Pictures Of the Stars

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RacerX, Nov 29, 2003.

  1. RacerX

    RacerX Guest

    Ive seen some really nice pictures of the stars and moon and other such
    things, my question is how do i get pictures like these. Ive recently
    purchased a canon Digital Rebel 6.3 Mp SLR with a canon ef 80-200 4.5-5.6
    and an EFS 18-55 3.5-5.6. Is there a Telescope "preferably cheap i just
    spent all my money on the camera and lenses" that can hook up to the camera
    or however you do it, or do i just need one of the huge canon lenses?

    Thanks for any and all help

    Craig
    RacerX, Nov 29, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RacerX

    Jim Townsend Guest

    RacerX wrote:

    > Ive seen some really nice pictures of the stars and moon and other such
    > things, my question is how do i get pictures like these. Ive recently
    > purchased a canon Digital Rebel 6.3 Mp SLR with a canon ef 80-200 4.5-5.6
    > and an EFS 18-55 3.5-5.6. Is there a Telescope "preferably cheap i just
    > spent all my money on the camera and lenses" that can hook up to the camera
    > or however you do it, or do i just need one of the huge canon lenses?


    You should be able to get a shot of the moon showing a bit of the craters and
    mountains with your 200mm lens. It won't be astounding, but it should be
    recognizeable. Forget planets etc.

    You'll have to do it in manual mode.. The auto mode metering will see lots of
    black sky and figure the whole scene is very dark. This will cause the moon
    to be grossly overexposed. Try 1/125 @ about f/5.6 ISO 200.. This varies
    depending on how much of the moon is showing. Change your aperture or shutter
    speed up or down a bit until you get a bright shot that isn't overexposed.

    It costs *nothing* to take five or ten shots at slightly different settings
    then looking at the results to see what worked best. It's an excellent way to
    learn about this shutter speed and aperture stuff.

    For stars, you'll need a tripod. You can use a wider lens for this.

    Same deal.. Manual mode. About 1 or 2 seconds at f/5.8 (or lower). Extend
    the shutter time and aperture until you get the stars showing nicely. One
    note.. If you shoot too long, the stars will start to streak because they are
    moving. Although deliberately making the stars streak can add an interesting
    effect.

    Don't forget you can vary ISO as well. You will need a tripod to shoot stars.
    Jim Townsend, Nov 29, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RacerX

    Ray Fischer Guest

    RacerX <> wrote:
    >Ive seen some really nice pictures of the stars and moon and other such
    >things, my question is how do i get pictures like these. Ive recently
    >purchased a canon Digital Rebel 6.3 Mp SLR with a canon ef 80-200 4.5-5.6
    >and an EFS 18-55 3.5-5.6. Is there a Telescope "preferably cheap i just
    >spent all my money on the camera and lenses" that can hook up to the camera
    >or however you do it, or do i just need one of the huge canon lenses?


    There are lots of telescopes that you can attach the dRebel to. The
    weight of the camera and the ability of the scope to handle it is the
    biggest consideration. T-rings are readily available from places such
    as ...

    www.telescope.com

    Cheap? Well, telescopes are like cameras, except more so. Money
    gets you quality, and the cheap stuff is crap.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Nov 29, 2003
    #3
  4. Jim Townsend wrote:
    > You'll have to do it in manual mode.. The auto mode metering will see lots of
    > black sky and figure the whole scene is very dark. This will cause the moon
    > to be grossly overexposed. Try 1/125 @ about f/5.6 ISO 200.. This varies
    > depending on how much of the moon is showing. Change your aperture or shutter
    > speed up or down a bit until you get a bright shot that isn't overexposed.


    f5.6 will be too bright for the full moon. He should try f11 or f16.
    Remember this is a sunlit object.

    And if the camera has spot metering it can be pretty accurate in this
    situation. I have used spot mode for lunar eclipse photography and they
    came out pretty well.

    Of course you should always bracket.
    Andrew McDonald, Nov 29, 2003
    #4
  5. RacerX

    Guest

    In message <N%Rxb.18119$>,
    Andrew McDonald <> wrote:

    >f5.6 will be too bright for the full moon. He should try f11 or f16.
    >Remember this is a sunlit object.


    Remember also how much atmosphere the light has to pass through. The
    sunny-ISO-for-shutter-speed @ f16 rule is designed for close objects
    that lose almost nothing to the atmosphere. f16 will underexpose.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 29, 2003
    #5
  6. RacerX

    Ron Andrews Guest

    For the moon, the standard exposure is the lunar f/11 rule. This is
    like the sunny f/16 rule for sunlit terrestrial objects, but it recognizes
    that we are used to seeing the moon as something lighter than a medium gray.
    For ASA 200, set the shutter at 1/200 (1/250 is close enough) and the
    aperture at f/11. While you are at it, bracket up and down until you get
    something you like.
    For stars, you can take up to 30 second exposures before you see
    appreciable elongation of the stars from the earth's rotation. I you are
    shooting the big dipper you can go as long as 2 minutes. The longer the
    exposure, the more feint stars you will find. Orion is a favorite subject
    for this kind of picture taking because it is a bold and recognizable
    constellation, it has different color stars, and it as nebulas that will
    easily show up. Here is an example that was shot 2 years ago during the
    Leonid meteor shower (30 seconds, f/1.4, 800 speed film; yes, film still
    works):
    http://home.rochester.rr.com/andrewsfamily/images/2000s Pix/011118MeteorComp2W.jpg
    Here is the larger version of the same image:
    http://homepage.mac.com/randrews4/.Pictures/Misc/011118MeteorComp2.jpg
    Taking pictures through a telescope is very difficult for anything
    other than the moon or the sun (with an appropriate filter). You need a
    clock drive for exposures of several minutes. The exposures you see
    published by NASA are often exposed for several hours. This requires a very
    good clock drive and a telescope that is bigger than the one you are
    shooting the pictures through and attached to it. You look through the
    larger scope and make fine adjustments to keep the attached smaller scope on
    track.

    --
    Ron Andrews
    http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html
    "RacerX" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ive seen some really nice pictures of the stars and moon and other such
    > things, my question is how do i get pictures like these. Ive recently
    > purchased a canon Digital Rebel 6.3 Mp SLR with a canon ef 80-200

    4.5-5.6
    > and an EFS 18-55 3.5-5.6. Is there a Telescope "preferably cheap i just
    > spent all my money on the camera and lenses" that can hook up to the

    camera
    > or however you do it, or do i just need one of the huge canon lenses?
    >
    > Thanks for any and all help
    >
    > Craig
    >
    >
    Ron Andrews, Nov 29, 2003
    #6
  7. RacerX

    RacerX Guest

    RacerX, Nov 29, 2003
    #7
  8. RacerX

    cc Guest

    I also plan to get a telescope for some astrophotography. I'm looking at
    a Celestron 5 or 8 reflector with a motor drive and maybe some sort of
    fancy object database but that isn't absolutely necessary (and adds a
    lot to the price). Just a basic telescope, tripod, and motor drive is
    not too expensive, not more than a good quality lens for the camera
    (which the telescope would be in this case). If you want to photograph
    stars, clusters, and galaxies, etc. as opposed to mostly objects within
    the solar system (the moon, planets, etc.), you should get a refector
    and not a refractor to avoid chromatic aberration. Reflectors work well
    for planets and the moon too. Meade and other brands also make good
    reflectors but my experience is with Celestrons at school. With a motor
    drive you can expose for as long as you need to get a good image without
    worrying about the object tracking across the sky because it compensates
    for the rotation of the earth.

    I am curious about your first purchased product, the adapter. It looks
    like it is for one specific brand of telescope or is it for any brand of
    telescope?

    Good luck.
    cc, Nov 29, 2003
    #8
  9. RacerX

    gr Guest

    <> wrote
    >
    > >f5.6 will be too bright for the full moon. He should try f11 or f16.
    > >Remember this is a sunlit object.

    >
    > Remember also how much atmosphere the light has to pass through. The
    > sunny-ISO-for-shutter-speed @ f16 rule is designed for close objects
    > that lose almost nothing to the atmosphere. f16 will underexpose.


    Idiot alert. Buddy... here's some clues for you:

    1. The moon has no atmosphere.

    2. The light reflected from the moon passes through the same atmosphere of
    Earth as the sunlight reaching the "close objects" you talk about.
    gr, Nov 29, 2003
    #9
  10. "gr" <> wrote in message
    news:bqa8n6$208679$-berlin.de...
    > <> wrote
    > >



    >
    > Idiot alert. Buddy... here's some clues for you:
    >
    > 1. The moon has no atmosphere.
    >
    > 2. The light reflected from the moon passes through the same atmosphere of
    > Earth as the sunlight reaching the "close objects" you talk about.
    >
    >


    "Idiot alert" indeed...

    HMc
    Howard McCollister, Nov 29, 2003
    #10
  11. RacerX

    Jim Townsend Guest

    > Andrew McDonald <> wrote:
    >
    >>f5.6 will be too bright for the full moon. He should try f11 or f16.
    >>Remember this is a sunlit object.


    Yes.. (I don't know what I was thinking :)

    I just checked.. My last decent full moon pic was 1/250 @ f9.5 - ISO200

    http://www.pbase.com/image/22667090/original

    Of course when the moon is waxing or waning, there is less light..
    Jim Townsend, Nov 29, 2003
    #11
  12. RacerX

    Ron Andrews Guest

    "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Andrew McDonald <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>f5.6 will be too bright for the full moon. He should try f11 or f16.
    > >>Remember this is a sunlit object.

    >
    > Yes.. (I don't know what I was thinking :)
    >
    > I just checked.. My last decent full moon pic was 1/250 @ f9.5 - ISO200
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22667090/original
    >
    > Of course when the moon is waxing or waning, there is less light..
    >

    I've seen this contention often. You can find many exposure
    recommendations for shots of the moon that change with the phase of the
    moon. I don't buy it. Assuming the moon is a diffuse reflector, the sunlit
    part of a first quarter moon is just as bright as the sunlit part of a full
    moon. Sure there is less light, but it is a smaller image of equal
    brightness.
    This discussion is largely academic as anyone shooting the moon should
    bracket liberally.
    Ron Andrews, Nov 29, 2003
    #12
  13. RacerX

    Guest

    In message <bqa8n6$208679$-berlin.de>,
    "gr" <> wrote:

    ><> wrote
    >>
    >> >f5.6 will be too bright for the full moon. He should try f11 or f16.
    >> >Remember this is a sunlit object.

    >>
    >> Remember also how much atmosphere the light has to pass through. The
    >> sunny-ISO-for-shutter-speed @ f16 rule is designed for close objects
    >> that lose almost nothing to the atmosphere. f16 will underexpose.

    >
    >Idiot alert. Buddy... here's some clues for you:
    >
    >1. The moon has no atmosphere.


    I didn't say it did.

    >2. The light reflected from the moon passes through the same atmosphere of
    >Earth as the sunlight reaching the "close objects" you talk about.


    Yes, but of all the light that gets through the atmosphere directly from
    the sun, the part that lights the sky and makes it blue can still
    contribute to an object's overall brightness. The light from the moon
    that is diffused by the atmosphere does not contribute to the exposure
    of the moon; it simply brightens the night sky around it. See the
    difference?
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 29, 2003
    #13
  14. RacerX

    cc Guest

    Jim Townsend wrote:
    >>Andrew McDonald <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>f5.6 will be too bright for the full moon. He should try f11 or f16.
    >>>Remember this is a sunlit object.

    >>

    >
    > Yes.. (I don't know what I was thinking :)
    >
    > I just checked.. My last decent full moon pic was 1/250 @ f9.5 - ISO200
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/22667090/original
    >
    > Of course when the moon is waxing or waning, there is less light..
    >


    Less total light, but approximately the same surface brightness, which
    is what really counts when you consider how much light will reach any
    given pixel (or particle of emulsion). Typically one would open the
    aperture all the way for astronomical shots and adjust only the exposure
    time, since the concept of depth of field is moot (everything's at
    infinity), but I guess for something as bright as the moon you have the
    option of using only the middle of the lens which is better optically.
    Otherwise, even with a motor drive there is still the factor of the
    earth's motion to consider (not to mention vibration etc.) so you want
    to keep the exposure as short as possible.
    cc, Nov 29, 2003
    #14
  15. RacerX

    Kin Lau Guest

    Ron Andrews wrote:
    > "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    >>Of course when the moon is waxing or waning, there is less light..

    >
    > I've seen this contention often. You can find many exposure
    > recommendations for shots of the moon that change with the phase of the
    > moon. I don't buy it. Assuming the moon is a diffuse reflector, the sunlit
    > part of a first quarter moon is just as bright as the sunlit part of a full
    > moon. Sure there is less light, but it is a smaller image of equal
    > brightness.


    It's makes sense because the moon is not flat, but a sphere. Think of
    taking a frontlit vs sidelit picture of any spherical object.
    Kin Lau, Nov 29, 2003
    #15
  16. RacerX

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <>, cc <> writes:

    >Typically one would open the
    >aperture all the way for astronomical shots



    It generally is a good idea to stop the camera lens
    down one from wide open for widefield astro shots.
    Almost all lens's have optical problems that will show
    at the edge of the FOV.
























    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
    Azzz1588, Nov 29, 2003
    #16
  17. RacerX

    gr Guest

    <> wrote
    > >2. The light reflected from the moon passes through the same atmosphere

    of
    > >Earth as the sunlight reaching the "close objects" you talk about.

    >
    > Yes, but of all the light that gets through the atmosphere directly from
    > the sun, the part that lights the sky and makes it blue can still
    > contribute to an object's overall brightness. The light from the moon
    > that is diffused by the atmosphere does not contribute to the exposure
    > of the moon; it simply brightens the night sky around it. See the
    > difference?


    Don't be ridiculous. The scattering of sunlight in the atmosphere
    contributes to just as much "extra light" lost to space as it does to ground
    illumination.

    There's absolutely no difference between a full-moon exposure and an
    exposure of pavement on Earth.

    There is a difference if the moon is not full, as someone incorrectly
    pointed out. A "half moon" is about a tenth as bright as the full moon,
    spread across an area half as big. So you'll need a couple of extra stops
    exposure if you're shooting a crescent.
    gr, Nov 29, 2003
    #17
  18. RacerX

    Ron Andrews Guest

    "Kin Lau" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ron Andrews wrote:
    > > "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    > >>Of course when the moon is waxing or waning, there is less light..

    > >
    > > I've seen this contention often. You can find many exposure
    > > recommendations for shots of the moon that change with the phase of the
    > > moon. I don't buy it. Assuming the moon is a diffuse reflector, the

    sunlit
    > > part of a first quarter moon is just as bright as the sunlit part of a

    full
    > > moon. Sure there is less light, but it is a smaller image of equal
    > > brightness.

    >
    > It's makes sense because the moon is not flat, but a sphere. Think of
    > taking a frontlit vs sidelit picture of any spherical object.
    >

    But if the moon is a diffuse reflector, then the angle of viewing
    doesn't make a difference. The angle of illumination will make some
    difference when you get to the extremes with a slim crescent. For a quarter
    moon, this is insignificant.
    Ron Andrews, Nov 29, 2003
    #18
  19. I tuned in late, but a complete astrophotography exposure guide (in
    software) can be found at:
    www.covingtoninnovations.com/astro/astrosoft.html

    You are correct that the full moon is simply a sunlit landscape and requires
    the same exposure as a typical sunlit landscape.

    Digital cameras (with known ISO equivalents) work just like film cameras in
    this regard.

    However, digital cameras are very different from film when long exposures
    are involved. Astronomers use special cooled CCDs to take exposures of many
    minutes. Digital cameras usually max out at a few seconds -- depending on
    the noise level -- which depends on the temperature. Dark frame subtraction
    ("noise reduction") helps but isn't a complete cure.

    Enjoy the sky!

    --
    Clear skies,

    Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
    Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 29, 2003
    #19
  20. RacerX

    Kin Lau Guest

    Ron Andrews wrote:
    > "Kin Lau" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>It's makes sense because the moon is not flat, but a sphere. Think of
    >>taking a frontlit vs sidelit picture of any spherical object.

    >
    > But if the moon is a diffuse reflector, then the angle of viewing
    > doesn't make a difference. The angle of illumination will make some
    > difference when you get to the extremes with a slim crescent. For a quarter
    > moon, this is insignificant.


    The angle of illumination makes _enough_ of a difference. I look at my
    shots of a gibbous moon, and I can see quite a difference from one side
    to another. Here's a link to a nice gibbous moon shot (not mine),
    http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/7-10daymoons.jpg
    and one of a series of quarter moons
    http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/4moons.jpg
    and here's the link to the full page
    http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/moon.tn.html .

    Load up the jpg's in your favourite editor, and play with the brightness
    level, and see how much of a difference there is in illumination across
    the shot. If you don't want to lose the detail, then you have to
    compensate.
    Kin Lau, Nov 30, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Aaron Rinehart

    cisco stars needed

    Aaron Rinehart, Mar 14, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    407
    Aaron Rinehart
    Mar 15, 2005
  2. Alex Alternator

    Stars with a D100

    Alex Alternator, Aug 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    691
  3. Andrew

    EOS 300 / REBEL BULB Remote Capture of Stars

    Andrew, Oct 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    499
    Ethan Trewhitt
    Oct 15, 2003
  4. Juan R. Pollo

    15-sec exposures of night sky yields too many stars?

    Juan R. Pollo, Dec 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    596
    Juan R. Pollo
    Dec 4, 2003
  5. Mike Shea

    Review of "Equilibrium", 4 of 5 stars

    Mike Shea, Oct 16, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    458
    Mike Shea
    Oct 16, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page