I've love to see a picture of a big, expensive car parked in front of your
house. Make sure the house is in the photo.



Why? The most expensive car I currently own a lightly modded Subaru
Turbo LGT sedan.....only around 30K, so hardly expensive....

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p525689812-5.jpg

The new Evo coming soon is just 41K, again not all that expensive. I
suppose when the GT-R comes that's pretty pricey, but still not what
I'd call crazy.

I've posted pics of my house in NY before. I also own nearby lakefront
property with partners. Sure, I've done better than Sloco on every
front, but why is that important to you. Someone always has better
fortune. My camera gear bought in the last 24 months cost more than
Sloco's poor dated tub of a boat.

Going sailing....see ya!


The Good Captain
35s5 NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
...

I've love to see a picture of a big, expensive car parked in front of
your
house. Make sure the house is in the photo.



Why? The most expensive car I currently own a lightly modded Subaru
Turbo LGT sedan.....only around 30K, so hardly expensive....

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p525689812-5.jpg

The new Evo coming soon is just 41K, again not all that expensive. I
suppose when the GT-R comes that's pretty pricey, but still not what
I'd call crazy.

Parked in front of your house it is.


I've posted pics of my house in NY before. I also own nearby lakefront
property with partners. Sure, I've done better than Sloco on every
front, but why is that important to you.


It's not important at all.


Someone always has better
fortune. My camera gear bought in the last 24 months cost more than
Sloco's poor dated tub of a boat.

But you can't sail a camera!


Going sailing....see ya!


See ya in 3 hours!

hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Capt. Rob wrote:

My camera gear bought in the last 24 months cost more than
Sloco's poor dated tub of a boat.

Have you managed to do any astrophotography
yet? ...... or have you given up?

Regards

Donal
--
www.astroimaging.org.uk

On Sep 2, 1:03 pm, Donal wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
My camera gear bought in the last 24 months cost more than
Sloco's poor dated tub of a boat.

Have you managed to do any astrophotography
yet? ...... or have you given up?

Regards

Donal
-- www.astroimaging.org.uk



Donal, I now own a Celestron CPC-800 GPS. It's quite a machine and
I've messed around with some wide field stuff using my Nikon gear.

This is M31 over my house...single short exposure using a Nikon D300.

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg

Now that I own a D700 I plan to really have some fun in the fall.
Other than that I've doing mostly visual work with the scope. The GPS
is amazing, allowing me to see many more objects in a session than
ever before. This is my scope...

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p883681020-5.jpg

I'm still planning to build an observatory for a 14 inch system soon,
but I have to do some landscaping for it 1st.

Cheers,


The Good Captain
35s5
NY

Capt. Rob wrote:

On Sep 2, 1:03 pm, Donal wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
My camera gear bought in the last 24 months cost more than
Sloco's poor dated tub of a boat.

Have you managed to do any astrophotography
yet? ...... or have you given up?

Regards

Donal
-- www.astroimaging.org.uk



Donal, I now own a Celestron CPC-800 GPS. It's quite a machine and
I've messed around with some wide field stuff using my Nikon gear.

This is M31 over my house...single short exposure using a Nikon D300.

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p677285558-5.jpg


Very nice. 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.


Now that I own a D700 I plan to really have some fun in the fall.
Other than that I've doing mostly visual work with the scope. The GPS
is amazing, allowing me to see many more objects in a session than
ever before. This is my scope...

http://ghostlight.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p883681020-5.jpg

I'm still planning to build an observatory for a 14 inch system soon,
but I have to do some landscaping for it 1st.

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.


Regards

Donal
--

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

"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.

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?"

Wilbur Hubbard

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:42:42 -0400, "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.

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?"

Wilbur Hubbard


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?

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.

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
--