A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Latest moon attempt



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 26th 12, 05:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Ciszek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Latest moon attempt

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/8025778157

If I tell my camera that the moon is a sunlit object (which it is), that
picture comes out orangey-brown. If I use WB Auto, it's still pretty
brown. If I turn off "Keep Warm Colors", then the moon comes out nearly
colorless like we *expect* it to be, but with weird faint magenta and
cyan patches which (to me, at least) indicate that it *had* a color
which has been subtracted away. According to the folks here, the "real"
color of the moon is somewhere in between brown and colorless, so I used
the WB Auto version and futzed with "color temperature" (which is
nothing of the kind) in Lightroom 3.6 to get a compromise.

--
Please reply to: | "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
pciszek at panix dot com | above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
Autoreply is disabled | --Thorin Oakenshield
  #2  
Old September 26th 12, 06:10 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Latest moon attempt

"Paul Ciszek" wrote in message ...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/8025778157

If I tell my camera that the moon is a sunlit object (which it is), that
picture comes out orangey-brown. If I use WB Auto, it's still pretty
brown. If I turn off "Keep Warm Colors", then the moon comes out nearly
colorless like we *expect* it to be, but with weird faint magenta and
cyan patches which (to me, at least) indicate that it *had* a color
which has been subtracted away. According to the folks here, the "real"
color of the moon is somewhere in between brown and colorless, so I used
the WB Auto version and futzed with "color temperature" (which is
nothing of the kind) in Lightroom 3.6 to get a compromise.

--
Please reply to: | "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
pciszek at panix dot com | above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
Autoreply is disabled | --Thorin Oakenshield



Who are these “we” that expect the moon to be colourless? Whatever
your expectations might be, I expect the Moon to be the colour it is.
I know brown is orange as this image demonstrates.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...e/illusion.JPG
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway


  #3  
Old September 26th 12, 11:14 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Latest moon attempt

On Sep 26, 10:11*am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:
"Paul Ciszek" wrote in ...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/8025778157

If I tell my camera that the moon is a sunlit object (which it is), that
picture comes out orangey-brown. *If I use WB Auto, it's still pretty
brown. *If I turn off "Keep Warm Colors", then the moon comes out nearly
colorless like we *expect* it to be, but with weird faint magenta and
cyan patches which (to me, at least) indicate that it *had* a color
which has been subtracted away. *According to the folks here, the "real"
color of the moon is somewhere in between brown and colorless, so I used
the WB Auto version and futzed with "color temperature" (which is
nothing of the kind) in Lightroom 3.6 to get a compromise.

--
Please reply to: * * * * *| "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
pciszek at panix dot com *| above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
Autoreply is disabled * * | * * * --Thorin Oakenshield

Who are these we that expect the moon to be colourless? Whatever
your expectations might be, I expect the Moon to be the colour it is.
I know brown is orange as this image demonstrates.
*http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...e/illusion.JPG
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway


How exactly did our naked and physically dark moon become so unusually
monochromatic, more reflective and even UV inert to our NASA/Apollo
missions?

The physically dark moon is not actually monochromatic nor UV inert:
Moons natural surface colors are those of all the perfectly natural
minerals as they unavoidably react to the visible and UV spectrum, as
only better viewed with having their natural color/hue saturation
cranked up, as otherwise theres no false or artificial colors added.
http://spaceweather.com/submissions/...1346444660.jpg
http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod200...4dnmol44vuaf43

Oddly the NASA/Apollo era and their rad-hard Kodak version of our
physically dark and paramagnetic moon is apparently the one and only
off-world location that becomes more inert as well as more reflective
and monochromatic by the closer you get to it, and any planet other
than Earth simply cant be recorded within the same FOV as having the
horizon of that naked moon (regardless of the FOV direction or use of
any given lens, as well as not even possible when using the worlds
best film and optics along with a polarized optical filter to reduce
the local surface glare doesnt seem to help).

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
  #4  
Old September 27th 12, 12:16 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default Latest moon attempt

On Sep 26, 12:48*pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/8025778157

If I tell my camera that the moon is a sunlit object (which it is), that
picture comes out orangey-brown. *If I use WB Auto, it's still pretty
brown. *If I turn off "Keep Warm Colors", then the moon comes out nearly
colorless like we *expect* it to be, but with weird faint magenta and
cyan patches which (to me, at least) indicate that it *had* a color
which has been subtracted away. *According to the folks here, the "real"
color of the moon is somewhere in between brown and colorless, so I used
the WB Auto version and futzed with "color temperature" (which is
nothing of the kind) in Lightroom 3.6 to get a compromise.

--
Please reply to: * * * * *| "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
pciszek at panix dot com *| above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
Autoreply is disabled * * | * * * --Thorin Oakenshield


When it comes to the Moon and planets, size matters. This was shot
with a Panasonic G1 and a home-made 1000mm f8 lens. The lens aperture
was 120mm.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...38333/original

  #5  
Old September 27th 12, 01:14 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Latest moon attempt

On 9/26/12 11:48 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/8025778157

If I tell my camera that the moon is a sunlit object (which it is), that
picture comes out orangey-brown. If I use WB Auto, it's still pretty
brown. If I turn off "Keep Warm Colors", then the moon comes out nearly
colorless like we *expect* it to be, but with weird faint magenta and
cyan patches which (to me, at least) indicate that it *had* a color
which has been subtracted away. According to the folks here, the "real"
color of the moon is somewhere in between brown and colorless, so I used
the WB Auto version and futzed with "color temperature" (which is
nothing of the kind) in Lightroom 3.6 to get a compromise.


Thank You, Paul.

  #6  
Old September 28th 12, 08:36 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 561
Default Latest moon attempt

On 9/26/2012 7:16 PM, RichA wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:48 pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/8025778157

If I tell my camera that the moon is a sunlit object (which it is), that
picture comes out orangey-brown. If I use WB Auto, it's still pretty
brown. If I turn off "Keep Warm Colors", then the moon comes out nearly
colorless like we *expect* it to be, but with weird faint magenta and
cyan patches which (to me, at least) indicate that it *had* a color
which has been subtracted away. According to the folks here, the "real"
color of the moon is somewhere in between brown and colorless, so I used
the WB Auto version and futzed with "color temperature" (which is
nothing of the kind) in Lightroom 3.6 to get a compromise.

--
Please reply to: | "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
pciszek at panix dot com | above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
Autoreply is disabled | --Thorin Oakenshield


When it comes to the Moon and planets, size matters. This was shot
with a Panasonic G1 and a home-made 1000mm f8 lens. The lens aperture
was 120mm.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...38333/original



Very nice !



  #7  
Old September 28th 12, 10:00 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Latest moon attempt

"AM" wrote in message ...
On 9/26/2012 7:16 PM, RichA wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:48 pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/8025778157

If I tell my camera that the moon is a sunlit object (which it is), that
picture comes out orangey-brown. If I use WB Auto, it's still pretty
brown. If I turn off "Keep Warm Colors", then the moon comes out nearly
colorless like we *expect* it to be, but with weird faint magenta and
cyan patches which (to me, at least) indicate that it *had* a color
which has been subtracted away. According to the folks here, the "real"
color of the moon is somewhere in between brown and colorless, so I used
the WB Auto version and futzed with "color temperature" (which is
nothing of the kind) in Lightroom 3.6 to get a compromise.

--
Please reply to: | "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
pciszek at panix dot com | above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
Autoreply is disabled | --Thorin Oakenshield


When it comes to the Moon and planets, size matters. This was shot
with a Panasonic G1 and a home-made 1000mm f8 lens. The lens aperture
was 120mm.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...38333/original



Very nice !




=====================================
So the Moon is the colour of grated milk chocolate.
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
  #8  
Old September 29th 12, 03:02 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Latest moon attempt

On Sep 26, 9:48*am, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/8025778157

If I tell my camera that the moon is a sunlit object (which it is), that
picture comes out orangey-brown. *If I use WB Auto, it's still pretty
brown. *If I turn off "Keep Warm Colors", then the moon comes out nearly
colorless like we *expect* it to be, but with weird faint magenta and
cyan patches which (to me, at least) indicate that it *had* a color
which has been subtracted away. *According to the folks here, the "real"
color of the moon is somewhere in between brown and colorless, so I used
the WB Auto version and futzed with "color temperature" (which is
nothing of the kind) in Lightroom 3.6 to get a compromise.

--
Please reply to: * * * * *| "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
pciszek at panix dot com *| above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
Autoreply is disabled * * | * * * --Thorin Oakenshield


The physically dark moon is not actually monochromatic nor UV inert:
Moons natural surface colors are those of all the perfectly natural
minerals as they unavoidably react to the visible and UV spectrum, as
only better viewed with having their natural color/hue saturation
cranked up, as otherwise theres no false or artificial colors added.
http://spaceweather.com/submissions/...1346444660.jpg
http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod200...4dnmol44vuaf43

Oddly the NASA/Apollo era and their rad-hard Kodak version of our
physically dark and paramagnetic moon is apparently the one and only
off-world location that becomes more inert as well as more reflective
and monochromatic by the closer you get to it, and any planet other
than Earth simply cant be recorded within the same FOV as having the
horizon of that naked moon (regardless of the FOV direction or use of
any given lens, as well as not even possible when using the worlds
best film and optics along with a polarized optical filter to reduce
the local surface glare doesnt seem to help).
  #9  
Old September 29th 12, 04:30 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default Latest moon attempt

On Sep 28, 3:44*pm, AM wrote:
On 9/26/2012 7:16 PM, RichA wrote:









On Sep 26, 12:48 pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/8025778157


If I tell my camera that the moon is a sunlit object (which it is), that
picture comes out orangey-brown. *If I use WB Auto, it's still pretty
brown. *If I turn off "Keep Warm Colors", then the moon comes out nearly
colorless like we *expect* it to be, but with weird faint magenta and
cyan patches which (to me, at least) indicate that it *had* a color
which has been subtracted away. *According to the folks here, the "real"
color of the moon is somewhere in between brown and colorless, so I used
the WB Auto version and futzed with "color temperature" (which is
nothing of the kind) in Lightroom 3.6 to get a compromise.


--
Please reply to: * * * * *| "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
pciszek at panix dot com *| above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
Autoreply is disabled * * | * * * --Thorin Oakenshield


When it comes to the Moon and planets, size matters. *This was shot
with a Panasonic G1 and a home-made 1000mm f8 lens. *The lens aperture
was 120mm.


http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...38333/original


Very nice !


Thanks. Using a scope large enough to fill the frame with an image
avoids a lot of issues, namely graininess, colour irregularities and
image softness. But SEEING conditions are KEY. If there is any
atmospheric unsteadiness, forget it, you won't get a good image.
  #10  
Old October 3rd 12, 07:27 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Ciszek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Latest moon attempt


In article ,
RichA wrote:

When it comes to the Moon and planets, size matters. This was shot
with a Panasonic G1 and a home-made 1000mm f8 lens. The lens aperture
was 120mm.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/imag...38333/original


OK, I need to just give up. Homemade, no less. An expensive tripod
doesn't hold my 500mm lens adequately still; I leave image stabilization
turned on. How do you hold that 1000mm monster still enough?

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My first attempt on M42 Gordan Astro Pictures 4 November 12th 07 09:17 PM
Next launch attempt on the 4th...why not the 3rd? Jorge R. Frank Space Shuttle 1 July 3rd 06 03:35 AM
Theory of Everything (my attempt) [email protected] Astronomy Misc 9 May 19th 06 03:06 PM
My latest moon astrophotos... an improvement Dre UK Astronomy 7 May 27th 04 06:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.