folly of astrophotography

"Simple Traveler" wrote in message
...
Alan Dyer has an interesting article in Sky News (Canadian astro
magazine) this month in which he makes ten points for those new to the
hobby.
Point number 10 is "Stay away from Astrophotography"

As I read the sentence, I wondered how many people have been turned off
the hobby trying to take pictures, and how much money is spent in
addition to the equipment needed for visual setting up for photography.

I think that the idea that "I might someday want to do some
astrophotography" leads many folks in the wrong direction vis-a-vis
equipment purchases. However, it does help make Astromart a great place to
shop!

Dennis

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:15:45 GMT, Simple Traveler
wrote:

Alan Dyer has an interesting article in Sky News (Canadian astro
magazine) this month in which he makes ten points for those new to the
hobby.
Point number 10 is "Stay away from Astrophotography"

Nuts.

Many of the people I know who are imagers have never been overly interested in
visual astronomy. Imaging and observing are very different parts of a diverse
hobby that is lumped under the general term "amateur astronomy". The skills
required for imaging and for observing are very, very different, as are the
equipment requirements.

IMO, much better advice to beginners would start with questioning their actual
interests. Those who are interested in observing should probably not base their
equipment purchases on the possibility of future imaging, but I see more and
more beginners who are interested in imaging from the beginning. I see no reason
to start these people down the road of Dobs, starhopping, and other observing
tools/skills if that isn't what they are really after.

_________________________________________________

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:52:52 GMT, "David Nakamoto"
wrote:

I agree with Alan's statement if applied to beginners through intermediate
observers.

I'd only agree if the beginner couldn't polar align.
I watched a complete beginner hook up his digital
SLR to his lowly 3" scope on a basic RA driven mount
and take excellent shots with almost no effort.
To produce the kind of shots in the magazines, yes,
it takes a real effort and adherence to many different
things, but for a rank amateur, they can produce excellent
shots without much effort thanks to the technology.
But if some amateur cobbles together a prosumer digital
with a fixed lens, an eyepiece, eyepiece adapter and
a non-driven Dob, I can see how it would be futility.
-Rich

In article ,
John Steinberg wrote:





Even when we fail to achieve the results we hope for, we learn a lot in
the process. standing and saluting my autographed Tony Hallas 8 x 10
glossy

An extension of my point is that people like Tony and Daphne Hallas,
Robert Gendler, etc, etc, are like Tiger Williams is in golf, they're
superstars, and the hobby doesn't really point out in any great detail
that the chances of taking photos like theirs is very, very small even
if you do invest the time into learning the process involved.
Like most "superstars" there's no guarantee that "putting in the time"
will make you like them.

I'm not saying "nobody should do astrophotography".....I'm simply saying
that like string theory, it's a semi-related field to visual astronomy,
but hardly an area that one would steer themselves into as a logical
progression to visual observing.

I think there's to much out there that actually speaks to what a
previous poster said, and that is the guy who buys a 14" SCT, and 5
grand CCD camera, and thinks it's going to be cake to get pictures like
Tony and Robert.

I wouldn't tell people they too could be like Tiger Williams just by
buying the gear and putting in the time.

It's a very small percentage of those who try to take high quality
pictures who actually wind up with anything of value.......a very small
percentage.
I consider the often repeated statement that all you need is a 35mm
camera and you can do work of value....poppycock!!...what you get is
another washed out and muddy picture of the Orion Nebula that looks like
crap......but yes, anybody can do that one.
With the quality of downloads, I wonder about the real value of your
result.

I know there's joy in doing it yourself, but that's my point, you're not
likely to be able to do it at all!!

My point remains the same, newcomers are continually led to believe that
they can take photos like they see in magazines by the
manufacturers.....The reality is that most can't, and won't.

I'm not ragging on astrophotos, or people who successfully take them,
I'm just saying I think it's rather overstated, and falsely driven to no
good end by equipment and software manufacturers, and the two magazines.

No flame here, just a simple agreement with Alan Dyer that it's probably
a good idea to stay away from Astrophotography until you're at least an
experienced visual observer, and totally aware of what you're getting
into.
Of course by that point you would also probably have a very good idea of
the chances of your success based on your funds, and your available time
to devote specifically to astrophotography.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:45:33 GMT, Simple Traveler
wrote:

An extension of my point is that people like Tony and Daphne Hallas,
Robert Gendler, etc, etc, are like Tiger Williams is in golf, they're
superstars, and the hobby doesn't really point out in any great detail
that the chances of taking photos like theirs is very, very small even
if you do invest the time into learning the process involved.
Like most "superstars" there's no guarantee that "putting in the time"
will make you like them.

I disagree completely. A key part of what Tiger Woods has is _talent_. No
disrespect to Tony Hallas or Rob Gendler, but I don't really consider them
talented in that sense. 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.


It's a very small percentage of those who try to take high quality
pictures who actually wind up with anything of value.......a very small
percentage.

I disagree with this, too. I find that the majority of people who have purchased
top-notch equipment are regularly producing images of similar quality to those
produced by Gendler and Hallas. It is important to remember that those two (and
a few others) are very prolific, and are making their work available
commercially, so perhaps you are just more aware of them. But there is nothing
about what they do that anyone else can't also do, with nothing more than good
equipment and enough motivation to learn the skills. I don't think that's
something that you can say to most golfers, however!


I know there's joy in doing it yourself, but that's my point, you're not
likely to be able to do it at all!!

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. Most
people are perfectly capable of producing excellent images, and more and more
actually are, as equipment and software improves and techniques become more
widely known.


My point remains the same, newcomers are continually led to believe that
they can take photos like they see in magazines by the
manufacturers.....The reality is that most can't, and won't.

I don't know about "won't", but they most definitely can.

_________________________________________________

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

Dennis Woos wrote:

"Simple Traveler" wrote in message
...
Alan Dyer has an interesting article in Sky News (Canadian astro
magazine) this month in which he makes ten points for those new to the
hobby.
Point number 10 is "Stay away from Astrophotography"

As I read the sentence, I wondered how many people have been turned off
the hobby trying to take pictures, and how much money is spent in
addition to the equipment needed for visual setting up for photography.

I think that the idea that "I might someday want to do some
astrophotography" leads many folks in the wrong direction vis-a-vis
equipment purchases.

It doesnt have to. A great problem today is too many choices - too much
equipment competing for the same dollar. And too much advice!

Heaven must have the damnest biggest warehouse of unsold gear in the universe!
That's where people go astray. Just too much gear being offered and too many
micro-managers (all experts!) offering: YOU MUST DO THIS OR THAT ... BLAH BLAH
BLAH... and not one decent photo out of the
bunch in 30 years!

Several posters to this thread qualify for this honor, but they would choke
their children before they would admit it!

Mark



However, it does help make Astromart a great place to
shop!

Dennis

Simple Traveler writes:

Alan Dyer has an interesting article in Sky News (Canadian astro
magazine) this month in which he makes ten points for those new to the
hobby.
Point number 10 is "Stay away from Astrophotography"

Most advice I've seen on "astrophotography" seem to be at least 10-20
years old, generally referring to film-based techniques requiring long,
guided exposures.

Electronic imaging have changed all that, in my experience. Until
quite recently (March 2003) I was a visual observer only, mostly
sketching deep sky objects with my 10" Dobsonian, and not having a
strong desire for astrophotography. After building a "cookbook" CCD
camera I started experiencing with it, making a point of integrating
it into my loosely defined observing program. As a result, my
sketch-book now fills up with image printouts instead of sketches, and
all images show more details than I ever saw visually before. This,
despite that I have largely used an inexpensive, Chinese 4.5"
reflector for imaging.

Truth is, a CCD camera is so powerful that even short, unguided
exposures (say 30 sek or less), taken on equipment that would be
considered entirely inadequate for "astrophotography", yields
rewarding results in the form of a permanent recording of what was
"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.

Bottom line: I would not try to steer a newcomer away from
(electronic) imaging, if (s)he express an interest in that direction
and is at least somewhat technically inclined.

pej
--
Per Erik Jorde

Let me put this another way: 30,000 runners started the NYC marathon,
but only a tiny percentage held out any hopes of actually winning.

I agree. Many years ago, My 17 year old son and I used to compete in the
USLTA tennis matches. Most of the time we got our fannies handed to us. It
was an experience never the less walking out on the court and trying our best.
Winning, though important, is not the only thing; participating is every
thing.

IMO, much better advice to beginners would start with questioning their
actual
interests. Those who are interested in observing should probably not base
their
equipment purchases on the possibility of future imaging, but I see more
and
more beginners who are interested in imaging from the beginning. I see no
reason
to start these people down the road of Dobs, starhopping, and other
observing
tools/skills if that isn't what they are really after.

I can't argue that someone who knows that they are interested in imaging as
opposed to visual astronomy shouldn't go for equipment that is suitable.
However, I read a lot of posts by folks getting into astronomy who say
something like "I might want to do some imaging at some point". This
"might", if taken seriously, can lead folks into choosing equipment that is
way more expensive and way more complicated than if imaging was not a
factor. I wonder if getting in too deep, too fast doesn't end up with
equipment which never leaves the closet.

As you say, the best advice is for interested folks to spend enough time
investigating amateur astronomy to know what aspects they want to pursue.
Join a club, attend star parties, and talk to and observe with everybody.
If they must buy something, get some binos and/or a bino mount, which they
will always find useful.

Dennis

In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:



I disagree completely. A key part of what Tiger Woods has is _talent_. No
disrespect to Tony Hallas or Rob Gendler, but I don't really consider them
talented in that sense.

...........I think you're very wrong.

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.

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.

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 just plain wrong, and it's savy marketing......by reading this
thread however, it certainly appears to have worked on many.



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