wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:14:52 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:



As a kid, my buddies and I used to compete with each other seeing who
could shoot dragonflys out of the air with a sling-shot or BB gun.

Doing it with howitzers would not have made it a better competition.

Why run marathons when you can hail a cab or take a bus? How stupid is
THAT?


So, you're saying the reward is in the finesse? The ability to finesse
inferior technology and like it? Be satisfied with it? I just don't have
standards that are that low.

And, I agree with you on running marathons - pretty stupid. Any sane
athlete
pedals a lightweight, aero, race bicycle. That's where the money is.
That's
where true physical fitness and stamina is developed. That's where the
respect and glory is. That's where real men compete.

Wilbur Hubbard


So, you stink at archery, too?


Archery has it's standards. There are bows and there are bows. Compound and
simple. When one competes with a bow one uses the best bow money can buy -
one that is competitive at least. One with enough power and range to drop an
elk?

So, using the camera analogy, would you go elk hunting with a kid's bow and
arrow? No, you would use the best, most powerful bow for the job, most
likely a compound bow. You would not likely be happy or effective with
anything less. So why are these little home celestial photographers happy
with their kid's toys?

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:42:42 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

What you are doing is using technology that is on par with two tin cans
and
a string for a telephone. You shoot BB guns and eschew the howitzers. And
you're proud of it? And you're happy with it. I just don't get it. Perhaps
there's something I'm missing. Perhaps somebody could answer the question:
"Where's the beef?"

You obviously miss the entire point of the exercise. It has nothing to do
with the quality of the pictures. It's entirely a matter of being able to
show and tell how expensive your toys are.


Are some grown-up people really that immature?

Wilbur Hubbard

If you are planning to do astrophotography, then you should
not buy an expensive scope until you *really* know what you
want. Most people give up because they started with
the wrong scope(Long focal length and high F ratio).
I'm on my third scope, second mount, and third camera -
and all in only three years.


Donal, long before you probably entered this hobby I already owned
vintage scopes, such as the RV-6 and Dynamax. Living in NYC as a kid
and astrophotography wasn't in the cards. In the late 60's I used the
RV-6 visually. I buy for visual work mainly and always have. A million
people do those shots and they generally look the same, unless they
are from huge mirror systems. But I love to look and it's already a
ton of fun for Thomas. I needed a scope that set-up in 5 minutes and
could show objects easily without frustrating an impatient group of
kids. So far the GPS motor driven scopes are amazing.
I never bought the wrong scope because I started very young and knew
the systems early on. There is no better scope for my current
application for example; not at any price. For shooting I'd be using a
proper refractor of course and I've been toying with the idea of
adding such a scope soon.



R.

On Sep 3, 1:42 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message

. ..



Donal wrote:

I'm astonished at how little light pollution
you have. I thought that you lived near NY????

Here is a photo of the same object that I took recently.
http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener.../donal/M31.htm

It isn't great, but it is only 36m exposure. I'll try to get
more on it if the sky ever clears.

Very impressive. I never get a sky like that near Boston. However,
here's a picture of the same object I took from a higher perspective.

http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/8000105.jpg

OK, I was not the lead scientist, but almost all of the data processing
software, from decoding the telemetry to putting the picture on the
display was written by me, and I was at the keyboard when the NASA
photographer took this picture of the screen. In '78 color displays were
so uncommon that we didn't pass around picture files, we photographed the
screen, usually with Polaroids, but 35mm for publication. Each little red
dot is actually one x-ray photon, focused by a "grazing incidence mirror
system." Magic! This picture was one of the first we got of a nearby
galaxy showing individual x-ray sources, so it caused quite a stir.

More on the pic:
http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/abstracts.php?p=1560

and instrument:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html

I just don't get it. Why would anybody waste their time and money futzing
around with tiny little amateur lenses taking tiny little amateur deep space
photographs when there are millions of REAL large and detailed photos
available from Hubble alone? You could look at them your entire life and
not see them all.

Seems to me this amateur snapshot-taking becomes more and more of a waste of
time as time passes and anything but the very large and very large array
telescopes taking photographs is a joke.

But, even worse is when people start bragging about how great their inferior
little lenses are. There's nothing great about them. They're tiny and
they're a joke. The photos taken by them are tiny, inferior and a joke as
well.



Actually, you have a point, which is why I don't waste too much effort
on that type of shooting. I prefer artistic portraits such as this,

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p908572751-5.jpg

And I do mess around with macro, as in this shot where you can see me
reflected in the larger eyes....

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p61487401-5.jpg

But if you love shooting the stars then by all means go at it!



R.

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:42:42 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

What you are doing is using technology that is on par with two tin cans
and
a string for a telephone. You shoot BB guns and eschew the howitzers. And
you're proud of it? And you're happy with it. I just don't get it.
Perhaps
there's something I'm missing. Perhaps somebody could answer the
question:
"Where's the beef?"

You obviously miss the entire point of the exercise. It has nothing to do
with the quality of the pictures. It's entirely a matter of being able to
show and tell how expensive your toys are.


Are some grown-up people really that immature?

Wilbur Hubbard


Never mind. Stupid question. Bobsprit just posted about his expensive
scopes.

Wilbur Hubbard

On 3 Sep, 18:42, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message

. ..

and instrument:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html

I just don't get it.

Hi Wilbur,
I like you. So, I will help you to avoid the extreme embarrassement
that you must feel after displaying the enormous ignorance
which your post exposed.

Why would anybody waste their time and money futzing
around with tiny little amateur lenses taking tiny little amateur deep space
photographs when there are millions of REAL large and detailed photos
available from Hubble alone?

Jeff's photo showed data acquired in x-rays. There is *NO* lens
involved in x-ray photography. Please do not feel stupid
because you did not know this. I'm sure that you are not
alone.


You could look at them your entire life and
not see them all.

Only if your internet connection was extremely slow. If you
only viewed 10 images a day, then you could view the Hubble's
output in a year. I bet that you look at more than 10 images
a day.


Seems to me this amateur snapshot-taking becomes more and more of a waste of
time as time passes and anything but the very large and very large array
telescopes taking photographs is a joke.

Well, here you display the sort of ignorance that makes
me feel embarrassed on your behalf.

I took this photo in just 90 minutes with a 4" telescope.
http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener...nal/sh2101.htm

The Hubble could not have done this in 90 minutes. Can you
figure out why?



But, even worse is when people start bragging about how great their inferior
little lenses are. There's nothing great about them. They're tiny and
they're a joke. The photos taken by them are tiny, inferior and a joke as
well.

Have a look at this photo:-
http://www.rdelsol.com/Nebula/IC1805_Everest.html

Isn't it clear that your comments are tiny, inferior and a joke as
well.



What you are doing is using technology that is on par with two tin cans and
a string for a telephone. You shoot BB guns and eschew the howitzers. And
you're proud of it? And you're happy with it. I just don't get it. Perhaps
there's something I'm missing. Perhaps somebody could answer the question:
"Where's the beef?"

Actually, you are missing the point that amateurs are using the
very latest technology. You do not understand that technology
in optics has made enormous advances in recent years. My
4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector.


I hope that you have found my post useful. I don't want
you to look so stupid again.




Regards


Donal
--

On 3 Sep, 18:18, jeff wrote:
Donal wrote:

I'm astonished at how little light pollution
you have. I thought that you lived near NY????

Here is a photo of the same object that I took recently.
http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener.../donal/M31.htm

It isn't great, but it is only 36m exposure. I'll try to get
more on it if the sky ever clears.

Very impressive. I never get a sky like that near Boston. However,
here's a picture of the same object I took from a higher perspective.

http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/8000105.jpg

OK, I was not the lead scientist, but almost all of the data processing
software, from decoding the telemetry to putting the picture on the
display was written by me, and I was at the keyboard when the NASA
photographer took this picture of the screen. In '78 color displays
were so uncommon that we didn't pass around picture files, we
photographed the screen, usually with Polaroids, but 35mm for
publication. Each little red dot is actually one x-ray photon, focused
by a "grazing incidence mirror system." Magic! This picture was one of
the first we got of a nearby galaxy showing individual x-ray sources,
so it caused quite a stir.

More on the pic:http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/abstracts.php?p=1560

and instrument:http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html

I wasn't aware that x-ray imaging had been done so long ago. I
knew that the US x-ray imagers were very narrow field and high
resolution.

It must have been wonderful to see those images coming
in live. I really envy you.


Regards

Donal

--

wrote in message
...
On 3 Sep, 18:42, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message

. ..

and instrument:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html

I just don't get it.

Hi Wilbur,
I like you. So, I will help you to avoid the extreme embarrassement
that you must feel after displaying the enormous ignorance
which your post exposed.

Why would anybody waste their time and money futzing
around with tiny little amateur lenses taking tiny little amateur deep
space
photographs when there are millions of REAL large and detailed photos
available from Hubble alone?

Jeff's photo showed data acquired in x-rays. There is *NO* lens
involved in x-ray photography. Please do not feel stupid
because you did not know this. I'm sure that you are not
alone.

When my dentist points that lens-looking think at my mouth and it buzzes it
directs the x-rays just where they need to go. It might not be a GLASS lense
but there's got to be a lense of some sort in there.


You could look at them your entire life and
not see them all.

Only if your internet connection was extremely slow. If you
only viewed 10 images a day, then you could view the Hubble's
output in a year. I bet that you look at more than 10 images
a day.

Nekkid females - hundreds of photos of them a day. But that's what cameras
are REALLY for.



Seems to me this amateur snapshot-taking becomes more and more of a waste
of
time as time passes and anything but the very large and very large array
telescopes taking photographs is a joke.

Well, here you display the sort of ignorance that makes
me feel embarrassed on your behalf.

I took this photo in just 90 minutes with a 4" telescope.
http://www.astroimaging.org.uk/tener...nal/sh2101.htm

Uh, huh! So what's the big deal. I can look at the sky on a clear night with
my 7X50 binoculars and see all of that crap I want to see.


The Hubble could not have done this in 90 minutes. Can you
figure out why?

That's easy to answer. The Hubble has a very small field of view. My marine
binocs have are 7x50 and the Hubble is probably 7 million by 500 which makes
the picture it takes only a little speck in the sky. I ain't that dumb to
not know the obvious.


But, even worse is when people start bragging about how great their
inferior
little lenses are. There's nothing great about them. They're tiny and
they're a joke. The photos taken by them are tiny, inferior and a joke as
well.

Have a look at this photo:-
http://www.rdelsol.com/Nebula/IC1805_Everest.html

I've seen stuff like that and the horse's head nebula from Hubble and it's
much better. I still say why bother with tiny little lenses? What do you
get. You get a bigger slice of the pie with very little real resolution. A
poor compromise in my opinion.


Isn't it clear that your comments are tiny, inferior and a joke as
well.


Probably only to people who waste their time with tiny little technology and
are defensive about it.



What you are doing is using technology that is on par with two tin cans
and
a string for a telephone. You shoot BB guns and eschew the howitzers. And
you're proud of it? And you're happy with it. I just don't get it.
Perhaps
there's something I'm missing. Perhaps somebody could answer the
question:
"Where's the beef?"

Actually, you are missing the point that amateurs are using the
very latest technology. You do not understand that technology
in optics has made enormous advances in recent years. My
4" refractor can outperform a 20 year old 10" reflector.

Nonsense. It's the size of the lense that determines the amount of light it
gathers. The amount of light it gathers determines how far out it can see.
It just can't collect enough light to see the dim stuff like Hubble can and
does. So when you use the little lenses you become a Mr. Magoo. You only see
stuff that's right in front of your nose magnified a couple or four times.

Seems to me I can look at the heavens on a clear night and just imagine
things are bigger and brighter and I can do as well with my imagination than
people can do taking snapshots with their tiny little lenses.



I hope that you have found my post useful. I don't want
you to look so stupid again.


Thanks for your concern but you failed to sway my mind. But if you enjoy
futzing around with inferior little things then knock yourself out. It's no
skin off my teeth.

Wilbur Hubbard

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p61487401-5.jpg

But if you love shooting the stars then by all means go at it!
Now that's impressive! Who's the bug?

"jlrogers±³©" wrote in message
...

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p61487401-5.jpg

But if you love shooting the stars then by all means go at it!
Now that's impressive! Who's the bug?



That's not a 'bug' it's an arachnid. (spider) I feel sorry for it. Booby
probably blinded it with that flash. Pretty hard for the poor thing to catch
bugs when it's half blind.

Wilbur Hubbard