If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
night photograph with a RB67
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
night photograph with a RB67
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
night photograph with a RB67
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
night photograph with a RB67
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
night photograph with a RB67
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
night photograph with a RB67
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
night photograph with a RB67
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
night photograph with a RB67
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
night photograph with a RB67
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How much image manipulation is too much? | Rich | Digital Photography | 26 | March 19th 06 08:52 AM |
how "quiet" are DSLR's for night photography? | Scott Speck | Digital SLR Cameras | 15 | February 4th 06 08:19 AM |
How to Take Better Night Photos | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Digital Photography | 4 | January 11th 06 03:02 AM |
Nikon 5700 night shots | Lowryter | Digital Photography | 2 | September 20th 04 02:12 AM |
RB67 for Mamiya 7/7II | Matt Clara | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 17 | July 6th 04 03:23 AM |