Go Back   IceInSpace > Images > Deep Space
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 26-06-2007, 04:55 PM
JohnH's Avatar
JohnH
Member # 159

JohnH is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,226
Hmm, I guess that is aimed at me then, half baked, ignorant glib and facile...nice Bert, thanks!

While you are at the keyboard mate I STILL do not have a clue at to why you shot this wide open as opposed to down one stop...given the difficulty in getting such a wide shot in the first place and given you say tracking is not an issue etc....good as it was would this shot not have been even better taken at f4?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 26-06-2007, 05:26 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
No JohnH it is not aimed at any one. I am trying to get the faint nebulosity of Centauras A. Losing half my speed for nebulosity is not even a consideration to get tight stars that any lesser aperture can give me. I suppose I could collect star data and do some photoshop magic.

Sorry but this is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned.

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 26-06-2007, 11:21 PM
rat156's Avatar
rat156
Registered User

rat156 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,696
Hi Bert,

Quote:
It is very simple Humayan I don't like half baked assertions and or glib statements
So then you go on to make some...

Quote:
It tends to make me over react.
No kidding.

Quote:
You are one of the few that puts up images at high resolution. They are all very good.
Rational critique is always welcome. I know for a fact that to get pin point stars on a full frame sensor is difficult. I have modified all my optics to address this problem apart from the Canon 300mm F2.8L. If I want pinpoint stars with no nebulosity I will get myself an f/20 optic. It is about balance and compromises.
Now I see what you were on about, you wanted to get the nebulosity, in which case f ratio is the governing factor, the minor flaws in the image from optics were secondary.

Quote:
It would be a sad day if we all agreed all the time.
Agreed, no I meant disagree, I'll come in again...

Cheers
Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 27-06-2007, 06:26 AM
circumpolar's Avatar
circumpolar (Matt)
and around we go

circumpolar is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Quakers Hill, NSW
Posts: 426
Thats a great shot. I'm going to see how many fuzzies I can find and compare in Uranometria.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 28-06-2007, 05:59 PM
jjjnettie's Avatar
jjjnettie (Jeanette)
Registered User

jjjnettie is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Monto
Posts: 16,741
I like it. Lots.
It sets a standard to aim for.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-07-2007, 11:32 PM
skeltz's Avatar
skeltz (Rob)
Registered User

skeltz is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: sa
Posts: 355
OH bert did you ever get your twin stereo hubble???
my name is earl!![ thats karma mate}
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-07-2007, 11:41 PM
skeltz's Avatar
skeltz (Rob)
Registered User

skeltz is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: sa
Posts: 355
looks to me like your focus is not spot on to start with i am no expert or maybe it is your lense?maybe you need that twin hubble you were talking about???
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-07-2007, 05:12 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Sad Sad Sad

Bert
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Astrophotography Prize
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement