Hello, all -- Together with Chuck, I can take a little responsibility for the horrible weather. I bought a pair of Celestron 15x70 binoculars this week (yes, the price of $72 at Clark is good, but not as good as the price of $45 with free shipping that I got from Amazon). I'm going to be in the middle of nowhere for a lot of the month of May, but not able to take my scope with me. Now that the semester is over, I've been getting all reflective. I think I can explain why I like to go out and do astronomy related stuff. I'm not much into astrophysics, even though as a mathematician, I probably should be. I don't sketch. I really like being in the middle of nowhere, in the dark. I like meeting goals, working through lists. If you've read the ultra-saccharine "Hidden Treasures" by Steven O'Meara, I'm definitely the grab-and-run sort of sky pirate. None of my eyepieces is very good at all, and my 25mm one is the best, so I don't dwell on objects; just collect. The experience of the outdoors, and just finding things (like doing a puzzle) is fun for me. I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others. Thanks. ---- Rev. Michael A. van Opstall Department of Mathematics, University of Utah Office: JWB 313 opstall@math.utah.edu
I've always loved photography. I taught myself how to take photos and how to process them, both black and white and color, becoming serious about it in 1963 when I bought a twin-lens reflex camera. I studied photography books and magazines and a university class. I carefully analyzed what makes gives some photos presence and not others. I have examined thousands of historic and modern images, including in museums, and I've collected antique photos since 1969. I have studied my own photos and learned what was good about them and what their flaws were; I've always had a good eye and my training over the past nearly 47 years has improved it. Many of my photos have been published in newspapers. This is all to say that photograph is extremely important to me. With astrophotography, what attract me are 1, the ability to see marvelous objects much better than I can through my telescope, yet they are the very views I wanted, not something in a book; being able to revisit these views later and being able to share them with others; the challenge of going through this very difficult process; the possibility of discovering something, like a supernova; having tangible evidence of the intangible feelings I have when examining the cosmos; and creating something of beauty. -- Joe ________________________________ From: Michael Vanopstall <opstall@math.utah.edu> To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 6:08:24 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] why photography? Hello, all -- Together with Chuck, I can take a little responsibility for the horrible weather. I bought a pair of Celestron 15x70 binoculars this week (yes, the price of $72 at Clark is good, but not as good as the price of $45 with free shipping that I got from Amazon). I'm going to be in the middle of nowhere for a lot of the month of May, but not able to take my scope with me. Now that the semester is over, I've been getting all reflective. I think I can explain why I like to go out and do astronomy related stuff. I'm not much into astrophysics, even though as a mathematician, I probably should be. I don't sketch. I really like being in the middle of nowhere, in the dark. I like meeting goals, working through lists. If you've read the ultra-saccharine "Hidden Treasures" by Steven O'Meara, I'm definitely the grab-and-run sort of sky pirate. None of my eyepieces is very good at all, and my 25mm one is the best, so I don't dwell on objects; just collect. The experience of the outdoors, and just finding things (like doing a puzzle) is fun for me. I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others. Thanks. ---- Rev. Michael A. van Opstall Department of Mathematics, University of Utah Office: JWB 313 opstall@math.utah.edu _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I don't do astrophotography for several good reasons. I do photography of birds, sunsets, bunny rabbits, even rocks and trees, but I won't do astrophotos beyond a 1 minute time exposure on an DSLR. 1: It's all been done before. Google up and NGC number and you will have a few excellent, dozens of good, and hundreds of fair photos of any object that lends itself to photography. The Messier and Hershel catalogs have been covered. There is nothing new to photograph except an occasional comet and then the internet will bring you those with a vengence. 2: It's very expensive. Photos that I find interesting these days are of obscure galaxies. These are done with 20" RC's and one use cameras on megabuck mounts with exposure times of 30 hours plus. So the cutting edge is "out there" in the expense range of a 30 foot sailboat. A good visual system that will keep you involved for years comes in at the price of a row boat. 3: It's not portable. I remember going to the mountains with an astrophotographer. At midnight after I had visually seen dozens of objects, he was still struggling with cords, balky software and alignments. He lamented, "I've been here 4 hours and I haven't even started taking picture yet." 4: Photoshop. The pictures aren't reality any more than an advertisement is a accurate picture of the product or the sexy model holding it. Her mole has been removed, her bust enlarged, and her hips slimmed down. Everyone has the tools to make convincing lies. Reality it is not. DT --- On Mon, 5/10/10, Michael Vanopstall <opstall@math.utah.edu> wrote:
From: Michael Vanopstall <opstall@math.utah.edu> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] why photography? To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Monday, May 10, 2010, 5:08 PM Hello, all --
Together with Chuck, I can take a little responsibility for the horrible weather. I bought a pair of Celestron 15x70 binoculars this week (yes, the price of $72 at Clark is good, but not as good as the price of $45 with free shipping that I got from Amazon). I'm going to be in the middle of nowhere for a lot of the month of May, but not able to take my scope with me.
Now that the semester is over, I've been getting all reflective. I think I can explain why I like to go out and do astronomy related stuff. I'm not much into astrophysics, even though as a mathematician, I probably should be. I don't sketch. I really like being in the middle of nowhere, in the dark. I like meeting goals, working through lists. If you've read the ultra-saccharine "Hidden Treasures" by Steven O'Meara, I'm definitely the grab-and-run sort of sky pirate. None of my eyepieces is very good at all, and my 25mm one is the best, so I don't dwell on objects; just collect. The experience of the outdoors, and just finding things (like doing a puzzle) is fun for me.
I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others.
Thanks.
---- Rev. Michael A. van Opstall Department of Mathematics, University of Utah Office: JWB 313 opstall@math.utah.edu
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I do astrophotography for a few reasons. Space always existed on monitors and tv's for me. I didn't even get into observing until I was 22 - 23, only 2 - 3 years ago. Astrophotography helped the cosmos come alive for me. I remember being fairly disappointed when I looked through my 8 inch reflector for the first time and saw only black and white fuzzy stuff. It was like magic for me when I hooked my DSLR up to the scope and all sorts of color came out. It has become an addiction. I think astrophotography is educational, fun, affordable, challenging, and most of all rewarding. I wont stop driving because someone else has a nicer car, and I'm not going to stop making astro-photos because someone else has done it "better". There is always the chance of discovering something new as well. It happens all the time. Supernovae from amateurs, new comets, new impacts on Jupiter. David
Hi all. Why astrophotography? I take great pleasure in being outside with my equipment on a beautiful clear night, collecting photons that have been travelling through space for eons of time, only to end their journey on my little CCD chip, to be preserved forever in my image. I enjoy the challenge of getting the most from my equipment. I enjoy processing those images to reveal subtle details that exist within the objects. And, I like doing it myself. I'm sorry Daniel, but I must say that your response to this inquiry was incredibly negative. You are welcome to your opinion, but I can't agree with any of your points. Clearly, astrophotography is not for you, but many people love the hobby. I want to respond briefly to each of your points. Please don't be offended, because all my responses are meant only to offer a very different opinion. 1: "It's all been done before." If we all limited our activities to things that have not been done before, none of us would ever do anything. Virtually everything has been done before, and probably better than I can do, but there is something special about doing things for yourself that appeals to me. I don't care that the Hubble has taken a better image of an object than I will ever take. I still want to give it my best shot to see what I can do with the equipment that I can afford. Do you look through the eyepiece and say, " I already saw the Orion Nebula... why look at it again?..."? I think not. Why is it OK to look at it again, but not to photograph it again? I see little difference. 2: "It's very expensive." Yes it is. So what? Nearly every hobby that I know of is expensive. Flyfishing, boating, four-wheeling, backpacking, computers, audio, travel... and the list goes on and on forever. I do not decide my activities based on expense alone. Certainly, one must examine the costs and make decisions according to their own budget. But this hobby is no more expensive than MANY hobbies. For the cost of a single four-wheeler, a person can get a nice imaging setup and enjoy untold hours of enjoyment out under the stars. For the cost of a trailer and a few four-wheelers, you can have a world-class setup. Hobbies are often expensive, but that doesn't change my enjoyment of them. In fact, spending money for new toys is part of the fun! :) 3: "It's not portable." What? I have taken my imaging equipment to wonderful isolated locations and spent many magical evenings out under the stars enjoying the dark skies and unique atmosphere that remote sites offer. Now, can I carry it with me in a backpack? No. But it certainly is portable enough to bring along in my Toyota. Also, it is true that sometimes things go wrong; but if it was easy, it wouldn't be as much fun. I appreciate the challenge of getting everything to work together in a perfect symphony. :) 4: "Photoshop.... Reality it is not." I can assure you that every object you see in my images is there in "reality". I have already spoken on this topic, so I won't go on too much about it. Stretching data to show faint objects is not the same as painting them in yourself. The objects are there, and they are real. They are emitting light at specific wavelengths that equate to real colors. The relative brightness of objects is inconsequential in many respects. I am always stunned that people think that the whole image is fake because you apply a log transformation to the original data. It is simply an accurate representation of the data, in a non-linear form. When you look at my images, and see the structure of nebulosity in the Bubble Nebula, or a dark lane in the Whirlpool galaxy, I can assure you that you are seeing a "real" object, whose photons were captured and recorded by my "real" camera. That object exists... in reality! I am getting pretty tired of comments to the contrary. To conclude... I love the hobby. Cheers, Tyler -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of daniel turner Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:08 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] why photography? I don't do astrophotography for several good reasons. I do photography of birds, sunsets, bunny rabbits, even rocks and trees, but I won't do astrophotos beyond a 1 minute time exposure on an DSLR. 1: It's all been done before. Google up and NGC number and you will have a few excellent, dozens of good, and hundreds of fair photos of any object that lends itself to photography. The Messier and Hershel catalogs have been covered. There is nothing new to photograph except an occasional comet and then the internet will bring you those with a vengence. 2: It's very expensive. Photos that I find interesting these days are of obscure galaxies. These are done with 20" RC's and one use cameras on megabuck mounts with exposure times of 30 hours plus. So the cutting edge is "out there" in the expense range of a 30 foot sailboat. A good visual system that will keep you involved for years comes in at the price of a row boat. 3: It's not portable. I remember going to the mountains with an astrophotographer. At midnight after I had visually seen dozens of objects, he was still struggling with cords, balky software and alignments. He lamented, "I've been here 4 hours and I haven't even started taking picture yet." 4: Photoshop. The pictures aren't reality any more than an advertisement is a accurate picture of the product or the sexy model holding it. Her mole has been removed, her bust enlarged, and her hips slimmed down. Everyone has the tools to make convincing lies. Reality it is not. DT --- On Mon, 5/10/10, Michael Vanopstall <opstall@math.utah.edu> wrote:
From: Michael Vanopstall <opstall@math.utah.edu> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] why photography? To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Monday, May 10, 2010, 5:08 PM Hello, all --
Together with Chuck, I can take a little responsibility for the horrible weather. I bought a pair of Celestron 15x70 binoculars this week (yes, the price of $72 at Clark is good, but not as good as the price of $45 with free shipping that I got from Amazon). I'm going to be in the middle of nowhere for a lot of the month of May, but not able to take my scope with me.
Now that the semester is over, I've been getting all reflective. I think I can explain why I like to go out and do astronomy related stuff. I'm not much into astrophysics, even though as a mathematician, I probably should be. I don't sketch. I really like being in the middle of nowhere, in the dark. I like meeting goals, working through lists. If you've read the ultra-saccharine "Hidden Treasures" by Steven O'Meara, I'm definitely the grab-and-run sort of sky pirate. None of my eyepieces is very good at all, and my 25mm one is the best, so I don't dwell on objects; just collect. The experience of the outdoors, and just finding things (like doing a puzzle) is fun for me.
I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others.
Thanks.
---- Rev. Michael A. van Opstall Department of Mathematics, University of Utah Office: JWB 313 opstall@math.utah.edu
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
When Michael posted the original question yesterday I felt that I could "see the future". These discussions happen a lot on the forums and websites I visit. I have tried my hand at astrophotography now three times. First with a Olympus OM-1. Bill Cowles assured me at the time that no one was using digital and that film was the only way to go. You can guess how that ended. Then I tried with a SBIG camera and found myself ruining great observing nights fighting technology. Third I started down the path of video astronomy but decided before I even lit up the first LCD monitor it was not for me. I have come to be very tolerant of peoples different views on what their astronomy hobby is. Many now days are enjoying astrophotography. Dare I say millions? If not, for sure hundreds of thousands. We all know people who build scopes. We know people who talk about scopes and never get out. There are so many ways to enjoy this hobby. The first time someone invited me to a star party where 600 kids and parents were invited I said to my self "yeah right, that is just what I need". Now look at me, it is my favorite part of the hobby. I see valid points from all that has been posted and although I cannot imagine trying astrophotography again, I can surely understand the pure joy that some receive from capturing those photons with the CCD chip. I can understand the pleasure trying to get the very most out of the images with computers. If you love photography and you love any part of astronomy as a hobby, why not? I purchased my dream OTA last year. It was much cheaper than what my brother spends on green fees each year. Heck he probably has more invested in plaid pants and wing tip shoes with spikes than my CGE cost. Michael if you ask me, I think if you have any interest you should try it. You will know very soon if it for you or not. If not let's just sit back and see the pictures that Tyler, Patrick, and others put up. Aren't you glad there are so many ways to enjoy this hobby? Steve
From: tylerallred@earthlink.net To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 11:11:51 -0600 Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] why photography?
Hi all.
Why astrophotography? I take great pleasure in being outside with my equipment on a beautiful clear night, collecting photons that have been travelling through space for eons of time, only to end their journey on my little CCD chip, to be preserved forever in my image. I enjoy the challenge of getting the most from my equipment. I enjoy processing those images to reveal subtle details that exist within the objects. And, I like doing it myself.
I'm sorry Daniel, but I must say that your response to this inquiry was incredibly negative. You are welcome to your opinion, but I can't agree with any of your points. Clearly, astrophotography is not for you, but many people love the hobby. I want to respond briefly to each of your points. Please don't be offended, because all my responses are meant only to offer a very different opinion.
1: "It's all been done before." If we all limited our activities to things that have not been done before, none of us would ever do anything. Virtually everything has been done before, and probably better than I can do, but there is something special about doing things for yourself that appeals to me. I don't care that the Hubble has taken a better image of an object than I will ever take. I still want to give it my best shot to see what I can do with the equipment that I can afford. Do you look through the eyepiece and say, " I already saw the Orion Nebula... why look at it again?..."? I think not. Why is it OK to look at it again, but not to photograph it again? I see little difference.
2: "It's very expensive." Yes it is. So what? Nearly every hobby that I know of is expensive. Flyfishing, boating, four-wheeling, backpacking, computers, audio, travel... and the list goes on and on forever. I do not decide my activities based on expense alone. Certainly, one must examine the costs and make decisions according to their own budget. But this hobby is no more expensive than MANY hobbies. For the cost of a single four-wheeler, a person can get a nice imaging setup and enjoy untold hours of enjoyment out under the stars. For the cost of a trailer and a few four-wheelers, you can have a world-class setup. Hobbies are often expensive, but that doesn't change my enjoyment of them. In fact, spending money for new toys is part of the fun! :)
3: "It's not portable." What? I have taken my imaging equipment to wonderful isolated locations and spent many magical evenings out under the stars enjoying the dark skies and unique atmosphere that remote sites offer. Now, can I carry it with me in a backpack? No. But it certainly is portable enough to bring along in my Toyota. Also, it is true that sometimes things go wrong; but if it was easy, it wouldn't be as much fun. I appreciate the challenge of getting everything to work together in a perfect symphony. :)
4: "Photoshop.... Reality it is not." I can assure you that every object you see in my images is there in "reality". I have already spoken on this topic, so I won't go on too much about it. Stretching data to show faint objects is not the same as painting them in yourself. The objects are there, and they are real. They are emitting light at specific wavelengths that equate to real colors. The relative brightness of objects is inconsequential in many respects. I am always stunned that people think that the whole image is fake because you apply a log transformation to the original data. It is simply an accurate representation of the data, in a non-linear form. When you look at my images, and see the structure of nebulosity in the Bubble Nebula, or a dark lane in the Whirlpool galaxy, I can assure you that you are seeing a "real" object, whose photons were captured and recorded by my "real" camera. That object exists... in reality! I am getting pretty tired of comments to the contrary.
To conclude... I love the hobby. Cheers, Tyler
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of daniel turner Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:08 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] why photography?
I don't do astrophotography for several good reasons. I do photography of birds, sunsets, bunny rabbits, even rocks and trees, but I won't do astrophotos beyond a 1 minute time exposure on an DSLR.
1: It's all been done before. Google up and NGC number and you will have a few excellent, dozens of good, and hundreds of fair photos of any object that lends itself to photography. The Messier and Hershel catalogs have been covered. There is nothing new to photograph except an occasional comet and then the internet will bring you those with a vengence.
2: It's very expensive. Photos that I find interesting these days are of obscure galaxies. These are done with 20" RC's and one use cameras on megabuck mounts with exposure times of 30 hours plus. So the cutting edge is "out there" in the expense range of a 30 foot sailboat. A good visual system that will keep you involved for years comes in at the price of a row boat.
3: It's not portable. I remember going to the mountains with an astrophotographer. At midnight after I had visually seen dozens of objects, he was still struggling with cords, balky software and alignments. He lamented, "I've been here 4 hours and I haven't even started taking picture yet."
4: Photoshop. The pictures aren't reality any more than an advertisement is a accurate picture of the product or the sexy model holding it. Her mole has been removed, her bust enlarged, and her hips slimmed down. Everyone has the tools to make convincing lies. Reality it is not.
DT --- On Mon, 5/10/10, Michael Vanopstall <opstall@math.utah.edu> wrote:
From: Michael Vanopstall <opstall@math.utah.edu> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] why photography? To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Monday, May 10, 2010, 5:08 PM Hello, all --
Together with Chuck, I can take a little responsibility for the horrible weather. I bought a pair of Celestron 15x70 binoculars this week (yes, the price of $72 at Clark is good, but not as good as the price of $45 with free shipping that I got from Amazon). I'm going to be in the middle of nowhere for a lot of the month of May, but not able to take my scope with me.
Now that the semester is over, I've been getting all reflective. I think I can explain why I like to go out and do astronomy related stuff. I'm not much into astrophysics, even though as a mathematician, I probably should be. I don't sketch. I really like being in the middle of nowhere, in the dark. I like meeting goals, working through lists. If you've read the ultra-saccharine "Hidden Treasures" by Steven O'Meara, I'm definitely the grab-and-run sort of sky pirate. None of my eyepieces is very good at all, and my 25mm one is the best, so I don't dwell on objects; just collect. The experience of the outdoors, and just finding things (like doing a puzzle) is fun for me.
I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others.
Thanks.
---- Rev. Michael A. van Opstall Department of Mathematics, University of Utah Office: JWB 313 opstall@math.utah.edu
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hello -- No, I have no curiosity, or desire to try photography. I definitely don't have the money. I probably don't have the patience. I can't imagine driving an hour or two, setting up, and then letting the telescope work by itself for an hour or two. Actually, I plundered my camera batteries for a flashlight, which shows how often I take any pictures at all. The stacking and photoshop part of the process really sounds like not my cup of tea. Like taxidermy after the hunt. I like a pretty fast-paced hunt. Did I mention that my first telescope was stolen off my front porch when I went inside to unload moon photos on to the computer? ---- Rev. Michael A. van Opstall Department of Mathematics, University of Utah Office: JWB 313 opstall@math.utah.edu
Big Ouch! on having your telescope ripped off. As mentioned on a previous post I dabble in it and will continue to do so. It's how I indulge my inner masochist. I use essentially the same equipment I use to take regular photos, my DSLR. It is not necessary to spend tons of money to get nice images so consider what you already have if you decide to try it again. I often try to get a single good image rather than take a bunch and then stack, I understand the benefits of stacking and if you want the kind of results some of our members produce you need to do that but you can get a decent image without the extra steps and shorten the post processing time. However in general the time involved is still significant. Sounds like you know at least a little about the process. I have been known to bring two scopes with me when I image or at least my 80x20 binocs so I can enjoy the sky while the scope and camera are doing their thing. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael Vanopstall Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:47 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] why photography? Hello -- No, I have no curiosity, or desire to try photography. I definitely don't have the money. I probably don't have the patience. I can't imagine driving an hour or two, setting up, and then letting the telescope work by itself for an hour or two. Actually, I plundered my camera batteries for a flashlight, which shows how often I take any pictures at all. The stacking and photoshop part of the process really sounds like not my cup of tea. Like taxidermy after the hunt. I like a pretty fast-paced hunt. Did I mention that my first telescope was stolen off my front porch when I went inside to unload moon photos on to the computer? ---- Rev. Michael A. van Opstall Department of Mathematics, University of Utah Office: JWB 313 opstall@math.utah.edu _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hum, I've been missunderstood again. I didn't say I hate the results of the process, I just hate the process. I've been collecting astrophotos for 10 years now. Starting with a dialup modem in format BMP I would save any picture I could find that I didn't have or was better than the one I already had. Now my collection has been converted or superseded to all JPG . I have several folders with the following number of photos I've collected. Milkyway 283 Messier 104 external galaxy 183 solar system 27 astro images 56 The last folder is for stuff that contains multiple object like m108 with m97. This one is my desktop background. I have watched the hardware war from the sidelines for the last decade. Every year as targets emerge from behind the sun they were being shot again with equiptment that didn't exist 6 months earlier when the target left the night sky. The new versions were almost always better year to year until recently when the trend started to slow down. Now new images worth saving have become more and more scarce, except on the bleeding edge of very high end equiptment beyond the reach of almost all the amateurs that I've ever met. Send me a flash drive and you can have a copy of all of it. At the same time I don't consider any of this to be science. It's art. and I don't use amateur astrophotos as a source of science information. DT --- On Tue, 5/11/10, Robert Taylor <Rob.Taylor@digis.net> wrote:
From: Robert Taylor <Rob.Taylor@digis.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] why photography? To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 1:36 PM Big Ouch! on having your telescope ripped off. As mentioned on a previous post I dabble in it and will continue to do so. It's how I indulge my inner masochist. I use essentially the same equipment I use to take regular photos, my DSLR. It is not necessary to spend tons of money to get nice images so consider what you already have if you decide to try it again. I often try to get a single good image rather than take a bunch and then stack, I understand the benefits of stacking and if you want the kind of results some of our members produce you need to do that but you can get a decent image without the extra steps and shorten the post processing time. However in general the time involved is still significant. Sounds like you know at least a little about the process. I have been known to bring two scopes with me when I image or at least my 80x20 binocs so I can enjoy the sky while the scope and camera are doing their thing.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael Vanopstall Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:47 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] why photography?
Hello --
No, I have no curiosity, or desire to try photography. I definitely don't have the money. I probably don't have the patience. I can't imagine driving an hour or two, setting up, and then letting the telescope work by itself for an hour or two. Actually, I plundered my camera batteries for a flashlight, which shows how often I take any pictures at all. The stacking and photoshop part of the process really sounds like not my cup of tea. Like taxidermy after the hunt. I like a pretty fast-paced hunt.
Did I mention that my first telescope was stolen off my front porch when I went inside to unload moon photos on to the computer?
---- Rev. Michael A. van Opstall Department of Mathematics, University of Utah Office: JWB 313 opstall@math.utah.edu
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I can only speak for myself but I don't think I misunderstood anything you said. I think you were very clear and succinct in your reply. The only exception that I take is that Michael asked a simple question. I'll not only quote it I'll cut and paste it. "I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others". I think those that have responded with comments about the beauty of it or the joy it brings have answered his question. They have even drawn attention to some of the downsides without approaching it from a what do you hate about astrophotography standpoint. Like I said, "speaking for myself". Steve
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 15:45:37 -0700 From: outwest112@yahoo.com To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] why photography?
Hum, I've been missunderstood again. I didn't say I hate the results of the process, I just hate the process. I've been collecting astrophotos for 10 years now. Starting with a dialup modem in format BMP I would save any picture I could find that I didn't have or was better than the one I already had. Now my collection has been converted or superseded to all JPG .
I have several folders with the following number of photos I've collected.
Milkyway 283 Messier 104 external galaxy 183 solar system 27 astro images 56
The last folder is for stuff that contains multiple object like m108 with m97. This one is my desktop background.
I have watched the hardware war from the sidelines for the last decade. Every year as targets emerge from behind the sun they were being shot again with equiptment that didn't exist 6 months earlier when the target left the night sky. The new versions were almost always better year to year until recently when the trend started to slow down. Now new images worth saving have become more and more scarce, except on the bleeding edge of very high end equiptment beyond the reach of almost all the amateurs that I've ever met. Send me a flash drive and you can have a copy of all of it.
At the same time I don't consider any of this to be science. It's art. and I don't use amateur astrophotos as a source of science information.
DT
--- On Tue, 5/11/10, Robert Taylor <Rob.Taylor@digis.net> wrote:
From: Robert Taylor <Rob.Taylor@digis.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] why photography? To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 1:36 PM Big Ouch! on having your telescope ripped off. As mentioned on a previous post I dabble in it and will continue to do so. It's how I indulge my inner masochist. I use essentially the same equipment I use to take regular photos, my DSLR. It is not necessary to spend tons of money to get nice images so consider what you already have if you decide to try it again. I often try to get a single good image rather than take a bunch and then stack, I understand the benefits of stacking and if you want the kind of results some of our members produce you need to do that but you can get a decent image without the extra steps and shorten the post processing time. However in general the time involved is still significant. Sounds like you know at least a little about the process. I have been known to bring two scopes with me when I image or at least my 80x20 binocs so I can enjoy the sky while the scope and camera are doing their thing.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael Vanopstall Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:47 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] why photography?
Hello --
No, I have no curiosity, or desire to try photography. I definitely don't have the money. I probably don't have the patience. I can't imagine driving an hour or two, setting up, and then letting the telescope work by itself for an hour or two. Actually, I plundered my camera batteries for a flashlight, which shows how often I take any pictures at all. The stacking and photoshop part of the process really sounds like not my cup of tea. Like taxidermy after the hunt. I like a pretty fast-paced hunt.
Did I mention that my first telescope was stolen off my front porch when I went inside to unload moon photos on to the computer?
---- Rev. Michael A. van Opstall Department of Mathematics, University of Utah Office: JWB 313 opstall@math.utah.edu
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
The challenge of getting a good image. Challenges can be fun. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Steve FISHER Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:07 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] why photography? I can only speak for myself but I don't think I misunderstood anything you said. I think you were very clear and succinct in your reply. The only exception that I take is that Michael asked a simple question. I'll not only quote it I'll cut and paste it. "I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others". I think those that have responded with comments about the beauty of it or the joy it brings have answered his question. They have even drawn attention to some of the downsides without approaching it from a what do you hate about astrophotography standpoint. Like I said, "speaking for myself". Steve
For me, I generally lack the patience for Astro-photography and it does add another layer of cost to an already expensive hobby. I purchase a lot of photos my house has many hanging on the walls. I really like the spotlight prints from sky publishing.
It generally seems amateurs are either into photography or visual astronomy, usually not both. CCD imaging does reduce the time factor. In the old days, it required hours to obtain one image and you did not know the results until the film was developed. It is a challenging aspect of the hobby and does require a level of expertise, along with many frustrating nights with things that are beyond your control. That stray aircraft or scattered clouds for example. Chuck, I approach gardening the same way. I buy plants already growing rather than seeds. Let someone else nurture them. As for the geek question. I have two words on the subject: Bill Gates! The challenge of getting a good image. Challenges can be fun.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Steve FISHER Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:07 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] why photography?
I can only speak for myself but I don't think I misunderstood anything you said. I think you were very clear and succinct in your reply. The only exception that I take is that Michael asked a simple question. I'll not only quote it I'll cut and paste it.
"I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others".
I think those that have responded with comments about the beauty of it or the joy it brings have answered his question. They have even drawn attention to some of the downsides without approaching it from a what do you hate about astrophotography standpoint.
Like I said, "speaking for myself".
Steve
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Brent Watson had a very good observation on astrophotography. He stated that everything has been imaged innumerable times, and often by people with much better equipment, seeing, and ability than he (and me). It is duplicate work. While part of me agrees with Brent, I would compare it to gardening. Billions of people have raised plants on a little plot of ground outside their back door, yet it still nourishes the soul just to go through the motions. It is a personal connection with nature. You invest the time, do the work, nurture the seeds, the plants, until you are rewarded with a lovely bloom, or perhpas a flavorful, nutritious fruit. The soul has been enriched for the experience. Astrophotography fulfills the same human need. It connects the individual with nature, for no other purpose than to capture an image of an object in time, and enrich the soul. It is a method of achieving personal focus. People like Patrick, and, to a much lesser extent, myself, began taking astrophotographs back when it was done by only a couple of thousand people- at MOST- worldwide. We used equipment meant for other things and adapted it to the skies. Sometimes with success, most often with mixed results or dismal failures. We did it because it was different- unusual. Today, while I am certainly interested in deep-sky imaging using modern techniques, I am mostly motivated by the transient. I like movement, change. Comets, planetary phenomenon, the sun- these will probably hold my attention most, with the deep-sky always being there when nothing else is going-on above. "A Singer Of These Ageless Times, With Kitchen Prose, and Gutter Rhymes"... ;o) Today, hundreds of thousands of people take pictures of the skies, and with commercially-available equipment that yields results that are far superior to what the major observatories of the world could achieve 40 or 50 years ago. The same objects are imaged millions of times, over and over. In most cases, the reason is just because it takes the imager to a better place mentally. There is a certain Zen to be experienced. Many take images as part of their data-gathering, for genuine scientific pursuit. Patrick does this. Patrol work, photometry, spectroscopy, all are forms of astrophotography. But I'm guessing that your question is aimed mostly at the "nature lover" among amateur astronomers. These are the ones who take pictures for the same reason as the photographer snapping a shot of the Grand Canyon, or Goblin Valley, or Old Faithful. Their souls are enriched for the experience of capturing a moment in time, of some of God's better efforts. Does that help, Michael? On 5/10/10, Michael Vanopstall <opstall@math.utah.edu> wrote:
I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others.
Well said Chuck :) On 5/10/10 8:22 PM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Brent Watson had a very good observation on astrophotography. He stated that everything has been imaged innumerable times, and often by people with much better equipment, seeing, and ability than he (and me). It is duplicate work.
While part of me agrees with Brent, I would compare it to gardening. Billions of people have raised plants on a little plot of ground outside their back door, yet it still nourishes the soul just to go through the motions. It is a personal connection with nature. You invest the time, do the work, nurture the seeds, the plants, until you are rewarded with a lovely bloom, or perhpas a flavorful, nutritious fruit. The soul has been enriched for the experience.
Astrophotography fulfills the same human need. It connects the individual with nature, for no other purpose than to capture an image of an object in time, and enrich the soul. It is a method of achieving personal focus.
People like Patrick, and, to a much lesser extent, myself, began taking astrophotographs back when it was done by only a couple of thousand people- at MOST- worldwide. We used equipment meant for other things and adapted it to the skies. Sometimes with success, most often with mixed results or dismal failures. We did it because it was different- unusual. Today, while I am certainly interested in deep-sky imaging using modern techniques, I am mostly motivated by the transient. I like movement, change. Comets, planetary phenomenon, the sun- these will probably hold my attention most, with the deep-sky always being there when nothing else is going-on above. "A Singer Of These Ageless Times, With Kitchen Prose, and Gutter Rhymes"... ;o)
Today, hundreds of thousands of people take pictures of the skies, and with commercially-available equipment that yields results that are far superior to what the major observatories of the world could achieve 40 or 50 years ago. The same objects are imaged millions of times, over and over. In most cases, the reason is just because it takes the imager to a better place mentally. There is a certain Zen to be experienced.
Many take images as part of their data-gathering, for genuine scientific pursuit. Patrick does this. Patrol work, photometry, spectroscopy, all are forms of astrophotography.
But I'm guessing that your question is aimed mostly at the "nature lover" among amateur astronomers. These are the ones who take pictures for the same reason as the photographer snapping a shot of the Grand Canyon, or Goblin Valley, or Old Faithful. Their souls are enriched for the experience of capturing a moment in time, of some of God's better efforts.
Does that help, Michael?
On 5/10/10, Michael Vanopstall<opstall@math.utah.edu> wrote:
I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I dabble a bit in astrophotography, the only reason I do is because I want to know how to do it, whether I decide to spend million of dollars on equipment and years staring at a computer screen hoping to get "good data" is another question and one for the moment I will say no to. I will continue to dabble in it after spending time just enjoying the stars and being our on a beautiful night. In the end you have to find you own reason to do it or not. But start by getting a few good eyepieces and learn and enjoy the night sky. Astrophotography is not a place to start your experience with the night sky. I suggest you take a look at some of astronomy clubs (lists) on the Astronomical league website if you like lists, it's a great way to discipline your observing and get to know the sky. Then later you can re-visit astrophotography. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael Vanopstall Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 6:08 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] why photography? Hello, all -- Together with Chuck, I can take a little responsibility for the horrible weather. I bought a pair of Celestron 15x70 binoculars this week (yes, the price of $72 at Clark is good, but not as good as the price of $45 with free shipping that I got from Amazon). I'm going to be in the middle of nowhere for a lot of the month of May, but not able to take my scope with me. Now that the semester is over, I've been getting all reflective. I think I can explain why I like to go out and do astronomy related stuff. I'm not much into astrophysics, even though as a mathematician, I probably should be. I don't sketch. I really like being in the middle of nowhere, in the dark. I like meeting goals, working through lists. If you've read the ultra-saccharine "Hidden Treasures" by Steven O'Meara, I'm definitely the grab-and-run sort of sky pirate. None of my eyepieces is very good at all, and my 25mm one is the best, so I don't dwell on objects; just collect. The experience of the outdoors, and just finding things (like doing a puzzle) is fun for me. I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others. Thanks. ---- Rev. Michael A. van Opstall Department of Mathematics, University of Utah Office: JWB 313 opstall@math.utah.edu _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
On 10 May 2010, at 18:08, Michael Vanopstall wrote:
I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others.
Most everything I would have pontificated on the subject has already been posted to this thread. But I would like to add a couple of things. Why I take astroimages? To me there are two kinds of astroimages. One is what generically gets called "pretty pictures". I do some of that but when I do it's just because it's fun. Yeah, it's been done before and I'll always find a better version somewhere else (I don't have the patience or desire to spend 10s of hours exposing a single image). But, like I said, an occasional foray into taking pretty pictures can be fun. And, hey, I'll admit I have an ego (I'm sure none of you knew that <grin>) so the nice comments are appreciated. But for me the main reason I take astroimages is not to make pretty pictures but to take data. Pretty pictures are nice but usually lacking in scientific value. Happily astronomy is one field where amateurs can contribute to the body of scientific knowledge and I very much enjoy contributing. And I might also add that one can contribute with much less fancy (read: expensive) equipment and the process is much, much, MUCH easier that what the really high quality pretty pictures require. But speaking of pretty pictures, here's Tyler's just released version of the M-101 data I posted the other day. Unfortunately 101 is so big it's outer edges spread into the parts of my FOV where the focal reducer is not kind. But taken as a whole I think it looks nice. http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=68&g2_page=5 I'll add details of the image later tonight. patrick
Hubblesque! ________________________________ From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 5:53:19 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] why photography? (M-101 posted) On 10 May 2010, at 18:08, Michael Vanopstall wrote:
I'm curious if anyone (on these cloudy nights) could give a succinct explanation of what is interesting about astrophotography. I have not (and will not) been drawn in, and I'm curious about what interests others.
Most everything I would have pontificated on the subject has already been posted to this thread. But I would like to add a couple of things. Why I take astroimages? To me there are two kinds of astroimages. One is what generically gets called "pretty pictures". I do some of that but when I do it's just because it's fun. Yeah, it's been done before and I'll always find a better version somewhere else (I don't have the patience or desire to spend 10s of hours exposing a single image). But, like I said, an occasional foray into taking pretty pictures can be fun. And, hey, I'll admit I have an ego (I'm sure none of you knew that <grin>) so the nice comments are appreciated. But for me the main reason I take astroimages is not to make pretty pictures but to take data. Pretty pictures are nice but usually lacking in scientific value. Happily astronomy is one field where amateurs can contribute to the body of scientific knowledge and I very much enjoy contributing. And I might also add that one can contribute with much less fancy (read: expensive) equipment and the process is much, much, MUCH easier that what the really high quality pretty pictures require. But speaking of pretty pictures, here's Tyler's just released version of the M-101 data I posted the other day. Unfortunately 101 is so big it's outer edges spread into the parts of my FOV where the focal reducer is not kind. But taken as a whole I think it looks nice. http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=68&g2_page=5 I'll add details of the image later tonight. patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (10)
-
Chuck Hards -
daniel turner -
David Rankin -
erikhansen＠thebluezone.net -
Joe Bauman -
Michael Vanopstall -
Patrick Wiggins -
Robert Taylor -
Steve FISHER -
Tyler Allred