Re: Photos of Constellations?

pausch@xxxxxxx (Paul Schlyter) wrote in news:dg5s0m$2780$1
@merope.saaf.se:

> resolve the star cluster M44 into individual stars.

Is this the next largest Messier object after Andromeda?

> If you live in the suburbs of a brightly lit city, the exposure time
> must of course be shorter or else the film will be "fogged" (i.e.
> the image will be bright all over due to light pollution). Perhaps
> some 2-5 seconds of exposure would be possible there -- of course
> this will show much fewer stars.

Does this means I should use a telephoto lens with a focal length
proportionately longer to compensate for the fact that the exposure time
is proportionately shorter, using the inverse scaling of exposure time
vs. focal length that you mentioned?

> So the next time you get out somewhere under a dark sky,

That'll be the day, since I'm NEVER under a dark sky. I guess I've got
to join the local astronomy club, and they'll know where to go for dark
viewing, convenient to the city.

> bring a
> camera with "B" exposure, a tripod, and preferably a cable release,
> to take some test shots. It's easy, and it's fun! And you don't
> need a clock drive for short enough exposures. Try exposure times
> of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 seconds to find out how much visibility
> of the star trails you tolerate.

I've actually been wanting to break into astrophotography for a couple
of years, but I put it on hold after I got into a whole bunch of major
hassles at the very start. It never occurred to me that photographing
simple constellations would be a better intro than trying to gimmick my
camera onto a telescope. Silly me.
.