1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Photographing Stars

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by albini13, Sep 23, 2002.

  1. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    oh i cant be arsed /img/wwwthreads/wink.gif

    Whatever it is that lives,A tree,a man,or a bird,should be touched gently
     
  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    /img/wwwthreads/wink.gif

    Nick BSRIPN
     
  3. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    ......looks like there's gonna be a full moon tonight! /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Big(Is that a crater or just a spot on his bum?)Will

    <font color=blue>Someday Jeri Ryan will weaken!<font color=black>
     
  4. dogbyte

    dogbyte In the Stop Bath

    There is a full moon tonight as it happens.

    I shot it last night using the usual suspects - tripod with cable release then 300mm zoom, 300mm zoom 2* converter, partial metering, bracketing. Expect I'll be disappointed again. Perhaps at Photokina someone will announce the first digicam that can fly you to the moon.

    I shot JR as well.

    Pete IRIPN
     
  5. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    A 300mm ZOOM with a 2x converter! No wonder you are disappointed! That combination is optical suicide Pete! Maybe they'll make a 600mm f2.6 out of a new all plastic compound that is really cheap to produce and so you'll be able to buy one for the same price as a 300mm zoom! Well.........I can dream can't I! /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    BigWill

    <font color=blue>Someday Jeri Ryan will weaken!<font color=black>
     
  6. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    actually it is possible will,but you need a clock drive to follow the moon as it 'moves' during the exposure. With a 600mm lens that moon is gonna move an awful lot in that time!

    I'm goin in the darkroom today after a long times absence!
     
  7. Burgy

    Burgy In the Stop Bath

    With a 600mm and a full moon the exposure shouldnt be that long, assuming a max ap of 5.6, and 400ISO I would suggest 1/15 to 1/2 sec. The moon is actually very bright

    Burgy

    Its not what you've got, its who you do it to. http://www.pressfotos.co.uk
     
  8. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    ah,he has a fast 300mm,well that changes things. A 600mm f5.6,oh i'd love one of those.Burgy mate,you wouldnt happne to know if I could attach my EOS 300 to my scope?Its an Opticron 75mm job,very bright and clear.
    Gonna make a cuppa,fancy one?

    I'm goin in the darkroom today after a long times absence!
     
  9. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    As the moon is directly lit by the sun, the "sunny f16" rule applies - so with my grotty 500 f8 mirror, with 400 ISO film I could use 1/1500 - don't even need a tripod. That said, it's worth bracketing 1 and 2 stops to allow for light loss in the atmosphere.

    Nick BSRIPN
     
  10. Burgy

    Burgy In the Stop Bath

    I stand corrected, I might get and try it tonight if its reasonable clear, slapp a couple of 2x Extenders on the back of my 400, might work

    BUrgy

    Its not what you've got, its who you do it to. http://www.pressfotos.co.uk
     
  11. dogbyte

    dogbyte In the Stop Bath

    Of course you need 600mm plus really otherwise the moon is just too small in the picture
    I didn't note the exposure but you're quite right, as to be expected - if you partial/spot meter off the moon the shutter speed at f5.6 is perfectly acceptable
    Looks like Nick's been indulging in this quarters EOS magazine - all this talk of sunny sixteenths. Reminds me of a Ringo Star hit that would probably get him arrested now.

    Pete IRIPN
     
  12. sinister

    sinister Well-Known Member

  13. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Not guilty - in fact I've not seen an EOS mag since issue 6! No, had this same discussion a while back on another forum, and came to the inescapable conclusion that with ISO 400 film, the correct exposure would be 1/400 at f16 by definition.

    Nick BSRIPN
     
  14. MickL

    MickL Well-Known Member

    There are lots of books available. Many astronomy books cover photography as well. There are also many websites.Try the one below - although not 'stars' as you specified it illustrates what can be done by an amateur.

    http://perso.club-internet.fr/cesarigd/astroe1.htm

    There are really three 'branches' of astronomical photography and the requirements vary with each.

    As many have said in this thread you don't need too much in the way of equipment for lunar photography. Exposures are reasonable. However you need the most magnification (focal length) that you can manage in order to get good detailed pictures. A tripod is pretty well essential, even with short exposures, to minimise camera shake.

    For planetary photography things change. You again need the most focal length that you can possibly get - maybe 2000mm (yes two thousand!) to even begin to get a recognizable image. You can't really get that by piling extenders onto a lens because the aberrations get magnified and the image becomes more or less unrecognizable. You also will be dealing (most of the time) with much dimmer subjects than the moon and then exposures get long and the apparent movement of the planet comes into account. In order to combat the movement you will need what's known as an equatorial mount which will be clockwork or electrically driven. If you are a reasonably competent engineer then you could make one but to get good photos it needs to be pretty accurate.

    For star photograhy things change again (for these purposes I'm putting photography of galaxies into the 'planet' group). First if you are happy with star trails (and maybe shooting stars) then any camera with a standard lens will produce OK results. If you live in a reasonably dark area then just put the camera on a tripod pointing at the part of the sky you want. Set the aperture to something quite wide and leave the shutter open for five minutes or so.



    Magnification doesn't really matter for stars (I stress that I'm talking about single stars) because stars are a point source and however much magnification you apply they still remain a point.

    Hope this helps
    MickL
     
  15. MickL

    MickL Well-Known Member

    Re: Photographing Stars - WARNING

    I forgot something.

    Forgive me - I'm sure that you are not dumb enough to think that any of my previous post applies to photographing the sun. Nevertheless I don't want to be responsible for any accident.

    Don't try photographing the sun directly. Don't point your camera at the sun directly. Don't even look directly at the bright sun with your naked eye.

    MickL
     
  16. albini13

    albini13 Well-Known Member

    Thanks Mick thats one of the best and informative answers yet. Much appreciated.
     
  17. Burgy

    Burgy In the Stop Bath

    Photos of the moon taken tonight about 1145. 400mm F2.8 and two 2x extenders EOS1D at 200ISO between 1/100 and 1/200sec wide open (equivelent 1600mm F11 ( 1.3 factor = 2030mm) slight crop as well.

    supported on a Manfrotto TriAut, with a 329RC head. Hope you enjoy

    [​IMG]


    Its not what you've got, its who you do it to. http://www.pressfotos.co.uk
     
  18. Burgy

    Burgy In the Stop Bath

  19. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Top quality stuff /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Tim BSRIPN
     
  20. MickL

    MickL Well-Known Member

    Excellent shot
    As your 'tag line' says - it's not what youv'e got it's what you do with it.

    Going back to something I said in a previous post about the focal length needed for photographing planets.

    The moon typically subtends an angle of about 0.5 degrees at the earth and you have needed effectively a 2000mm lens to get the image that you did.

    Saturn subtends an angle of about .005 of a degree (extremely approximate). Therefore to get the same size image that you did one would need a focal length of 200 metres (some lens that would be - by the way how I envy your 400/2.8 but that's another story!).

    Alternatively sticking with the 2000mm lens one would get an image of Saturn about one hundredth of the size that you did last night. At that size it could, as I said, be just recognizable.

    MickL
     

Share This Page