Re: folly of astrophotography
From: Simple Traveler (travelersghost_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/19/04
- Next message: clyde crewey: "Re: Orion 100 ED"
- Previous message: matt: "Re: Three webcams, how do they compare?"
- In reply to:(deleted message) John Steinberg: "Re: folly of astrophotography"
- Next in thread: Chris L Peterson: "Re: folly of astrophotography"
- Reply: Chris L Peterson: "Re: folly of astrophotography"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:45:33 GMT
In article <181120041436193988%seesig@bottom.net>,
John Steinberg <seesig@bottom.net> 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.
- Next message: clyde crewey: "Re: Orion 100 ED"
- Previous message: matt: "Re: Three webcams, how do they compare?"
- In reply to:(deleted message) John Steinberg: "Re: folly of astrophotography"
- Next in thread: Chris L Peterson: "Re: folly of astrophotography"
- Reply: Chris L Peterson: "Re: folly of astrophotography"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
