Astrophotography - Page 3

Harry Palmer · 22-Feb-2012, 18:07

If the light shines into your garden, call the council and tell them the light trespass is keeping your kids awake and you want it shielded.

The Big Kahuna · 22-Feb-2012, 18:56

And when you get burgled and explain to the insurance company that your garden is pitch black because "I lied about having kids so I could see a fuzzy patch in the sky once a year", they'll be falling over themselves to write you a cheque.

Bilbo Fraggins · 22-Feb-2012, 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Palmer

If the light shines into your garden, call the council and tell them the light trespass is keeping your kids awake and you want it shielded.

Did consider that but to be fair to the street light it's pretty good at not coming in through windows, some fancy new design I guess that's pointing the light down.
It's the other side of the road too so any shield for me would likely block the road it's trying to illuminate.

Checked our council website and they're not planning on dimming or turning them off round our area either

Guess because they're new they're energy efficient as well

Bloody things

Bilbo Fraggins · 29-Feb-2012, 22:24

Good news!
Think M42 is just visible above the house at 9:30pm
With the moon out though it was barely visible.
Any idea what magnification your pic was the equivalent of?

Harry Palmer · 29-Feb-2012, 23:03

In my 8" f5 'scope the EOS 1100d works out about equivalent to a 26mm EP, so approx 39x

Bilbo Fraggins · 01-Mar-2012, 22:10

Hmmm, maybe my 240x was a bit much then......
The moon was ace though!

Bilbo Fraggins · 05-Mar-2012, 16:26

Got a couple of pictures of the moon last night!

Afocally I believe the term is, was quite suprised when I opened them on the laptop as I assumed they would be shite.
Well I thought they weren't shite anyway :p

Do plan to get more of the moon in next time at the higher power, not quite sure how I managed to get so little

[n00b]Zippy · 05-Mar-2012, 16:32

One thing I've noticed about pics of the moon is that they sharpen up very nicely.

Bilbo Fraggins · 05-Mar-2012, 17:37

That sounds photoshoppy

Bilbo Fraggins · 18-Aug-2012, 22:14

Thought I'd try some ISS shots over the last week whilst it's been buzzing around over our heads.
Not quite cracked it yet but had mixed results and could do with some help.

First night went like this
Shutter Priority 30s
ISO 1600

IMG_0603 by Starjust, on Flickr

IMG_0607 by Starjust, on Flickr

What I managed to establish was that 1600 ISO was far too high so tried again tonight with ISO 100

IMG_0638 by Starjust, on Flickr

IMG_0639 by Starjust, on Flickr

IMG_0640 by Starjust, on Flickr

Now I'm much happier with the quality from tonight however it seems almost daylight.
It was probably an earlier pass tonight than the previous batch however I don't think it's ambient light causing the massive difference.
It was also cloudier so stars not really visible as before.

So what I'm after is the quality of tonight with the darkness from a few nights ago.
I guess I could reduce shutter speed however I want the long streak, must be something else I've missed?

Any thoughts?

Chef_uk · 18-Aug-2012, 22:45

Tonight's was immense. Around 9:25pm so yea there was alot of brightness left in the sky for a long exposure. Try again in 15 minutes when she's back

Pitch black then.

Harry Palmer · 19-Aug-2012, 09:34

Pretty good - I can even make out the Alcor/Mizar double

22-Feb-2012, 18:07	#61
Harry Palmer Gun nut Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: War Zone Posts: 13,994	If the light shines into your garden, call the council and tell them the light trespass is keeping your kids awake and you want it shielded. __________________ Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Reminder: "Do not look into laser with remaining good eye."

29-Feb-2012, 22:24	#64
Bilbo Fraggins posts for a living Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Piss Stinking Penny Arcade Posts: 4,215	Good news! Think M42 is just visible above the house at 9:30pm With the moon out though it was barely visible. Any idea what magnification your pic was the equivalent of? __________________ Only a Ginger, can call another Ginger, Ginger.

29-Feb-2012, 23:03	#65
Harry Palmer Gun nut Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: War Zone Posts: 13,994	In my 8" f5 'scope the EOS 1100d works out about equivalent to a 26mm EP, so approx 39x __________________ Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Reminder: "Do not look into laser with remaining good eye."

01-Mar-2012, 22:10	#66
Bilbo Fraggins posts for a living Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Piss Stinking Penny Arcade Posts: 4,215	Hmmm, maybe my 240x was a bit much then...... The moon was ace though! __________________ Only a Ginger, can call another Ginger, Ginger.

05-Mar-2012, 16:26	#67
Bilbo Fraggins posts for a living Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Piss Stinking Penny Arcade Posts: 4,215	Got a couple of pictures of the moon last night! Afocally I believe the term is, was quite suprised when I opened them on the laptop as I assumed they would be shite. Well I thought they weren't shite anyway :p Do plan to get more of the moon in next time at the higher power, not quite sure how I managed to get so little Attached Thumbnails __________________ Only a Ginger, can call another Ginger, Ginger.

05-Mar-2012, 16:32	#68
[n00b]Zippy Unstartable Sex Machine Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Great Rollright Posts: 11,542	One thing I've noticed about pics of the moon is that they sharpen up very nicely. __________________ I wish I were a glow worm A glow worm's never glum 'Cause how can you be grumpy When the sun shines out your bum?

05-Mar-2012, 17:37	#69
Bilbo Fraggins posts for a living Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Piss Stinking Penny Arcade Posts: 4,215	That sounds photoshoppy __________________ Only a Ginger, can call another Ginger, Ginger.

18-Aug-2012, 22:14	#70
Bilbo Fraggins posts for a living Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Piss Stinking Penny Arcade Posts: 4,215	Thought I'd try some ISS shots over the last week whilst it's been buzzing around over our heads. Not quite cracked it yet but had mixed results and could do with some help. First night went like this Shutter Priority 30s ISO 1600 IMG_0603 by Starjust, on Flickr IMG_0607 by Starjust, on Flickr What I managed to establish was that 1600 ISO was far too high so tried again tonight with ISO 100 IMG_0638 by Starjust, on Flickr IMG_0639 by Starjust, on Flickr IMG_0640 by Starjust, on Flickr Now I'm much happier with the quality from tonight however it seems almost daylight. It was probably an earlier pass tonight than the previous batch however I don't think it's ambient light causing the massive difference. It was also cloudier so stars not really visible as before. So what I'm after is the quality of tonight with the darkness from a few nights ago. I guess I could reduce shutter speed however I want the long streak, must be something else I've missed? Any thoughts? __________________ Only a Ginger, can call another Ginger, Ginger.

18-Aug-2012, 22:45	#71
Chef_uk attention seeker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: U.K Posts: 6,222	Tonight's was immense. Around 9:25pm so yea there was alot of brightness left in the sky for a long exposure. Try again in 15 minutes when she's back Pitch black then. __________________ My Veg Growing Blog \| Clan PTG

19-Aug-2012, 09:34	#72
Harry Palmer Gun nut Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: War Zone Posts: 13,994	Pretty good - I can even make out the Alcor/Mizar double __________________ Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Reminder: "Do not look into laser with remaining good eye."