Spiral Arm of the Milky Way above the Texas Desert

Feb 22, 2012
333
3
Axilrod said:
Oh and what's the story with your equatorial mount? Did you make that yourself?

Axilrod - the tripod, wedge and drive base are from an 8 inch Celestron I've had for 35 years, the optics are great but it needed to be on a better mount to reach its potential. The wood is recycled from another project and the tripod head lives either on this mount or my home made slider depending on what I'm doing. Older Celestron mounts come up for sale on Astromart once in a while when people transplant the scope to a better mount like I did. There's another used equipment website I've used, I can't find it with Google but I have the link on my home computer, I'll PM you with it. Orion sells a small equatorial setup as an intro to astrophotography but it just won't handle much weight. A used CG5 or SkyViewPro mount for a good price would be an excellent setup, you wouldn't need the computerized version of either. I use my old C8 mount setup for tracking with up to a 300/f4L. Setting it vertical I can do panning time lapses. I've even used it with the mount vertical and the camera pointed straight up in my back yard, the trees rotate around the perimeter of the frame while the stars slowly parade through....would be interesting to try in a place like Joshua Tree. I'm blocked here at work from getting to the link, it's on YouTube, you should be able to find it with search terms 'emagowan' and 'SkySpin'.
 
Upvote 0
May 12, 2011
1,386
1
emag said:
Axilrod - the tripod, wedge and drive base are from an 8 inch Celestron I've had for 35 years, the optics are great but it needed to be on a better mount to reach its potential. The wood is recycled from another project and the tripod head lives either on this mount or my home made slider depending on what I'm doing. Older Celestron mounts come up for sale on Astromart once in a while when people transplant the scope to a better mount like I did. There's another used equipment website I've used, I can't find it with Google but I have the link on my home computer, I'll PM you with it. Orion sells a small equatorial setup as an intro to astrophotography but it just won't handle much weight. A used CG5 or SkyViewPro mount for a good price would be an excellent setup, you wouldn't need the computerized version of either. I use my old C8 mount setup for tracking with up to a 300/f4L. Setting it vertical I can do panning time lapses. I've even used it with the mount vertical and the camera pointed straight up in my back yard, the trees rotate around the perimeter of the frame while the stars slowly parade through....would be interesting to try in a place like Joshua Tree. I'm blocked here at work from getting to the link, it's on YouTube, you should be able to find it with search terms 'emagowan' and 'SkySpin'.

Thanks for that info, I figured that thing was a "frankenstein" mount of some sort. I've been looking into getting one of these Astrotrac tracking mounts: http://www.astrotrac.com/Default.aspx?p=tt320x-ag

Supposedly they work very well and are very easy to transport and set up. Check it out and let me know what you think.
 
Upvote 0
While dark skies are unquestionably a huge advantage, you can get quite reasonable shots even in areas with moderate light pollution if you get very clear conditions.

I use the ClearDarkSky forecasts to check on atmospheric conditions, and usually find acceptable results with a seeing and transparency value of 3/5 or higher. It's interesting to see that this doesn't always happen when you've got an apparently clear night -- humidity and temperature can affect the visibility more than you might think.

Here are a couple of shots taken from Mount Baker National Forest, which is a good dark sky location, although the thin cloud on the horizon was highlighting distant lights more than ideal. As others have said, these might be considered overprocessed from a purely photographic standpoint, but they are quite popular!

Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, ISO 6400, f/3.2, 30 second exposures, 11 shot panorama:


Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, ISO 5000, f/2.8, 30 second exposures, 4 shot panorama:


The next two are taken from a park half-way between Vancouver and Whistler -- this is definitely not a dark sky location (it's about 30 minutes drive from Vancouver and 15 minutes from Squamish, a relatively large settlement), but the conditions allowed good visibility of the Milky Way:

Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, ISO 8000, f/2.8, 45 second exposures, 5 shot panorama:


Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, ISO 6400, f/2.8, 30 second exposure:


I'm still very much learning how to take these shots, so there is unquestionably a lot more that can be got out of the camera (and probably some more sympathetic processing that can be done, as well!) The most important thing is to get out there and try it -- don't think you need to drive half-way across the country, just try and find somewhere reasonably dark on a clear, moonless night and see what you can get!
 
Upvote 0
May 12, 2011
1,386
1
abirkill said:
While dark skies are unquestionably a huge advantage, you can get quite reasonable shots even in areas with moderate light pollution if you get very clear conditions.

I use the ClearDarkSky forecasts to check on atmospheric conditions, and usually find acceptable results with a seeing and transparency value of 3/5 or higher. It's interesting to see that this doesn't always happen when you've got an apparently clear night -- humidity and temperature can affect the visibility more than you might think.

Here are a couple of shots taken from Mount Baker National Forest, which is a good dark sky location, although the thin cloud on the horizon was highlighting distant lights more than ideal. As others have said, these might be considered overprocessed from a purely photographic standpoint, but they are quite popular!

Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, ISO 6400, f/3.2, 30 second exposures, 11 shot panorama:


Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, ISO 5000, f/2.8, 30 second exposures, 4 shot panorama:


The next two are taken from a park half-way between Vancouver and Whistler -- this is definitely not a dark sky location (it's about 30 minutes drive from Vancouver and 15 minutes from Squamish, a relatively large settlement), but the conditions allowed good visibility of the Milky Way:

Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, ISO 8000, f/2.8, 45 second exposures, 5 shot panorama:


Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, ISO 6400, f/2.8, 30 second exposure:


I'm still very much learning how to take these shots, so there is unquestionably a lot more that can be got out of the camera (and probably some more sympathetic processing that can be done, as well!) The most important thing is to get out there and try it -- don't think you need to drive half-way across the country, just try and find somewhere reasonably dark on a clear, moonless night and see what you can get!

Those are great, but it looks like you had to push them quite a bit to get them there. And I'm sure while some photographers might consider these over-processed, the general public probably love them. And after trying to get shots like these for 2 years I think light pollution is by far the biggest factor, I tried shooting in Atlanta (fools errand) and couldn't see anything hardly. Then I tried in Oregon, which was dark but there was a half moon which ruined stuff. But Texas was just right. But I agree, even if you are near moderate light pollution it's worth giving it a try just to get some practice.
 
Upvote 0
Axilrod said:
For those of you looking for dark skies, this light pollution map is great:
http://www.blue-marble.de/nightlights/2010

Thanks Axilrod for posting the light pollution map link. I will use the map come this spring and summer to try my luck with some local astrophotography.

Here in Ontario where I live we have a protected Dark Skies Preserve, the Torrance Barrens that I will visit as well mid-summer. It is great area in that the few trees that are there are fairly small and stunted in growth due to the harsh growing conditions present. http://www.rasc.ca/content/torrance-barrens-dark-sky-preserve

Steve
 
Upvote 0

tron

CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,222
1,616
Axilrod said:
emag said:
Axilrod - the tripod, wedge and drive base are from an 8 inch Celestron I've had for 35 years, the optics are great but it needed to be on a better mount to reach its potential. The wood is recycled from another project and the tripod head lives either on this mount or my home made slider depending on what I'm doing. Older Celestron mounts come up for sale on Astromart once in a while when people transplant the scope to a better mount like I did. There's another used equipment website I've used, I can't find it with Google but I have the link on my home computer, I'll PM you with it. Orion sells a small equatorial setup as an intro to astrophotography but it just won't handle much weight. A used CG5 or SkyViewPro mount for a good price would be an excellent setup, you wouldn't need the computerized version of either. I use my old C8 mount setup for tracking with up to a 300/f4L. Setting it vertical I can do panning time lapses. I've even used it with the mount vertical and the camera pointed straight up in my back yard, the trees rotate around the perimeter of the frame while the stars slowly parade through....would be interesting to try in a place like Joshua Tree. I'm blocked here at work from getting to the link, it's on YouTube, you should be able to find it with search terms 'emagowan' and 'SkySpin'.

Thanks for that info, I figured that thing was a "frankenstein" mount of some sort. I've been looking into getting one of these Astrotrac tracking mounts: http://www.astrotrac.com/Default.aspx?p=tt320x-ag

Supposedly they work very well and are very easy to transport and set up. Check it out and let me know what you think.
Not so fast with Astrotrac. I do have it BUT: Its polar scope is very loose which means you cannot be certain you have polar aligned it perfectly. Second, even with best possible alignment you get about a 10fold increase in exposure (10x the seconds you could expose without it). It seems a lot but actually it is only with short focal lengths. Third, no tracking device can do the trick for astrophotography landscapes since to photograph the landscape camera has to be still on tripod otherwise you will have no star trails but blurred landscape.

So it is still tripod and the 600/(focal length) rule for these cases ( 500/(focal length) if you want to be more strict).
 
Upvote 0
May 12, 2011
1,386
1
tron said:
Not so fast with Astrotrac. I do have it BUT: It's polar scope is very loose which means you cannot be certain yo have polar aligned it perfectly. Second, even with best possible alignment you get about a 10fold increase in exposure (10x the seconds you could expose without it). It seems a lot but actually it is only with short focal lengths. Third, no tracking device can do the trick for astrophotography landscapes since to photograph the landscape camera has to be still on tripod otherwise you will have no star trails but blurred landscape.

So it is still tripod and the 600/(focal length) rule for these cases ( 500/(focal length) if you want to be more strict).

Ahhh I didn't even think about that aspect. Thanks for your input, may not get this thing after all.
 
Upvote 0
May 12, 2011
1,386
1
CarlTN said:
Axilrod, your pics from the front page are nice! I think I could do as well, or better, though...especially after I get a better camera. Post some more of your work if you can.

Thanks, and I'm sure you can do as good or better, I'm no expert and this was my first time, and I rarely shoot stills. As for the "better camera" it doesn't matter how great the camera is if you can't get to the right spot, with the right conditions, during the right time of the year.
 
Upvote 0

tron

CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,222
1,616
CarlTN said:
That's certainly true! I'm not exactly a world class expert either, of course. I just love Milky Way pictures! I'm thinking the galaxy in your shot, is Andromeda. It's the closest galaxy, and is on a collision course with us. Will take a little while to get here though.
Yes! It is indeed Andromeda :) You can enjoy viewing it even with binoculars...
 
Upvote 0

eyeland

Daybreak broke me loose and brought me back...
Feb 28, 2012
152
0
Denmark/Isreal
Re: Don't just shoot; look and really see.

dafrank said:

To the OP: thanks for posting those literally awesome pictures.
...if you're a city or suburban bred person, just look. When one hasn't seen it before, it is a revelatory experience like few others you may have in your lifetime.

I grew up in the LA area and then on Long Island - near NYC - and then settled in the suburbs around Detroit. I had never thought much about the night sky at all, except that it was a little better to sleep with less light coming through my widow than during the day.

I remember, when I was about 26 years old, going with an old girlfriend to visit her artist friend who lived in the woods, waaaaay off the beaten track, in the vast empty Michigan Upper Peninsula, in a couple of small sandwiched together mobile homes with the adjoining walls broken down to form a sort of fiberglass and plastic hillbilly castle. We all three sat on the steps leading up to his doorway one chilly November night, and I, certainly not expecting much, had a near religious experience when I looked up to see what seemed to be literally millions of visible stars. I was shocked, astounded. I just silently sat there, open mouthed, and stared for over an hour and a half without uttering a sound. Wow!

I repeated that same experience when out working in the deserts of California, Arizona and Utah. Shooting cars at sunup and sundown brought me to places where light pollution was almost non-existent. Sometimes, when setting up for a dawn shot, we would work on the cars and camera positions until just after the end of "nautical" dusk and then stay the night in vehicles or in sleeping bags until the just-before-dawn call time. My whole crew would typically barbeque some food, drink beer and then smell the occasional burning cigar or wafting bouquet of an assistant's trusty blunt break up the nearly perfect lack of anything from the city . After scaring the new guys with tales of scorpions and rattlers under the tarps and hearing an occasional coyote or other small critter break the otherwise eerie silence, we would all look into the sky and see the miracle of the universe right there before us, in the real world 3-D that makes those plastic glasses and Imax screens seem puny and uninteresting. I kind of wished that someone of us could play some mournful tune on an old harmonica, just to compliment what I felt were the faint voices in the desert wind of the ghosts of all those lonely cowboys of the American West who really had lived under the stars and loved it so much that they stayed living there, in the insufferable deserts and on the desolate prairies, as long as "progress" allowed.

Sometimes, pictures are not enough. Sometimes, you should just put down the camera, to not just record the world, but to live in it. The brilliantly adorned night sky, as countless generations of our long past forbears in song, story and legend saw it, is one excuse to sometimes do just that.
+1
Great shots, great story, I am officially inspired :)
Thanks for the advice and techniques, will give it a shot next week as I am heading into the Negev desert to do some location research for a video shoot.
Guess I better get started on that diy slider :)
 
Upvote 0