bert_krages1

<p>

The different types of telescopes have their advantages and disadvantages for astrophotography. On the whole, the best choice for someone wanting to start telescope-based photography would be an eight-SCT with a wedge and computer guided mount such as the Meade LX200. Obtaining all the equipment you need to get started on a bare-bones basis will likely cost at least $3000. If you like the images you are getting with this kind of setup, you can add an autoguider and CCD for a few thousand dollars more.

<p>

All lot of people are tempted to try to get by with a less inexpensive setup but almost always end up being disappointed. Even on a calm night, keeping a guided telescope on a steady course for long exposures is nearly impossible with the mounts that come with the mid-range amateur telescopes. It can be fairly difficult with mounts designed for astrophotography since even slight disruptions can ruin an image.

<p>

The recommendation to start out with a barn door tracker is a good one. For an investment of $15 and some time, you can ascertain whether you really want to put up with the tedium and effort required to get deep sky images. I would add to that recommendation that you learn more about observational astronomy and get some experience using a fast 50mm lens and tripod. There are a lot of interesting objects and events that can be recorded with conventional equipment. The forthcoming Leonid meteor shower in November is a good example. A few years ago, a friend and I hiked up to a viewpoint opposite Mt. Hood in Oregon to photograph the <A HREF="http://www.krages.com/leonid.htm">showers</A>. I personally like making these kinds of images better than tracked photography but other people have different preferences. In any case, most astrophotographers strongly recommend getting into genre slowly and adding equipment after you become proficient at finding objects in the sky.

Regarding the tripod, I recommend that you consider getting a Bogen Super Clamp with the brass fitting that allows you to fasten the ball head and move it and down a tripod leg. This will enable you to get low enough to photograph the undersides of fungus at ground level. Some people recommend tripods where you mount the ball head on the bottom end of the column but this method can be a royal pain. I have used the super clamp successfully on a Bogen 3011 although my standard tripod for this application is 3033 (most people think I am nuts carrying the eleven pounds or so up a mountain but I don't find it to be such a big deal). To make things easier, I keep two heads on the tripod; one on the column and one on the super clamp. I use either the Bogen 108 (inexpensive on eBay) or the 3262QR. Both have quick release plates which make switching the camera from column to super clamp quite convenient.

<p>

I have both, like both, and use both. The f/1.8 version is a little sharper but the F/1.4 is nonetheless very sharp. The two-thirds stop difference can be important in situations such as photographing indoor sports such as volleyball. Also, if you use the lens for astrophotography, the 1.4 is sharp (i.e., less aberrations) almost to the corners at f/2 whereas the f/1.8 needs to be stopped down to f/2.8. However, astrophotography is probably the most demanding application when it comes to aberrations because you are photographing points of light. You will probably never notice the difference with terrestrial applications. If you are interested, you can see a couple examples of f/1.4 version used at f/2 at this link: <A HREF="http://www.krages.com/leonid.htm">Leonid Meteor Showers, November 17, 2001.</A>

<p>

The f/1.8 version has a recessed front element so the lens body acts as a hood. This is a nice feature. The lens is also very light. You might want to start with the f/1.8 version if in doubt. It is not very expensive and will give you a good idea of what low-light capabilities you need.

It should come by rotating it counter-clockwise. If you need more leverage, you can lock the plate portion so that it is 90 degrees to the axis of rotation and push on that. If that doesn't work, try using a small oil filter wrench wrapped around the base of the head.

<P>You have asked a messy question but irrespective of the specifics, it will generally make sense to register your images even if they have already been displayed on the Internet. The reason is that registration will make you eligible to recover attorney fees and statutory damages that arise from infringements that occur after the date of registration.

<P>The issue of whether a display on a website that does not offer to sell or distribute the image constitutes publication for copyright purposes is still open to interpretation by the courts to the best of my knowledge. How you deal with the issue is going to be a judgment call although if it helps, courts tend to be tolerant of errors made on registration forms provided the copyrighted material was deposited with the Copyright Office and their was no intent to commit fraud upon the Office.

<P>The rules associated with registering images as groups (i.e., published images) are more onerouse than those associated with registering collections (unpublished images) but more expeditious than registering images individually. The group registration rules require:

 

<UL>

<LI>All the works have the same copyright claimant.

<LI>All the works are by the same author.

<LI>The author of each work is an individual, not an employer or other person for whom the work was made for hire.

<LI>The photographs in the group must have been published within the same calendar year.

<LI>The application identifies each contribution separately, including the periodical containing it and the date of its first publication.

<LI> If the photographs in a group were all published on the same date, the date of publication must be identified in space 3b of the application. If the photographs in a group were not all published on the same date, the range of dates of publication (e.g., January 1-December 31, 2001) must be provided in space 3b of the application, and the date of publication of each photograph within the group must be identified either on the deposited image or on a continuation sheet.

<LI> If each photograph within the group was first published within three months before the date on which an acceptable application is received in the Copyright Office, the applicant may,simply state the range of

dates of publication (e.g., February 15-May 15, 2001) in space 3b of the application, without specifically identifying the date of publication of each photograph in the group either on the deposited image or on a continuation sheet.

</UL>

<P>Good luck.

This is probably good news. Imagine, handing over the film division to a group of managers who want to money by manufacturing and distributing film. Maybe Kodak's senior management will be inspired to do the same.

<p>

When photographing meteors there are two principle considerations: (1) the physical aperture of the lens and (2) the angle of view. The effective physical aperture of a lens can be calculated by dividing the focal length by focal ratio. The physical apertures of your lenses at wide open will be: <UL>

<LI>90mm at f/8: 11.25 mm

<LI>150mm at f/5.6: 26.8 mm

<LI>254mm at f/4.5: 56.4 mm

</UL>

In my opinion, your best bet would be to set up for star trails with 150mm at f/5.6 for a 30 minute exposure and then another exposed at f/8 and see what happens. If you get Polaris (the North Star) in the image, the trails will appear to rotate about that point and would form a nice background for the meteors. Also, photographing as trails might minimize the visual effects of the aberrations at the corners that you will likely get with the lens set near wide open.

I have had many good experiences and only a few bad ones. Are you checking the seller's feedback before bidding? It is my general experience that the more detailed the description, the more accurate the representation.

There are three ways to register images: (1) individually, (2) as groups, and (3) as collections. Registration as a group requires that they have been published in a periodical and registered within twelve months. Registration as a collection requires that the images be unpublished. These restrictions do not apply to individual registration. The most economical means of registration is to register unpublished images as collections.

If the photographer was not aware that the image was to be used in an advertisement without the subject's permission, then he or she should not be liable. However, it is common for photographers to be named in these kinds of suits since the plaintiff will likely not know for certain at the time the suit was filed whether the photographer knew about the intended usage.

This is an old expression from photojournalism on how to take good news photographs. The gist of the statement is that the photographer's presence at a news event is more important than the technical considerations for covering events.

<p>

Keep in mind that most inexpensive refractor telescopes (e.g., the common 60mm ones) and many reflector scopes do not have sufficient back focus to let you focus at infinity. Also, if you only want to take photos of the moon then the spotting scope should work fine because the exposures are so short. If you are thinking about photographing planets and deep sky objects such as nebulae, you need to mount the telescope on a tracking drive to keep pace with the Earth?s rotation. Suitable telescopes and drives, such as the Meade LX-200, are fairly expensive.

 

<p>

You might find that a better way to get started in astrophotography is begin with wide field images using conventional lenses. You can also build a barn door tracker for about $15 that will allow you to make high quality tracked photographs. The other important aspect is to learn about basic observational astronomy. There are many good basic astronomy books available. I have written a book intended to introduce conventional photographers into astrophotography called <A HREF="http://www.krages.com/hb.htm">Heavenly Bodies: The Photographers Guide to Astrophotography</A>.

From the legal prespective, doing this without the artist's permission would be blatant copyright infringement of the worst kind. Ownership of the original does not give you the legal right to copy the work. To address the copyright issue, you either need to get the artist's express permission to make the copies or else get the artist to assign the copyright to you.

Yes.

I once tested a Nikon 35mm camera with 50mm lens on a $30 plastic Velbon, a Bogen 3011 tripod with a 3262QR head, and a Bogen 3033 with a 3262QR photographing a target with lines and text. The results on the Bogens were indistinguishable but both performed noticeably better than the Velbon. The testing was done on a concrete pad in calm air with exposures ranging from 1/30 to 2 seconds. If you have access to different tripods, the actual testing is very easy to do.

<p> I would not recommend Velvia for star trails because it suffers a color shift to a sickly green with time. You can correct this with a magenta filter such as the ones used for shooting under fluorescent lights but a better solution is to use a film that behaves better over long exposures. For transparency films in 4x5, I would recommend either Provia F or E100SW. I wouldn't hesitate to use print films either. Although the red response may not be as good as what is available for emulsions in other formats, in my opinion it is not a significant issue for star trails. For star trails 4x5, I have found that an Kodak Aero Ektar 178mm f/2.5 works well, especially when stopped down a little. This lens can also be used to make shorter exposures, e.g., fifteen seconds, in which the stars are emulated as fixed points.

 

<p> The length and curvature of star trails will depend on what part of the sky is covered by the image. The trails will be circular if Polaris (the North Star) is included in the image and almost linear if the image encompasses the celestial equator. Also, it has been my experience that good star trail images do not really require long exposures, especially when circular. You can get a good effect with exposures on the order of five minutes or so which allows to make more images and also reduces problems with color shifts due to reciprocity failure. More information on landscape type photography with celestial objects can be found in my book <A HREF="http://www.krages.com/hb.htm">Heavenly Bodies</A>.

With regard to the copyright infringement suit against Warner Bros., Jack Leigh did prevail on appeal with regard to the promotional photographs used by Warner Bros. The court held that the film sequences used in the movie did not infringe since the visual elements were dissimilar and that Warner Bros. was free to associate the statute with the movie. However, the visual elements in the promotional photograph were similar and the court remanded the case to determine whether Warner Bros. in fact intended to make a substantive copy of Leigh's photograph. It is at that point the settlement was reached.

In Oregon my approach to using SLR's is to let them get wet. You can use a hood to keep rain drops off the front lens element. Most modern SLRs have a high degree of weather resistance.

I tried a Samyung a few years ago and it was very, very soft. Perhaps not as soft as a pinhole image but very close. If you are looking for a mirror lens in this focal length range and want to spend only $100 or so, I suggest you look for a used lens made by Celestron, Meade, or Orion. Their optical performance is much better.

The typical exposure I found in the casinos was 1/15s at f/4 with Tri-x exposed at EI 400.

Two things that you may want to consider doing are contacting the Boston Police Department and the media. Showing favoritism to a person who wielded a knife during an incident such as yours is a serious transgression and warrants further attention. The e-mail address to file a complaint with the internal affairs unit of the Boston PD is GoslinA.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us. Contact information for the Metro section reporters of the Boston Globe can be found <A HREF="https://bostonglobe.com/aboutus/contact/default.asp?fld=cat&crit=Metro&exact=y">here</A>.

When you register the copyright to a collection of photographs, you do not provide titles of the images so it is irrelevant to copyright protection whether you change the title of a photograph.

The distortion is caused by the rotation of the Earth. It is the same motion that causes star trails during long night exposures. What you have is in effect is the beginning of a moon trail. The amount of trailing will depend on the focal length of the lens (actually the angle of view associated with the lens) and the length of the exposure. Exposing the moon to maintain surface detail requires short exposures, e.g., 1/90s at f/11 for a gibbous moon at ISO 200). However, to minimise trailing it would have been better to expose this image for 2 seconds at f/4.

<p>A constant refrain seen in posts about pyrogallol is its toxicity. Out of curiosity, I did a quick search at Toxnet to see how it compares with other standard developers. I found it interesting, after reading some of the dire warnings posted on photo.net, that pyrogallol is considered safe when used as an ingredient (up to 5 percent) in hair dyes and seems to compare reasonably well to other developing agents in its toxicity.

 

<p>Here are some links:

 

<p><A HREF="http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~qMJ9kr:1">Pyro</A>

<p><A HREF="http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~Je5EBE:1">Metol</A>

<p><A HREF="http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~OVNhek:2">Hydroquinone</A>

<p><A HREF="http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~K2A21H:4">Amidol</A>

 

<p>I am not downplaying the need to act responsibly with regard to safety and photographic chemicals but it does not appear to me that pyro presents a significant risk above that encountered with other developers.

A good way to assess performance in real world applications is to take photographs of scenes that feature text in various sizes (e.g., signs) and have subjects such as foliage. The text will give you an idea of the subjective sharpness. Foliage will give you an idea of the tonal response of the film, particularly at various film speeds.