/products/type6.htm Here's a page about how they work, with some construction plans (there are many such websites out there, I suspect): http://homepage.ntlworld.com/molyned...l_platform.htm I've not done this, nor seen it done, and do not know whether the tracking performance would support astrophotography of dimmer objects. Phil |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Cheers Phil
I am off to look at these web sites. Steve "Phil Wheeler" wrote in message ... Stephen Jessop wrote: Cheers Phil Thanks for the advice, I would like to take photos as well at some date so would a dobsan be good for this as well? Can it be motorised as well? For visual use (not photographic) and as a first scope, a dobsonian of no less than 8" aperture would be a good compromise of cost, ease of use, transportability and optical grasp. With a larger aperture you would see more .. so that becomes a personal choice (e.g., if you have a fixed observatory, or are really dedicated to the hobby, you could consider much larger scopes). But an 8" dob ala the Orion series would be a good starting point. There are ways to use a Dob photographically for brighter objects. There is a website on that he http://www.iceinspace.com.au/index.p...63,201,0,0,1,0 The most I've ever done is point a digicam at one and get some credible moon shots (as those of Starboard recently posted here). Some folks mount Dobs on equatorial tracking platforms, either homemade or commercial. Here is a reasonably priced commercial example: http://www.johnsonian.com/products/type6.htm Here's a page about how they work, with some construction plans (there are many such websites out there, I suspect): http://homepage.ntlworld.com/molyned...l_platform.htm I've not done this, nor seen it done, and do not know whether the tracking performance would support astrophotography of dimmer objects. Phil |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Pete Lawrence wrote:
It's a composite of two wide field shots of the Moon taken with my 80mm refractor. I've tried to compose the Earthshine shot with the lunar crescent - something I must admit I find extremely hard to do convincingly. It's subtle here and if your monitor isn't calibrated right you'll probably miss it. http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/lunar/2...rthshine2.html Wow, Pete, tremendous work. May I use this image - with credit given to you, of course - in a presentation I'm doing at a local library soon? Along with other examples, like Anthony Ayiomamitis' magnificent analemmas, I want to show images which demonstrate celestial mechanics at work. A picture like this one fits right into the mix, and is the best one I've seen. Your composite is beautifully done and looks exactly like what I see for real. Clear Skies, Dave Jessie |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:15:18 GMT, "Dave Jessie"
wrote: Pete Lawrence wrote: It's a composite of two wide field shots of the Moon taken with my 80mm refractor. I've tried to compose the Earthshine shot with the lunar crescent - something I must admit I find extremely hard to do convincingly. It's subtle here and if your monitor isn't calibrated right you'll probably miss it. http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/lunar/2...rthshine2.html Wow, Pete, tremendous work. May I use this image - with credit given to you, of course - in a presentation I'm doing at a local library soon? Along with other examples, like Anthony Ayiomamitis' magnificent analemmas, I want to show images which demonstrate celestial mechanics at work. A picture like this one fits right into the mix, and is the best one I've seen. Your composite is beautifully done and looks exactly like what I see for real. Yes of course, be my guest. -- Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ISS needs to go to the MOON, with or w/o crew | Brad Guth | Policy | 1 | March 31st 05 12:58 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | UK Astronomy | 8 | August 1st 04 09:08 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Misc | 10 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |
The apollo faq | the inquirer | Astronomy Misc | 11 | April 22nd 04 06:23 AM |
significant addition to section 25 of the faq | heat | Astronomy Misc | 1 | April 15th 04 01:20 AM |