Hello!

I don't have any scope, binoculars or huge camera lenses, not even a tripod. Just a simple Canon A510 with the standard 4* zoomlens (5.8-23.2 mm; 1:2.6-5.5 (whatever that is )

Anyway, I tried a bit what was possible with it. Skies were not optimal tonight as there were some clouds and haze. But as it was the first more or less clear night with a window view on the moon, I gave it a go.

I have tried countless parameters (didn't bother to note them down as I was just playing around) and chose 2 which I gave some more attention in paintshop afterwards.

I made 2 collections:

------------------------------------------------------------------
original - B&W - contrast, lightness, clarity enhanced (custom for each example)


digital zoomed version with further contrast/lightness/clarity enhancements (custom for each example)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

("clarity" is a combination of effects in paintshop, of which the strength can be set).
All images are made from the hand, as I don't have a tripod or something that could take over that job .





As can be seen, the original of #2 has more realistic colors. #1 apparently had better contrast though, which makes the edited versions much more interesting. Some craters can be seen in the enhanced versions, while #2 mainly is mares + jpeg .

Anyway, I'm not an astronomist nor a good photographer. There must be better parameter settings than those I tried (one of the good ones wa ISO 50, F8.0 an t 1/60; I mainly played with t between 1/20 and 1/400, where max contrast was the goal). But I wanted to share the results of me fooling around with you.

Hey, at least there are some craters to be seen

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Sin and syntax, eh? So a moon is what you get?

They're not bad for "fooling around." Better than my moon-zap picture some time ago, which looked like a drunk person took it.

Thanks for sharing. What does it take to get a star?

(Kidding, couldn't resist pointing out that syntax error.)

__________________
Sunset

Die Sonne scheidet hinter dem Gebirge. In alle Täler steigt der Abend nieder
mit seinen Schatten, die voll Kühlung sind.

I had to read it three times to see exatly why I wrote that down!

I'll remove the dubious words .

The first set is the best result out of 30 pics . There was a serious halo, but due to the settings that was not "caught on tape". I had pics with the halo, but these overexposed the moon surface.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Even though that remark was not too serious, I tried to see whether I could capture stars.

I used the extremes in exposure as far as I understand cameras:

ISO 50, exposure time 15 seconds (I still don't have a tripod!!) and F = 2.6 (lowest possible).

The conditions were far from optimal: it was bit cloudy and we've got loads of city lights. There was one visible star from my location. That's right: one. 1. Uno. It was too faint to see through the viewfinder, so I just had to guess my aim.

Anyway after going through some settings and ways of taking the pic, I finally found a way to capture the star well. In fact the camera turned out to be a "valuable" astronomy tool, as the picture shows more stars than the eye can see .

Of course there is some minor movement of the camera over those 15 seconds. I think any shot taken without tripod and remote triggering would have some movements over 15 seconds .

Anyway here's the raw data (it is the middle of the night here, that colour the exposure effect!). The one star I could see is the bright one on the top, a bit left of the middle. Don't shoot me if it turns out to be a planet (or galaxy? though I thought those weren' t too bright?) instead of a star; I'm not an astronomer!

I also tried to enhance the picture.

raw data pic (<500kb)


That's at least 15 stars in that pic . We tend to suffer from light pollution overhere...

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I made another set of moon pics from the previous raw data. I especially like the 100% and 200% enhanced versions.

In this one, you do see some halo in the original pic.




Even a standard digicam in terrible conditions can do *some* astrophotography

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Lol, of course I wasn't too serious.
Yeah, you need a tripod. I really don't know digital cameras, but you should get a nifty little notebook and write down the different settings you expiriment with. Try 1/30 on the full moon. I've been starting to look at digicams--what's with the f2.6 being the lowest? Does your camera have an image stabilizer?
Speaking of your neck of the woods, there's a film, "Dutch Light," directed by Pieter-Rim de Kroon that's part of the upcoming environmental film festival at my museum; it deals with the light quality in Holland. Your picture blinded me!
Funny how aperture works that way.
Tripod. Ask the digipeople here. I think you'd have to buy a more sophisticated camera though.
Don't we all! But what's the deal with THAT brightness??

I like your little moons...the sepia colored one. Good going, Nicolas.

Check out these star photos I found the other day. There's one titled "Lone Tree," which is very striking when you enlarge it. Of course the guy has right click access...

__________________
Sunset

Die Sonne scheidet hinter dem Gebirge. In alle Täler steigt der Abend nieder
mit seinen Schatten, die voll Kühlung sind.

A tripod would be a help, but if I'd really want to do astrophotography, I'd need a decent camera and lenses indeed .
(well, this is not a bad camera for regular pics, but it ain't an National Geographic tool nor an astrophotography tool without further aids like a telescope and the like ).

I'm just checking the limits of the camera (and me as a photographer!). I don't think there is image stabilisation available in the camera.

I'll try 1/30 for the full moon tonight if the clouds go away (and preferably if there is a short but total power outage )

What ISO and f settings should I use with that 1/30 time?

Or more general, what are the optimal settings to photograph the moon in a light pollution setting?

I don't think digital zoom inside the camera will do any better than doing it afterwards in painshop, correct?

btw that sepia color is the freebee of light pollution and air pollution... it does not look that colored in real life here, so we're not even enjoying that freebee of the problems that trigger the color...The camera also tends to make dim outside lights more yellow than they appear to the eye in some cases, I don't know the reason. On other occasions, it is just as white as in real life, or even whiter. Should I manually calculate the white balance to get that perfect? Anyway, for the moon it is just as easy to go to b&w afterwards. Or would setting b&w in the camera give better results? I think that's an effect that's done after the picture is taken anyway, so it wouldn't really matter I think.

I had good fun making the photographs! If the stars picture blinded you, the original on (in the click link) has easier colours. It is not that clear on the stars and it looks as if it's taken at noon rather than midnight, but anyway that's just Delft .


Could stacking help me in getting more detail of the night sky and the moon? If so, how to do it? Are there freeware programs for it, and what should I do with the camera? (it can make avi movies, I htought I read somewhere of people using those to stack). Would it reduce the light pollution problem?


Oh and thanks for your interest in me wasting valuable sleeping time .


"Lone Tree" is a beautiful picture. I have been in places where the Milky Way was really clear in the sky, and even there there still was some minor light pollution.

I'd love to do the 15 seconds trick with a stable tripod in such a location on a perfect sky, just to see how many stars I could capture with this standard camera .

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Your questions regarding digicams should really be answered by the pros--I don't have one, but since I've been mulling over buying one, you've sent me checking out more info. Your camera gets very high user-reviews, and it appears pretty darn good for the price. But you're right, no image stabilization, and I hear it's a bit slow. I've been looking at the cameras, but to get real good astro-photos, one has to spend more, natch.

Here are some various links I was looking at:
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/BeBit-e.html <---Wolverine has a EOS 20D

http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/astro/index-e.html <---List of all Canons

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/astro/index.html <---I have a book by Michael Covington. He writes well for amateurs, imo.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news...tory_3064.html <---I'm a bit interested in this camera. Affordable; has image stabilization, video. I don't want to spend more than $500 b/c I already have over that $ into a 35 mm SLR.

A good thing to do is read your manual. Somewhere I read ISO 100 1/60 at f16 for a non-digicam (lost the link). Look at the gallery on Covington's site. Too, look at people's photos here!

You need a dark place! Look at this page for exposure differences:

http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/astro/pages_e/02_e.html

The optimal setting is to move to a place in the desert or some rural area. There's a link below to answer that.

Someone else needs to answer that for you. I'm a Luddite.

I read about calculating the white balance--can't find it. This page has some useful tips:
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2351

When did you move to Delft?? Did you sneak over to The Hague?

Somebody else here needs to answer this.

Read the first paragraph the just above link. Buy one Nicolas!

__________________
Sunset

Die Sonne scheidet hinter dem Gebirge. In alle Täler steigt der Abend nieder
mit seinen Schatten, die voll Kühlung sind.

As I live in the two most densely populated countries of the world, dark spots are rare. Certainly here in the border of Rotterdam (most air pollution of all places, and lots of light pollution). I moved to Delft years ago, earlier than joining baut/BadAstronomy . I've been in Den Haag (The Hague) some times, but if you're referring to meeting girls there as there are none in Delft (not true, there are at least 12 girls in Delft!...), no I did not do that. The times I went to The Hague, I had appointments with men. If I want to see girls (ok forget about the plural ) I go to Belgium .


I'll get a tripod once, but it does not fit in the finances currently .

I'll check out some other pics to see setting info. I doubt my digicam reaches f16 in any setting though .

The camera sometimes is a bit slow (between pics) but so am I . I'm very happy with it. It's not the cheapest, but still you get the quality you normally get with camera's costing 100€ more due to the good lense amongst others.

The camera you're interested in seems very interesting for the price. But then again, it is 2.5 times as expensive as mine .

btw combined with the scope, Wolverine makes suberd moon (detail) photos.


Anyway, apart from having no equipment, the lack of any dark place is a major issue. Plus living here close to the sea means that truly cloudless and haze free days are rare.

Tonight it is too cloudy to picture anything astronomy related except for some parts of the planet Earth .

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I almost was too late to get a view on the full moon in a semi-cloudless night but here are the results:



raw
b&w
b&w enhanced
b&w alternative enhanced

B4 *200% size; enhanced "X"
A4 enhanced "Y"
A4 *200% size; enhanced "Z"

What moon do you like best?

My favourite is A4 enhanced called "Y". It's natural and has quite some details. Too bad I can't see the streaks (word?) of that one huge crater though . I also like its brother 4D.

Edit: hm those streaks are low contrast marks. There are 2 craters clearly featuring them. One is on the top, a bit left of the middle. That crater itself is clearly seen as a white dot on 4; the streaks show up as a "glow" around it. The other, largest one is in the white highlands at the south, but it is a light feature on a light surface...I can't make it out on my pics

Edit 2: but the large crater at the south featuring those streaks can be seen as a lighter circle!

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Hi Nicolas,

Well, you seem to be having fun with your moons. Did you look at any of the links I so painstakingly posted? One thing alot of them say is not to take a picture of the full moon, because it often looks flat, especially when you're not using a telescope. Skimming through posts you'll find that most people here don't post full moon pictures. Here's one Paul did (not to pick on Paul), and though it's fine, it's not the best of his moon photos as far as definition:
Moon 2/12/06

Therefore scrap row A & B - the poor "man in the moon" has no life to him. I agree D4 is probably the best, clearest...D1 is OK, too. Forget X and Y; there's no point in making something bigger if it looks worse, you know what I mean? There's only so much you can do with your camera, but really they're not bad. I'm not sure why others are not commenting since I am the last one to be critiquing photos! They all have telescopes, though. In a way, it's nice to see the Moon as we see it.

Try different phases of the moon. Note the time. What settings did you use this time? Or are you just winging it?

The bright spots...Copernicus, Kepler and Mare Cognitum (it seems). I finally broke down and found an online Moon map, because mine is too detailed for your photos. Check out this one:

Everything:
http://www.lunarrepublic.com/atlas/index.shtml

Copernicus & Kepler:
http://www.lunarrepublic.com/atlas/sections/d2.shtml

The Mare Cognitum area:
http://www.lunarrepublic.com/atlas/sections/e2.shtml

That site is great, imo, and should help you answer your questions.



Here are a couple of other that are useful for your photos (not telescope ones):
http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/h...y/moon-map.gif

http://www.space.com/images/skywatchers_moon_map.gif


*BTW, my Hague remark was not in reference to girls, lol. It was a veiled reference to Milosevic. If you ever go to Amsterdam you should visit my friend Louis on Keizersgracht and give him a hug for me...well, maybe a handshake. I have not seen him in YEARS. :-)

__________________
Sunset

Die Sonne scheidet hinter dem Gebirge. In alle Täler steigt der Abend nieder
mit seinen Schatten, die voll Kühlung sind.

Hi Melusine!

Thanks for the comments. I think you meant X and Z, but indeed they do not look better when zooming in (it was just a test to see the result). I like Y, the color non zoomed enhanced thing .

OF course I looked at your links .

The one on light pollution was interesting, though as I'm bound to my room for the moment, I can't really put it in practice .

I looked into the manual for white balance things, I'm still testing those.
Of course I looked at your links . btw thanks for giving them.

About the craters: mind that I'm looking at the moon from a different angle. I think the 3 spots I see on top are Kepler, Copernicus and Aristarchus (not Mare Cognitum), though Mare Cognitum and Mare Nibium can be seen as 2 adjacent lighter spots as well, parallel (going southeast) from Kepler and Copernicus but less bright. Down south, Tycho can be seen as a lighter spot on D4 and an overexposed white outwash on D1.

About full moons: you mean I should wait for first or last quarter, when there are more dramatic shadows due to the different sun angle? I'll try that if the weather is appopriate at that time .

About settings: I'm still figuring out. I have settled for focus at infinity (duh ), ISO 50, F maximal and time depending on the situation. Day one I needed 1/40, day 3 I could do with 1/400 due to clearer skies. If I get the light time too short, the dark image looses definition (a lot of noise). Of course, too short and it washes into one white dot . I have not yet completely figured out, but the lighter moons seem to be the better ones regarding contrast. PLus their colours are more natural. It also depends on the features you want to see. Tycho can be clearly seen(even a bit including the streaks) on 2 and 6, otherwise lightly underlighted moons. Lighter pictures are clearer in general, but they are already overexposed for he streaks. Well, in most cases. 4 still does a good job. The result appears to be very sensitive to the exposure time.

But realistic coulrs (1,4,8) seem to give the best results if they still have enough contrast (4). I simply take some pics with different exposure, and check which one gives the best results (not very easy to do from raw data on the LCD), and then try around that optimal setting some more.

I'm curious for quarter moon pics! Of course, I'll have even less moon pixels in those .

For those who did not figure it out yet: I'm trying out on the moon as my camera can't picture any other object "out there" (apart from the sun) as more than a spot.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Hi Melusine!

Thanks for the comments. I think you meant X and Z,

***That was a typo, yes that's what I meant.

About the craters: mind that I'm looking at the moon from a different angle. I think the 3 spots I see on top are Kepler, Copernicus and Aristarchus (not Mare Cognitum),

***I agree with you now. Looking at it here http://www.lunarrepublic.com/atlas/sections/c1.shtml and turning Mr. Moon cc, that appears to be correct.


though Mare Cognitum and Mare Nibium can be seen as 2 adjacent lighter spots as well, parallel (going southeast) from Kepler and Copernicus but less bright. Down south, Tycho can be seen as a lighter spot on D4 and an overexposed white outwash on D1.

*** Tycho...without a doubt. :-)

About full moons: you mean I should wait for first or last quarter, when there are more dramatic shadows due to the different sun angle? I'll try that if the weather is appopriate at that time .

*** Anytime during the waxing and waning periods--curved shadows give it some sense of dimension, not a flat dinner plate.

moon sept 25
The Moon at Prime Focus, 2006/2/19
Moon 2/19/06
Moon 2/6/06
The Great Earth's Moon


I'm curious for quarter moon pics! Of course, I'll have even less moon pixels in those .

*** Hmm, we wait with bated breath.

For those who did not figure it out yet: I'm trying out on the moon as my camera can't picture any other object "out there" (apart from the sun) as more than a spot.

*** I'm sure they figured that out from your camera. Hey, you can do sunsets, too. Good luck.

__________________
Sunset

Die Sonne scheidet hinter dem Gebirge. In alle Täler steigt der Abend nieder
mit seinen Schatten, die voll Kühlung sind.

I'm almost never home for sunsets, and I live on the wrong side of the block . I could do sunrises, but those can be dangerously light and early .

Thanks for the comments!

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Umm, you could walk around the block, no? I understand about the "dangerous" early hours---sleep deprivation will cause one (me) to turn moon maps upside down and generally skew my view of things. Stay in bed and stick to the moon, then.

BTW, what are you calling "streaks?" I don't see streaks--are you talking about ejecta rays or some artifact of your photos. I was also thinking to add, that when you take a moon photo in its waxing or waning periods, besides adding a sense of dimension, the angle of sunlight creates shadows on the ridges and such, and gives more defintion to them. Whether that will make any noticeable difference with your Canon, maybe not.

Scarps....

__________________
Sunset

Die Sonne scheidet hinter dem Gebirge. In alle Täler steigt der Abend nieder
mit seinen Schatten, die voll Kühlung sind.

I'm talking about the ejecta rays. I did not know the word for them .

I can walk around the block, but then there's another block. And another one. Anyway, I live in the middle of the city and the roof of the block is not accessible .

It seems I had the reason for spectacular non-full moon shots correct:

I'm curious as well about seeing any differences with my camera. I'm not counting on it...but I'll keep you informed!

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

fine photos nicolas. many time when we purchase a new camera, we could not adjust the aperchure on the object, but the practice makes man more perfect, this is not your error, but many time it happens with the new camera, when we look through the eyepiece the object finds more clearer but when its possitive image we look then we find some displacement of object as far as clarity is concern, the same this was happened with me when I caught an image of moon that was not looking like a moon, that design was some what different.

sunil

"what's that glowing egg doing there"

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I'm partial to C4 as it captures sufficient white-out to callibrate contrasting albedos on surface. Those shots with bright ring on spheres look overcooked.
I think most viewers would like how you displayed the whole series and really can't make up their minds. If and when you can exactly record to the second (using UTC time) the sequence of shots, they will be much more valuable for data whichever setting you settle on.

I'm sorry, I can't understand what you're saying.

What do you mean with the "ring on spheres"? Can you rephrase?

What would be the value of knowing to the second when I took those shots? They're all taken in a timespan of about 6 minutes. And I can't settle on a setting, as they were taken with a light haze. Clear skies or more clouds would seriously change settings, as would a location with less or more constant light pollution.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

There is a white glow about your shots in D series. It you had caught a satellite or a plane over moon and didn't record the time, the photo's value significantly diminishes.

the meaning of "glowing egg" means moon?

it's a woo woo joke, I guess. You know, UFO stuff. I found it funny as Nick's smile attests.

The "glowing egg" was referring to a (hypothetical) seriously overexposed and geometrically distorted moon photo .

I don't think my camera allows to see a satellite passing the moon, not even the ISS (largest and nearest sat).

And as for airplanes, those pass the moon all the time, I don't think they're anything spectacular unless it's a really beautiful shot. And even then I think that the time of photo is quite irrelevant. It's not some astronomical event caught on tape, just an airplane passing before the moon from my point of view.

I see the rings on the edge in the D series. THat ring is not natural, but overall I prefer it over the glowing character of the C series. I tend to se the details on the D series a bit clearer. But it's a bit a matter of taste, sometimes I like the C series better . Thanks for the input everyone!

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.