Astrophotography. . NO. Sketching? YES!
melcrose
exposures with what seemed to be PERFECTLY tracked stars. I took no small
amount of offence when the photo lab didn't even count them as "pictures" .
:)
All you could see was squiggly star trails and . . nothing. :(
SOOOOoooo.. I thought about sketching. BUT, sorry.. HATED IT. GIVE ME A
BREAK! The sketches, even in the hands of an "artiste" look. . . WRONG imho.
BUT, what the heck. Tried some practice ones off pictures off the net, and
it looked good, but of course WRONG due to the fact that everything was
inverted. (black stars on white background..) SO, took a snapshot of my work
with my digi-cam, dumped it into photoshop, and clicked "invert".
WHOOAAAA BAYBEEEE! White stars on a Black background! That just looks SWEET.
I'm hooked. :)
Preston Justis
go for it. Build a web page (like I'm doing) and share your
work with all of us :).
Good Luck,
Scott
melcrose wrote in message <7o893t$32d$1...@ins22.netins.net>...
Matthew Ota
melcrose wrote:
> Well, dumped it into photoshop, and clicked "invert".
> WHOOAAAA BAYBEEEE! White stars on a Black background! That just looks SWEET.
> I'm hooked. :)
Doncha just love what PhotoShop can do? I like the filters. Fun to play with. I
use it professionally and for astrophotograhy too.
Torcoclown
>inverted. (black stars on white background..)
Have you thought about using using black paper or illustration board and white
inks or even liquid paper? White on black isn't as nice and easy as black on
white but you might want to experiment. Or how 'bout those metallic colored
markers in silver and gold.
Margaret
tim harincar
and can be handled more subtly, while with on black is obviously more
natural.
I have a web site of 800+ drawings done by Jere Kahanpää. His originals were
all black on white, I ran conversions for WonB versions. You can flip back
and forth between the two. Some images the object disappears completely (of
course I could bring it back with controls in PS, but that's a lot of work
and possibly not quite natural any longer). Other images look amazingly real
(look at NGC104, for example).
http://www.skyrover.net/ds - Impressions of the Deep Sky
Thanks,
Tim
---
tim harincar
<remove spoiler for email>
http://www.skyrover.net/ Don't just observe, explore!
melcrose <melc...@ptcnet.net> wrote in message
news:7o893t$32d$1...@ins22.netins.net...
> Well, I gave my 8" the chance to shine with Astrophotography. Nice long
> exposures with what seemed to be PERFECTLY tracked stars. I took no small
> amount of offence when the photo lab didn't even count them as "pictures"
.
> :)
> All you could see was squiggly star trails and . . nothing. :(
> SOOOOoooo.. I thought about sketching. BUT, sorry.. HATED IT. GIVE ME A
> BREAK! The sketches, even in the hands of an "artiste" look. . . WRONG
imho.
> BUT, what the heck. Tried some practice ones off pictures off the net, and
> it looked good, but of course WRONG due to the fact that everything was
> inverted. (black stars on white background..) SO, took a snapshot of my
work
> with my digi-cam, dumped it into photoshop, and clicked "invert".
JosephB41
>white
>inks or even liquid paper?
If anyone wants to try eyepiece sketches that are white on black, I would
advise using a good black pastel paper (there's a brand called Mi-Tientes or
something like that which I like). For media, try Prismacolor pencils for fine
details and pastels in the white-grey range for nebulosity.
Joe Bergeron (JABer...@aol.com)
Rich N.
Just a question. Unless you are looking for something new
like super nova in other galaxies, what is the point of taking
photos of things that have been imaged many, many times before?
It isn't the same as taking a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge
where you can change the angle or the lighting.
Rich
melcrose wrote in message <7o893t$32d$1...@ins22.netins.net>...
Rich N.
I can see taking photos of events like an eclipse or
of changing objects like the Sun and planets. I do
see the challenge of making a good astrophoto. But
this is just a technical challenge.
I enjoy photography but I find taking photos of most
astronomical objects a cold technical thing. Zero in
anything creative. You are stuck on Earth. Everything
is at virtual infinity. The photos from the great observatories
are much better than an amateur can take. What's the point?
Duh, look Ma I took a picture.
Rich
Charles Rosenblatt wrote in message <37A89CD3...@po.cwru.edu>...
>Back in February, 1979 I flew to Seattle to chase a solar eclipe. I got up
at 2 AM, drove for 4½ hours with a friend over the Cascade Mountains and
down to the Columbia River -- all for a 2 minute show. Using a 400 mm
telephoto lens on my 35mm camera, I snapped a dozen pictures, the best of
which is still prominently displayed in my living room twenty years later.
Despite the fact that the Seattle newspapers carried better shots of the
eclipse on their front pages the very next day, I prefer MY
picture....simply because I was there and I took the picture. I've also
photographed the Taj Mahal, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Eiffel Tower, and
other famous (and not so famous) sites, despite the availability of much
better photos on the web. People take pictures for the challenge (and
getting to the Taj was a challenge!!) and for the memories. Besides, I
can't draw if my life depended on it.
>CR
>
>"Rich N." wrote:
>
> Just a question. Unless you are looking for something new
> like super nova in other galaxies, what is the point of taking
> photos of things that have been imaged many, many times before?
> It isn't the same as taking a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge
> where you can change the angle or the lighting.
>
> Rich
>
> melcrose wrote in message <7o893t$32d$1...@ins22.netins.net>...
> >Well, I gave my 8" the chance to shine with Astrophotography. Nice
long
> >exposures with what seemed to be PERFECTLY tracked stars. I took no
small
> >amount of offence when the photo lab didn't even count them as
"pictures" .
> >:)
> >All you could see was squiggly star trails and . . nothing.
> >SOOOOoooo.. I thought about sketching. BUT, sorry.. HATED IT. GIVE ME
Robert OLeary
--
Bob O`Leary Lincoln MT wea...@linctel.net
Suzanne & Larry McHenry
tim harincar wrote:
> I have a web site of 800+ drawings done by Jere Kahanpää. His originals were
> all black on white, I ran conversions for WonB versions. You can flip back
> and forth between the two. Some images the object disappears completely (of
> course I could bring it back with controls in PS, but that's a lot of work
> and possibly not quite natural any longer). Other images look amazingly real
> (look at NGC104, for example).
>
> http://www.skyrover.net/ds - Impressions of the Deep Sky
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
Hi Tim,
Really nice web site!
Larry
Rich N.
ddd wrote in message <37b9af9a...@news.texas.net>...
>On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:52:55 -0700, "Rich N." <rnapo*mirror*@znet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Just a question. Unless you are looking for something new
>>like super nova in other galaxies, what is the point of taking
>>photos of things that have been imaged many, many times before?
>
>that can do it better, and anything that you do has been done billions
>of times before.
Your sex analogy is simply not valid.
You can easily purchase excellent photos of virtually any DSO
that you as an amateur can image.
>
>For that matter, why look at the sky? That's even more useless.
>At least with a photograph you can hang it on the wall.
Ok I agree. Why look at DSOs? They look the same all the time. ;-)
Maybe that is why I am much more interested in lunar and planetary
observing.
Yes, don't waste your money on film, CCDs, etc. You can buy a photo
and hang it on your wall.
Rich
>
>Gene Horr
>trarubee ng fjoryy qbg arg
>
>ROT13 to reply
Rich N.
you go to find pictures of them?
Rich
Robert OLeary wrote in message ...
Rich N.
if you like doing it. I certainly enjoy looking at the photos.
Rich
Rich N. wrote in message ...
Wayne
simply don't understand. Yes it's true that you can probably buy better astro
photos than you will ever be able to take yourself but where's the challenge in
that.
I have a picture of comet Hale-Bopp that I took. I just stuck my camera on a
tripod and took a 10 second exposure. It's probably the worst picture of that
comet that I have ever seen but it's my picture so I like it the best.
There is a certain amount of self satisfaction that comes when you do some thing
your self and it turns out right that you just won't get when you just go out
and buy it. I have built several peices of furniture, nothing fancy mind you, a
shaker table and an adarondack chair and a few other things. I could have bought
ones just as good or better at a store but I would never feel that same little
bit of pride towards them as the ones I built myself.
Yeah, you can buy better deep sky photos than ones that you take your self but
it's just not the same.
"Rich N." wrote:
> Just a question. Unless you are looking for something new
> like super nova in other galaxies, what is the point of taking
> photos of things that have been imaged many, many times before?
>
> It isn't the same as taking a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge
> where you can change the angle or the lighting.
>
> Rich
>
> melcrose wrote in message <7o893t$32d$1...@ins22.netins.net>...
> >Well, I gave my 8" the chance to shine with Astrophotography. Nice long
> >exposures with what seemed to be PERFECTLY tracked stars. I took no small
> >amount of offence when the photo lab didn't even count them as "pictures" .
> >:)
> >All you could see was squiggly star trails and . . nothing. :(
> >SOOOOoooo.. I thought about sketching. BUT, sorry.. HATED IT. GIVE ME A
> >BREAK! The sketches, even in the hands of an "artiste" look. . . WRONG
> imho.
> >BUT, what the heck. Tried some practice ones off pictures off the net, and
> >it looked good, but of course WRONG due to the fact that everything was
> >inverted. (black stars on white background..) SO, took a snapshot of my
> work
> >with my digi-cam, dumped it into photoshop, and clicked "invert".
> >WHOOAAAA BAYBEEEE! White stars on a Black background! That just looks
> SWEET.
> >I'm hooked. :)
> >
> >
> >
--
Wayne
http://members.xoom.com/wlfrench/hcas/hcas.html
http://members.xoom.com/wlfrench/
JosephB41
what little I've done is the increased feeling of reality it lends to the
targets I shoot. Sure, I've seen them all visually, but to photograph it
myself, and see the spiral of M51 in unambiguous terms, and see that nebulae
really do photograph in shades of red, and that the objects really look like
perfect miniatures of the great observatory photos, is rather startling. To me
anyway.