Chuck H. said: <Amateurs living today are extremely fortunate to have such capabilities available to anyone who is willing to spend the money on the equipment. It was not always so- well within living memory.> I may be a newcomer to this list, but I am not new to astronomy. I am 43 years old and I grew up with a Dad who was an avid astronomer. We started with homemade scopes and eventually worked up to a C-14 with a roll-off roof observatory. We tried some astrophotography (with limited success), but we mostly just enjoyed the views at the eyepiece. I am glad that I lived long enough to enjoy the convenience that CCD brings. It certainly is easier than the old days and produces generally better results, especially in the hands of an experienced imager. I might point out that CCD doesn't guarantee great results. I put enormous effort into my images. My entire setup is portable and needs to be set up and polar aligned each time I image. Also, the learning curve for processing data is pretty steep. If I gave my raw data to members of this list, few could produce really great images. It still takes a lot of work! But I love it!! Cheers, Tyler ________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+tylerallred=earthlink.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+tylerallred=earthlink.net@mailman.xmission.co m] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:28 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Vdb142 in Ha - The Elephants Trunk When I was shooting astrophotos semi-regularly, there was no such thing as CCD's and autoguiders- I didn't have a choice. Everyone guided by eye and hand, and shot emulsion-based photograpy. It only seems monumental when one has the less-strenuous digital option available. BTW, when the very first imaging CCD's were used for astronomy, the hardware consisted of a single-line of sensors, not a grid. The image drifted across the line, which was really a type of scan. And sensitivity was terrible. Only bright objects could be imaged, and the resulting image looked more like a cartoon or painting than a photo. Images contained very little data compared to today's. Amateurs living today are extremely fortunate to have such capabilities available to anyone who is willing to spend the money on the equipment. It was not always so- well within living memory. --- Tyler Allred <tylerallred@earthlink.net> wrote:
A bit taxing!!!! You are a more dedicated soul than me! :) I prefer CCD and autoguiding, thank you.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com