- Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Fisheye lens
by Chuck Hards 07 Dec '04

07 Dec '04

Hi Debbie, thanks too for the off-list reply: I started shooting astro photos over 30 years ago, I am aware of all the caveats; airplanes, sky-fog, tracking limits, etc. My current set-up is homemade (actually a heavily modified commercial mount from the '70s), I do not use PEC, autoguiders or any digital aids, although I do have a couple of the old Astro-Physics autoguiders. They took all the fun out of it! :( I guide manually, strictly; I've become rather good at it and enjoy it (it's not hard, really. Really!). Go-to mounts and other commercial astro-hardware "for the masses" are not needed here. Old habits I guess. I just had a question about trailing near the edge of the field with a wide-angle lens due to differential atmospheric refraction. (much wider than a 50mm, I'm talking about something shorter than 17mm). You can get the zenith AND horizon in the same shot! What-if stuff. Rob, thanks for your off-list reply also, but the digest just came-through anyway. I use a pair of ancient Pentax K bodies, the fisheye lens in this case is the Russian Zenitar K2,8/16, got for pennies on the dollar on eBay a couple of years ago. Yes, I know it's "student" gear, but I am not going to replace it with high-dollar stuff because it works, works well, I'm used to it, it's paid-for, all my adapters fit it, and money for all-new equipment isn't likely unless it falls from the sky, so any suggestions would have to refrain from including new commercial hardware to be useful. Thanks again! > From: <astrodeb(a)charter.net> > To: Utah Astronomy > <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 12:00:30 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Fisheye lens > > First of all, you would need a very dark sky to > avoid sky fog. My last batch of slides were limited > to 10 minutes because of the sky conditions. With my > two-star alignment with my polar scope, I could have > gone up to 30 minutes unguided with my 50mm lens if > the sky conditions would of allowed it. A fish-eye > lens would be even more forgiving as far as tracking > goes. > > Does your mount have PEC? The best mounts, provided > they are accurately polar-aligned and PEC trained, > can be left to track unattended and unguided for 30 > minutes or more. Of course, the longer exposure the > more there is a chance of getting airplane trails. > > My 2 cents, > > Debbie __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Fisheye lens
by astrodeb＠charter.net 07 Dec '04

07 Dec '04

First of all, you would need a very dark sky to avoid sky fog. My last batch of slides were limited to 10 minutes because of the sky conditions. With my two-star alignment with my polar scope, I could have gone up to 30 minutes unguided with my 50mm lens if the sky conditions would of allowed it. A fish-eye lens would be even more forgiving as far as tracking goes. Does your mount have PEC? The best mounts, provided they are accurately polar-aligned and PEC trained, can be left to track unattended and unguided for 30 minutes or more. Of course, the longer exposure the more there is a chance of getting airplane trails. My 2 cents, Debbie > > From: Chuck Hards <chuckhards(a)yahoo.com> > Date: 2004/12/07 Tue AM 09:41:29 MST > To: Utah-Astro <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Fisheye lens > > Has anyone (Rob? Patrick?) tried tracking fairly > long-exposures with a "fisheye" lens? > I'm wondering if, guiding on a star near the center of > the field, if the edge stars trail because of > differential atmospheric refraction? > A few years ago I acquired a nice fisheye lens with a > FOV darned near 90 degrees, and would like to try it > on the sky when the weather warms up. Any meaningful > input based on experience is welcome. > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

1 0

Jupiter Occultation Reappearance at 2:45 AM tonight.
by daniel turner 07 Dec '04

07 Dec '04

Jupiter Occultation Reappearance at 2:45 AM tonight. We won't see the disappearance but the reappearance will be visable if you can find a low eastern horizon. I'll make the trip up Emigration canyon to the Little Mountain parking lot but I plan to view through the windshield with binoculars........ with the engine running. Brrrrrr. DT __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com

3 2

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Kodak E200 processing
by astrodeb＠charter.net 04 Dec '04

04 Dec '04

Thanks for clearing that up Patrick. I was totally confused when they said they couldn't do push processing back in October. I may send my next roll of film up to Salt Lake to Borge Anderson. We have friends who routinely go up there. I'm beginning to get the hang of tracked piggy-backed astrophotography. However, I'm going to get into digital astrophotography as soon as I get a telephoto Canon EOS lens. The digital camera is blind to the h-alpha wavelengths so I'm still going to take slides with either E200 film or Fuji Sensia 400 film. I can't afford to replace all my lenses yet with EOS "L" series lenses. Debbie > > From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> > Date: 2004/12/03 Fri PM 01:56:40 MST > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Kodak E200 processing > > Hi Deb, > > What you were saying just didn't make sense so I called Camera Country > and talked to their E-6 guy. Turns out, what you heard from their sales > person is what they tell folks taking "normal" pictures (I guess that > proves the rest of us are abnormal...). We are to the right of the Bell curve in intelligence. That is what I like to think about amateur astronomers. > > However, when I explained you were going to be taking pictures with > exposures lasting several minutes he said that changes everything and > that the setting on the camera in such cases makes no difference. > > So, what you need to do is take the film in and just ask them to push it > one stop (makes it ISO 400) or two stops (ISO 800). > > It was kind of interesting that when I started getting into how pushing > is accomplished (extending the development times) he didn't seem to know > about that stuff. So I get the impression they're not really a custom > photo lab, but rather there's probably some dial on the machine they use > that can be set to No Push, Push One Stop and Push Two Stops. :-) > > I hope this clears things up. > > Patrick > > p.s. Should you ever decide to try your hand at processing the film > yourself, just let me know and I'll get you started. It's really not > that hard and there's something to be said for showing a picture and > being able to say "I shot and processed that myself". > > astrodeb(a)charter.net wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I just called Camera Country and found out they do E6 and push processing. I just need to set the ASA film speed to 800 for "Push 2" or set the film speed to 400 for "Push 1". > > Last time I set the film speed to ASA 200 and that's why they couldn't push the film. This is the way I understand it. > > > > However, as Joe said a "Push 2" will make the film more grainer so I may just do a "Push 1" next time. According to the January 1999 Sky and Telescope issue, Ektachrome E200 pushed two stops in a good option for camera-on-tripod shots. > > > > Thanks guys for the tip on Borge Andersen. I'll keep that in mind. > > > > Debbiee > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

1 0

Truss tube installed
by Patrick Wiggins 03 Dec '04

03 Dec '04

We got the new truss tube installed on the Big Scope mount today. It looks great (and very impressive). More details and pictures in the next News but I thought you might like to know now. Patrick

1 0

Re: Name a star
by Chuck Hards 03 Dec '04

03 Dec '04

Here you go, Patrick, thanks for the note. This was posted on the AOL start page: By AMY C. FLEITAS November 30, 2004 Ah, the holidays: a time of goodwill toward your fellow man -- for some people. For others, it's an opportunity to grab all they can and run while people's defenses are down. While you are looking for the perfect gifts, con artists will be looking for the perfect target. This holiday season, don't get taken by these popular scams. 1. Naming a star What better gift could you give someone then the symbol of the first Christmas -- a star? Various companies claim they can sell you a star -- for a fee. This year one company is charging $54. These companies will send you a certificate with the name and location of "your star" and promise that your star's name will be in a star registry. Here's the problem: Stars are named by the International Astronomical Union -- and they aren't selling. Names for stars (and most are given numbers) are assigned according to the internationally accepted rules of the IAU. Anyone else who claims to be able to name stars has no more legal standing than your neighbor's Rottweiler. When they say your star is going into a "registry," they mean whatever registry they made up -- not the official catalog that is kept by the IAU and used by all astronomers. According to the IAU's Web site, "such 'names' have no formal or official validity whatever. Like true love and many other of the best things in human life, the beauty of the night sky is not for sale, but is free for all to enjoy." If you want to give someone a star, save yourself some money: Go to the closest planetarium, pick a star you think is pretty and ask the astronomer for the coordinates. Then go home and make your own certificate on your own computer. > Care to cut and paste the entire article? > > Patrick > > Chuck Hards wrote: > > > > Kudos to the editors and owners of this: > > > > > http://pf.channel.aol.com/moneytoday/bankrate/humaninterest/scams.adp __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

1 0

Name a star
by Chuck Hards 03 Dec '04

03 Dec '04

Kudos to the editors and owners of this: http://pf.channel.aol.com/moneytoday/bankrate/humaninterest/scams.adp __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Kodak E200 processing
by astrodeb＠charter.net 03 Dec '04

03 Dec '04

Hi, I just called Camera Country and found out they do E6 and push processing. I just need to set the ASA film speed to 800 for "Push 2" or set the film speed to 400 for "Push 1". Last time I set the film speed to ASA 200 and that's why they couldn't push the film. This is the way I understand it. However, as Joe said a "Push 2" will make the film more grainer so I may just do a "Push 1" next time. According to the January 1999 Sky and Telescope issue, Ektachrome E200 pushed two stops in a good option for camera-on-tripod shots. Thanks guys for the tip on Borge Andersen. I'll keep that in mind. Debbie > > From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> > Date: 2004/12/02 Thu PM 07:35:59 MST > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Kodak E200 processing > > Howdy, > > astrodeb(a)charter.net wrote: > > > > Patrick, > > > > I can't find anybody in St. George that can do the E6 processing. > That surprises me. I thought any place that processes slide film uses > E6. Very odd indeed. > > > Do you know anybody in Salt Lake that will do it? > Borge Andersen Photo, 800.349.7703, http://www.borge.net/ > Creative Color, 801.355.4124 > > I'm sure Chuck Hards will also have some thoughts on this but now that > he's only getting emails once a week it may take him a while to reply. > > Patrick > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

4 3

Kodak E200 processing
by Chuck Hards 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

I agree that the clerk was probably ignorant, but well-intentioned nonetheless. I was a lab technician for 5 years in a former life, and have processed a mountain of E-6 and other films. While negatives have an exposure latitude of 5 stops, that is, you can expose anywhere within a 5-stop range and still get almost all of the information out of the negative; meaning you can get a good print by compensating with the enlarger for density problems on the negative. Transparency films typically have a latitude less than half that, so in a typical daylight exposure, a 2-stop push (200 to 800) could mean a clear piece of film in an overexposed area; you have a little 35mm plastic window in a cardboard sleeve. The information is irretrevably lost. Now with a black sky background, the typical astro shot has a bit of immunity to force-processing, and you can get away with a 2-stop push much more often. I agree that there is no better lab/studio than Borge Andersen in SLC. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Kodak E200 processing
by astrodeb＠charter.net 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Patrick, I can't find anybody in St. George that can do the E6 processing. It's like a foreign language to these people. Do you know anybody in Salt Lake that will do it? I'm not going to freeze my rearend off in December only to have sub-standard film processing. Joe, I also have some Fuji Sensia 400 film. I found that the Kodak E200 has good red response even without the push processing. A 10-15 minute exposure will record lots of red nebulosity. I find that slides are a fun medium to show people the night sky. Debbie > > From: Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> > Date: 2004/12/01 Wed PM 02:42:02 MST > To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Kodak E200 processing > > Over the years I've developed hundreds of rolls of E6 film and while > there are times I might have said pushing was not needed or not a good > idea, it would not have made sense to say it couldn't be done since > pushing is just a matter of leaving the film in the chemistry longer. > > So if they said they can not do it either they don't know how to push > film or (maybe more likely) the clerk you were speaking to did not know > what they were talking about. > > Patrick > > p.s. Developing E6 is not hard to do. A roll can be processed and > dried in an hour or less and you have total control over pushing. The > down side is cost. Part of the chemistry has a short shelf life (unlike > some of my B&W chemistry that I've been known to keep around for > years...) so you need to process a lot of film to make it cost effective. > > > astrodeb(a)charter.net wrote: > > > > I have a question about push processing E200 film. On the box of the film it says "push to 800". On my last roll of film I had developed, I asked the processing lab to push to 800. They said since I had set my ISO to 200 they couldn't do it. Am I missing something here? Or are they giving me bull****? I thought since it was 200 film I set the ISO to 200. Can somebody explain this to me or refer me to a better lab that do push processing. Any help would be appreciated. There is another comet in the sky right now and I want to do things right this time. > > > > Debbie> > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

3 2