landscape question from newbie ;-)

[LightSpeed]

Suddenly silence.

I was hoping to learn something.

Sincerely,
LightSpeed - yes I am

 

[Desi]

I read that too and used f22 a lot. I think he used that to get more extreme depth of field. A lot of the shots he uses f22 on are demonstrating very near in focus foreground and then very distant in focus background. In your care, everything is very distant, so there is no need for f22.

I also get the feeling that Peterson tries to simplify things to large aperture, "who cares" apertures (f8-11), and then f22. This makes it easier for us noobs conceptually.

I still use f22, but usually just when I want to get a really long exposure for motion blurring.

From what I've read, Image stabilization is just a small motor that acts as a gyroscope to stabilize the lens against motion. If there is no motion (as on a tripod) the motor actually introduces some motion. Can't say that I've noticed it myself, but I usually just leave it off.

 

[LightSpeed]

I read that too and used f22 a lot. I think he used that to get more extreme depth of field. A lot of the shots he uses f22 on are demonstrating very near in focus foreground and then very distant in focus background. In your care, everything is very distant, so there is no need for f22.

I also get the feeling that Peterson tries to simplify things to large aperture, "who cares" apertures (f8-11), and then f22. This makes it easier for us noobs conceptually.

I still use f22, but usually just when I want to get a really long exposure for motion blurring.

From what I've read, Image stabilization is just a small motor that acts as a gyroscope to stabilize the lens against motion. If there is no motion (as on a tripod) the motor actually introduces some motion. Can't say that I've noticed it myself, but I usually just leave it off.

My point, exactly

 

[LightSpeed]

Suddenly silence.

I was hoping to learn something.

Sincerely,
LightSpeed - yes I am

I like it.

 

[480sparky]

Astronomical telescopes are sited well away from cities to avoid " light pollution" more than anything else.
Doesn't have anything to do with the atmosphere. It has to do with light..........

Incorrect. They're located away from cities because they don't build cities on top of mountains...... tall mountains......... where there's less atmosphere above them...... to distort the view due to atmospheric turbulence.

Incorrect in your defense.
Observatories are located on mountain tops.
Astronomical telescopes are everywhere. There are people in back yards doing astrophotography.
It is preferred to be on top of a mountain. Most often those into astrophotography are in their back yards.
In many instances in rural areas so as to avoid light pollution.

Without a mountain in a 500 mile radius.


No offense.


Limme go ahead and edit this.
Your point is well taken. The atmosphere does play a part and that changes on a daily basis based on " seeing" conditions.
One of the reasons why the hubble scope took such great images in outer space. It did not have to contend with " atmosphere."
There are times that the mountain top is no better than my back yard , based on weather.
To say " astronomical telescopes are located far from cities," is misleading.
It's preferable. Light pollution is the most common problem, inner city.

To be fair, you need to understand we're discussing optical telescopes.... those that work best on the portion of electromagnetic spectrum between 400 and 700 nm, which we call 'light'. Atmospheric turbulence is not as limiting as it once was, given the recent advances in adaptive optics.

"Observatories" can be placed anywhere if they're receiving radio waves instead.

"Backyard" astrophotography, as well as star-gazing, is done so 'in the back yard' simply due to convenience to the practitioners. Given the option, most would merrily head off the the Chilean Andes in a heartbeat were it not for their wallets not being able to make the trip.

Current technology has caught up with HST. Dedicated astrophotographers have created ground-based images that rival what HST has seen.

 

[Audible_Chocolate]

I would try it with VR OFF. With it on it will soften the image

 

[LightSpeed]

To be fair, you need to understand we're discussing optical telescopes.... those that work best on the portion of electromagnetic spectrum between 400 and 700 nm, which we call 'light'. Atmospheric turbulence is not as limiting as it once was, given the recent advances in adaptive optics.

"Observatories" can be placed anywhere if they're receiving radio waves instead.

"Backyard" astrophotography, as well as star-gazing, is done so 'in the back yard' simply due to convenience to the practitioners. Given the option, most would merrily head off the the Chilean Andes in a heartbeat were it not for their wallets not being able to make the trip.

Current technology has caught up with HST. Dedicated astrophotographers have created ground-based images that rival what HST has seen.

To be fair , no we weren't.
We weren't discussing " optical telescopes." We were discussing why a nigh scape came out blurred.
Which seems to have been forgotten.

Then we started discussing " astronomical telescopes"
Everybody in astrophotography knows atmosphere interferes with images. Along with space pollution , another hinderence( satellites).
This crap about how " telescopes are always on mountain tops and whatnot" is what it is. Crap.
It's preferable, yes. For abservatories. Seeing conditions play a large part.
If you can't see it you can't photograph it. The better you see it the better you photograph it.

But to lead the masses to this conclusion, and that it cannot be another way, is more than absurd and belongs in a beginners section. For critique.
Which is what I'm doing.

What can I say?
All the bitching about critique and one of the leaders pulls one out of his hat.
Crucify me.

 

[480sparky]

To be fair, you need to understand we're discussing optical telescopes.... those that work best on the portion of electromagnetic spectrum between 400 and 700 nm, which we call 'light'. Atmospheric turbulence is not as limiting as it once was, given the recent advances in adaptive optics.

"Observatories" can be placed anywhere if they're receiving radio waves instead.

"Backyard" astrophotography, as well as star-gazing, is done so 'in the back yard' simply due to convenience to the practitioners. Given the option, most would merrily head off the the Chilean Andes in a heartbeat were it not for their wallets not being able to make the trip.

Current technology has caught up with HST. Dedicated astrophotographers have created ground-based images that rival what HST has seen.

To be fair , no we weren't.
We weren't discussing " optical telescopes." We were discussing why a nigh scape came out blurred.
Which seems to have been forgotten.

Then we started discussing " astronomical telescopes"
Everybody in astrophotography knows atmosphere interferes with images. Along with space pollution , another hinderence( satellites).
This crap about how " telescopes are always on mountain tops and whatnot" is what it is. Crap.
It's preferable, yes. For abservatories. Seeing conditions play a large part.
If you can't see it you can't photograph it. The better you see it the better you photograph it.

But to lead the masses to this conclusion, and that it cannot be another way, is more than absurd and belongs in a beginners section. For critique.
Which is what I'm doing.

What can I say?
All the bitching about critique and one of the leaders pulls one out of his hat.
Crucify me.

So, what does light pollution have to do with radio telescopes then?

 

[LightSpeed]

To be fair, you need to understand we're discussing optical telescopes.... those that work best on the portion of electromagnetic spectrum between 400 and 700 nm, which we call 'light'. Atmospheric turbulence is not as limiting as it once was, given the recent advances in adaptive optics.

"Observatories" can be placed anywhere if they're receiving radio waves instead.

"Backyard" astrophotography, as well as star-gazing, is done so 'in the back yard' simply due to convenience to the practitioners. Given the option, most would merrily head off the the Chilean Andes in a heartbeat were it not for their wallets not being able to make the trip.

Current technology has caught up with HST. Dedicated astrophotographers have created ground-based images that rival what HST has seen.

To be fair , no we weren't.
We weren't discussing " optical telescopes." We were discussing why a nigh scape came out blurred.
Which seems to have been forgotten.

Then we started discussing " astronomical telescopes"
Everybody in astrophotography knows atmosphere interferes with images. Along with space pollution , another hinderence( satellites).
This crap about how " telescopes are always on mountain tops and whatnot" is what it is. Crap.
It's preferable, yes. For abservatories. Seeing conditions play a large part.
If you can't see it you can't photograph it. The better you see it the better you photograph it.

But to lead the masses to this conclusion, and that it cannot be another way, is more than absurd and belongs in a beginners section. For critique.
Which is what I'm doing.

What can I say?
All the bitching about critique and one of the leaders pulls one out of his hat.
Crucify me.

So, what does light pollution have to do with radio telescopes then?

Let me answer that for you.
What do " astronomical telescopes" , have to do with " radio telescopes?"
Your defense , is lacking, bigtime.

 

[punch]

I feel like I read in my manual to turn the IS off when on a tripod. It apparently does harm rather than good.

 

[480sparky]

Let me answer that for you.
What do " astronomical telescopes" , have to do with " radio telescopes?"
Your defense , is lacking, bigtime.

Uh.... radio telescopes are used in astronomy... and not just at night. They work during daylight hours too. And I'd venture to say the sky is awfully 'polluted' with light when the sun is above the horizon.

 

[LightSpeed]

Let me answer that for you.
What do " astronomical telescopes" , have to do with " radio telescopes?"
Your defense , is lacking, bigtime.

Uh.... radio telescopes are used in astronomy... and not just at night. They work during daylight hours too. And I'd venture to say the sky is awfully 'polluted' with light when the sun is above the horizon.

That doesn't have a damned thing to do with what has been discussed. And you know so.
Trying to turn this around like you have and implementing something that suits your need to win a debate, on wrong call, I might add, tells me much.
Nobody ever mentioned radio telescopes. So what is this? You're a supporting member and you want me banned because you and the other offender were wrong?
Is that it?

 

[LightSpeed]

I think I've made my point.
Exit.

LightSpeed. I love doing that.

 

[480sparky]

You're a supporting member and you want me banned because you and the other offender were wrong?
Is that it?

What are you talking about?

 

[LightSpeed]

You're a supporting member and you want me banned because you and the other offender were wrong?
Is that it?

What are you talking about?

lol
Try again.
Aint gonna work sparkles.