Re: what is the best mount?

Steve Paul wrote:
My first image of M42 is hideous (Ultima 8-PEC, F10, MX5-C, Laptop), but I
still have it. I still remember the effort, the equipment, the freezing my
arse off on a cold night outside under a crystal clear sky, and playing with
the knobs and gizmos until everything was just so, then letting the
equipment work while I sat back and drew the outlines of the visible
constellations in my mind. Imaging was both a challenge, and a background
task.

My last image of M42 is likable enough, and a reasonable facsimile of the
telescopic view, only on steroids, with pinpoint, perfectly round reference
stars throughout (G-11, piggy backed Orion ED80, Canon 300D-modified, TC-80
"bulb" timer/controller, ST4-autoguider in a 5" F6.5 achromat).

It's on my wall right here, next to the computer. I printed out a hard copy
at the typical 35mm print size using a Canon Celphy (sp?) Photo Printer.
It's not an image that a critic would praise or a 21st century magazine
would publish, but an amateur imager who has struggled, or is now struggling
through the learning process would think was pretty fine, and something of
an accomplishment.

I also have a favorite picture (of several) from my motorcycle trip on the
high road through RMNP, West of Estes Park, CO. A remdinder of what it was
like to be there, at that time, on that day, with all the feelings of
freedom, privilege, independence, and accomplishment that one feels all
alone on a motorcycle on a high mountain road, with Long Horn sheep and
Antelope occasionally in view.

The picture was taken with a pocket size digital camera, from the saddle of
the Harley Road King I had rented for the day. It's a beautiful image of the
winding road ahead of me, over some of the highest of mountain plains, on
what is I believe is one of the highest paved roads in the world.

I posted it in the Harley rider's binaries group and got several comments
from people who had also ridden that road. The image is not only a reminder
to me, but it reminded them of the experience. They in fact had a real
appreciation for the image.

Somehow, it's unique. Probably as a result of the vantage point from where I
had stopped. The angle and slope making the twisting turn look as live as a
snake about to strike. The camera settings in response to the lighting
giving it a soft, smooth texture that disipates off to the seemingly nearby
mountain top laden horizon.

Of course, just about any landscape image taken in Colorado from high
altitude looks surreal, as if it were a painting. Just like any wide field
image of the night sky taken at the right time, from the right place, with
the right camera settings and equipment. It was wide field imaging of the
night sky that first sparked my interest in astronomy as a 10 year old,
although I didn't pursue that interest much until nearly 30 years later. I
was amazed by the sheer number of stars, compared to the naked eye view from
my rural backyard in the then still dark skies of the late '60's.

Well put, and worth repeating. I'd be willing to bet that my first M42
was worse than your first M42.

It is also worth noting that we didn't really begin to learn about the
Universe we live in--its scale and age--until astrophotography was
invented.

Not only does astrophotography show us things that we could not see at
all by looking through a telescope, but it gives us an idea of what
those objects look like. Consider Chris Peterson, who does important
studies of meteors that no one could do without a specialized camera,
even if they never slept.

I have due respect for the visual observer, and especially the patient
and gifted sketcher. I don't believe that I have the gift for
sketching.

I offer my hydrogen alpha image of IC 405, the "Flaming Star Nebula"
<http://www.primordial-light.com/deepsky3.html#ic405ha> as a perfect
example of why I took up astrophotography. No visual observer will ever
see what's in that image, or in the HaGB image above it, or the subtle
colors in NGC 2158 above that.

Unkind people can (and have) derided the quality of my astrophotos; I
make no apologies for them; indeed, I claim that they are pretty good,
especially considering that I work under poor skies in the Mid-Atlantic
and that I don't get to practice night after night, or even month after
month.

My last opportunity to do deep-sky imaging was during a couple of hours
of clear weather on the night of July 3-4.
<http://www.primordial-light.com/deepsky4.html#m27> My CCD camera was
away for repair$ for three months and I was limited to DSLR imaging.
Now I have my CCD camera back, a new set of narrow-band filters, and a
new 6-inch apo <http://www.primordial-light.com/technique.html#toa150>,
that have been gathering dust since mid July.

I reiterate, in all earnestness, my high regard for the visual
observer. It is my own lack of skill as an observer, or lack of
imagination, that led me to conclude quite some time ago that one
amorphous, gray spot looks pretty much like another to me.

Davoud

--
I agree with everything that you have said and everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: what is the best mount?
    ... arse off on a cold night outside under a crystal clear sky, ... Imaging was both a challenge, ... The camera settings in response to the lighting ... I have due respect for the visual observer, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: VSNBT MNPLTN SRS 4 - The Roof
    ... make a good film with a crappy camera and some free software. ... equipment is not important. ... photographs with cameras made from baked bean cans. ... shooting "subject first" ...
    (rec.juggling)
  • Re: Film SLR or Digital Camera?
    ... If you are experimenting with imaging, there is NO better solution out there to get you started. ... This camera is capable of low noise RAW 5 minute exposures at ISO 400, and digital data is easily manipulated on a PC using a plethora of software options, some free, some not. ... There are several clones of the "original" low end amateur mount that allowed for reasonable success with light gear and moderate exposure times, ... The EQ-5/CG-5 Polar Scope sucks, the Vixen GP Polar Scope is AMAZING, if properly installed and calibrated to the mount. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Film SLR or Digital Camera?
    ... explore film based camera first and then move on to the digital ... with imaging, there is NO better solution out there to get you started. ... to let the scope settle. ... about the mount. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Meade DSI pro versus firewire webcam for planetary use?
    ... He does use a webcam, but I believe he has combined a ... luminance from his 16 bit camera with his webcam color components. ... It is his way of imaging with ... > the long focal lengths I tend to use for planet and lunar imaging, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)