So, anyone get any decent pix of the eclipse tonight?

Let's see 'em :^)

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

Try alt.binaries.pictures.astro

Bob

On Mar 3, 10:47 pm, Ken Lucke wrote:
Let's see 'em :^)

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

Not of the eclipse per se, but I did take this of my house out in the
full moonlight just an hour ago, since it was so bright. The red
colors in the windows is from little LED nightlights plugged in all
over the house.

http://i15.tinypic.com/344pkt3.jpg

Dean
30s, Nikon 17-55mm @ 20mm, D2Hs, ISO 320.

Ken Lucke wrote:
Let's see 'em :^)

This is with my Panasonic FZ5. Focus isn't perfect. 1/2s, ISO 100,
tripod. Be aware that the moon image is on the right-hand side of the
picture - be sure to scroll across.

http://david-taylor.110mb.com/2007-03-03-2240-17-c.jpg

Cheers,
David

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:32:22 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
Let's see 'em :^)

This is with my Panasonic FZ5. Focus isn't perfect. 1/2s, ISO 100,
tripod. Be aware that the moon image is on the right-hand side of the
picture - be sure to scroll across.

http://david-taylor.110mb.com/2007-03-03-2240-17-c.jpg

Nice. I was hoping to get something like that, showing the
reddish tint but the cloud cover was too dense. I assume that those
stars were stars and not hot pixels. g I did take several shots
some hours later, but kept a higher 200 ISO from the earlier attempt
that didn't pan out (no tripod, long story). Even with a fast
shutter speed (1/2000 sec.) the results were pretty poor so I
returned for a tripod and the results were *much* better, although
as with your shot, not the best focus. Or maybe the focus was ok,
but the missing detail was the result of less than stellar (p.a.)
local atmospheric conditions. I uploaded it, but I'm going to have
to look for another host. Webshots makes the shots more difficult
to download than when I visited them last year, and while it shows
some of the EXIF data, this shot was 70kb when uploaded, but was
reduced to 24kb when downloaded, and had its EXIF data stripped.

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo...71049595LFesiw

David J Taylor wrote:
Ken Lucke wrote:
Let's see 'em :^)

This is with my Panasonic FZ5. Focus isn't perfect. 1/2s, ISO 100,
tripod. Be aware that the moon image is on the right-hand side of the
picture - be sure to scroll across.

http://david-taylor.110mb.com/2007-03-03-2240-17-c.jpg


Wait a second, what angle did you take that at? Was the sun directly
overhead?

Ken Lucke wrote:

Let's see 'em :^)

This is the best I could do. Taken with a Meade ETX-125 scope and a D200
with T-mount. I couldn't get the telescope to stop moving.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/956734#133519638

My previous photo of the non-eclipse moon is a lot more detailed. In
both cases, I think a 90 would've worked better than a 125.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/956734#43982320

In message , Ken Lucke
writes

[ lunar eclipse]
Let's see 'em :^)

Shot with an older Fuji Finepic F602Z at maximum zoom, on a tripod, at
full aperture with no extra optics such as a telescope. I used the
2-second shutter release timer to reduce camera shake. I've (obviously)
cropped out the interesting bits from much larger images.

http://www.antipope.org/~nojay/eclipse/DSCF0010.jpg

Near the start of the eclipse, F/10 at (I think) about 1/125s, ISO200.

http://www.antipope.org/~nojay/eclipse/DSCF0053.jpg

About half-way towards totality. This one was at 1/60s.

http://www.antipope.org/~nojay/eclipse/DSCF0084.jpg

close to totality. A longer exposure of six seconds at ISO160 showing
the reddish cast caused by Earthlight.

http://www.antipope.org/~nojay/eclipse/DSCF0100.jpg

Almost there. 4 seconds at ISO400.

All shot in Edinburgh -- the earlier pictures suffered from
intermittent thin cloud cover but as the night progressed that cleared
away. Focussing sharply on the Moon was a pain, even on manual as the
image in the viewfinder was tiny. The timestamps are from the EXIF data
and are not exact, but good to a few minutes.

Not great images, but not bad for an out-of-the-box older prosumer
non-DSLR camera. Next time I try something like this I'll use a
telescope and see if it comes out better.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon

ASAAR wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:32:22 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
Let's see 'em :^)

This is with my Panasonic FZ5. Focus isn't perfect. 1/2s, ISO 100,
tripod. Be aware that the moon image is on the right-hand side of
the picture - be sure to scroll across.

http://david-taylor.110mb.com/2007-03-03-2240-17-c.jpg

Nice. I was hoping to get something like that, showing the
reddish tint but the cloud cover was too dense. I assume that those
stars were stars and not hot pixels. g I did take several shots
some hours later, but kept a higher 200 ISO from the earlier attempt
that didn't pan out (no tripod, long story). Even with a fast
shutter speed (1/2000 sec.) the results were pretty poor so I
returned for a tripod and the results were *much* better, although
as with your shot, not the best focus. Or maybe the focus was ok,
but the missing detail was the result of less than stellar (p.a.)
local atmospheric conditions. I uploaded it, but I'm going to have
to look for another host. Webshots makes the shots more difficult
to download than when I visited them last year, and while it shows
some of the EXIF data, this shot was 70kb when uploaded, but was
reduced to 24kb when downloaded, and had its EXIF data stripped.

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo...71049595LFesiw

We were very lucky in Edinburgh - best seeing conditions for a long time.
The picture was taken from the house - it would have been even more
spectacular in the dark of the countryside. Yes, they are (slightly out
of focus) stars, and not hot pixels. I had wondered myself, but it agreed
with binoculars and was not the same pixel from shot to shot.

Sorry the weather didn't help you.

Cheers,
David

Cynicor wrote:
Ken Lucke wrote:

Let's see 'em :^)

This is the best I could do. Taken with a Meade ETX-125 scope and a
D200 with T-mount. I couldn't get the telescope to stop moving.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/956734#133519638

My previous photo of the non-eclipse moon is a lot more detailed. In
both cases, I think a 90 would've worked better than a 125.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/956734#43982320

My previous attempts are he

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/imaging/moon.htm

Cheers,
David