night photograph with a RB67

I want to take advantage of the upcoming planet Mars closeness to Earth. Do
you have any suggestions of time and or stop settings? Mars is to be as big
as a full moon. growing larger each night through the end of August. I've
not tried long exposures with the RB before.

Thanks

"Jim Waggener" wrote:
I want to take advantage of the upcoming planet Mars closeness to Earth.

The term you need is "opposition". Two planets are closest to each other
when the sun and the outer one are on opposite sides of the inner one. It'll
help with Googling.

Do you have any suggestions of time and or stop settings? Mars is to be as
big as a full moon. growing larger each night through the end of August.
I've not tried long exposures with the RB before.

Uh, did you completely misunderstand something you read? Mars at it's
largest will appear about two orders of magnitude smaller than the moon, and
the next opposition isn't until December 2007.

Try using google to find articles on Mars and "opposition".

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

There is a 'large mars' hoax making the rounds on the web.

See:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...l_marshoax.htm

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Jim Waggener" wrote:

I want to take advantage of the upcoming planet Mars closeness to Earth.


The term you need is "opposition". Two planets are closest to each other
when the sun and the outer one are on opposite sides of the inner one. It'll
help with Googling.


Do you have any suggestions of time and or stop settings? Mars is to be as
big as a full moon. growing larger each night through the end of August.
I've not tried long exposures with the RB before.


Uh, did you completely misunderstand something you read? Mars at it's
largest will appear about two orders of magnitude smaller than the moon, and
the next opposition isn't until December 2007.

Try using google to find articles on Mars and "opposition".

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Jim Waggener wrote:
yup, complete BS on the Mars thing. However night stuff with a
RB67...where do I start?

With a tripod...

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Jim:

First, forget about Mars. It's just setting at sunset right now and
isn't even in the night sky. Won't be back around for another six
months or so, and then it'll be in the sky just before sunrise. Also,
that story you read is media hype, totally bogus. Even in the best of
telescopes it will never be as large as the full moon.

If you want to try night sky photography with your RB67 (I also have a
couple of them), you will need a telescope (or at least its mount) that
is able to track, that is it needs to be equatorially mounted and
driven with a motor drive to follow the stars. The reason for this is
that in order to expose the film enough to record all but the very
brightest sky objects, the exposure needs to be from several minutes to
over an hour. You also need some method for correcting the driven
mount, for even the slightest deviation in the drive, either from the
mount not being properly aligned or from an effect known as periodic
error, or you will smear your photograph. Will have the same effect as
you movong your camera during an exposure.

I have been able to take some images with meduim format, using a 400
speed film, and with a 90mm lens, about a half-hour (30 minute)
exposure gave pleasant results on the areas of the sky containing the
Milky Way (fairly bright by astronomical standards). This yields
large-field images, but individual obejcts, like planets, galaxies, and
nebulae, appear very small on the film.

Hooking an RB67 up to a telescope is possible, but I wouldn't recommend
it. Not the proper format for astrophotopgraphy through a telescope.

Best of luck.

Brian



Jim Waggener wrote:
I want to take advantage of the upcoming planet Mars closeness to Earth. Do
you have any suggestions of time and or stop settings? Mars is to be as big
as a full moon. growing larger each night through the end of August. I've
not tried long exposures with the RB before.

Thanks

Roger I. McMillan wrote:

There is a 'large mars' hoax making the rounds on the web.


Kingsize?

Anyway, with MF are there any lenses long enough to get a decent sized image
on film?


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant wrote:
Roger I. McMillan wrote:

There is a 'large mars' hoax making the rounds on the web.


Kingsize?

Anyway, with MF are there any lenses long enough to get a decent sized image
on film?

No. I got some decent images of Mars at the 2003 opposition
with a web camera (compare the image scale with 120 film)
and a focal length of 3 *meters*. I could have used more,
but my telescope mount wasn't up to the task.

The "hoax" is an idiotic chain-letter that describes some
aspects of the 2003 opposition, then embellishes various details.

Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "That's a totally illegal,
Grid: CN89mg madcap scheme. I like it!"
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - H. Pearce

Jim Waggener wrote:
you have any suggestions of time and or stop settings? Mars is to be as big
as a full moon. growing larger each night through the end of August. I've
not tried long exposures with the RB before.

Whoa! 'scuse me? What planet are you observing Mars from? How could it
be as big as a full moon on Earth? Either the Earth's orbit changed and
we run the risk of slamming into Mars or Mars has become a huge giant.

All kidding aside, you might want to grab some high speed film and a
locking cable release, find a dark area and try shooting some pix. If
you don't have a guided mount then you'll probably have some star
streaks. I remember there was an article in a photo magazine years ago
from a guy who gave all the maximum times for certain focal lengths
where you won't get star streaks when taking pictures of stars. I'm
sure you can find it at the library. It might have been in Peterson's
Photographics and was sometime in the late 1980's, early 1990s.

nathantw wrote:


streaks. I remember there was an article in a photo magazine years ago
from a guy who gave all the maximum times for certain focal lengths
where you won't get star streaks when taking pictures of stars. I'm
sure you can find it at the library. It might have been in Peterson's
Photographics and was sometime in the late 1980's, early 1990s.

It should be possible to calculate them youself.


--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant wrote:
nathantw wrote:

streaks. I remember there was an article in a photo magazine years ago
from a guy who gave all the maximum times for certain focal lengths
where you won't get star streaks when taking pictures of stars. I'm
sure you can find it at the library. It might have been in Peterson's
Photographics and was sometime in the late 1980's, early 1990s.

It should be possible to calculate them youself.

While you can indeed calculate such things, the very
best way is to load some film, point your camera at the
stars, and see what you get. Typical exposure for a
normal lens (90mm for 6x7 format) will be 20 to 30
seconds at the celestial equator. You can go longer
toward the poles. Use normal or wide angle lenses.
Bracket, bracket, bracket.

Use fast film. 800 is good, or 400 pushed to 800 or
1600. With such short exposures it's not going to
make all that much difference what kind of film you
use. Only when you expose for more than a minute
or two will it start to matter.

With medium format I've taken pictures of stars with
a Pentax 67 (perfect, naturally), a Pentacon Six TL
(good if stopped down a stop) and a Moskva 2 (for
the hell of it, but not bad, actually).

It's you don't your own processing, advise the people
who process the film what the film contains, and shoot
a daytime picture at the beginning of the roll to show
where the frames are. A sample from a magazine like
Sky and Telescope or Astronomy to show them what
the pictures are supposed to look like can be helpful.

Try a web search for "fixed tripod astrophotography".
It's a great time of year for astrophotography, with the
Milky Way overhead in the evening...

Yes: I do this stuff. It can be addictive.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "That's a totally illegal,
Grid: CN89mg madcap scheme. I like it!"
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - H. Pearce