Re: (IAAC) Self-introduction + eye vs CCD
>From: NJ Martin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: (IAAC) Self-introduction + eye vs CCD
>At 01:01 PM 3/19/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>This list is a great resource and a lot of fun. I myself have little
>>in astrophotography or CCD imaging. I like to put my eye up to the eyepiece
>>and personally absorb the photons arriving at the end of a journey of
>>of light years through intergalactic space from a distant galaxy. The eye
>>things differently, and sometimes better than, the ccd or film of a camera.
>>For this reason I value the observations of other observers regarding
>>objects more than the appearance of these objects in long exposure photos.
>>thanks to all who have submitted observations and keep 'em coming!
>A very good point, Mark.
>As one who enjoys observing comets I am almost invariably dissapointed by
the comet photographs displayed in public forums (fora?). Almost without
exception the coma of the comet is completely burnt out in an effort to show
as much tail as possible. Yet is in the inner coma where most of the
activity takes place and where much of the interesting structure is to be
found. The problem is the limited brightness range of both CCD and film
which makes it difficult to record the widely varying brightness range
betwen the nucleus and the outer coma.
>With modern image processing and combining programs though one does feel
that the astrophotographers could try harder.
>The human eye is much better at coping with the wide range but of couse
suffers from poor optical definition at low intensity levels. Even so I
would challenge any astrophotographer to come up with amount of detail I
could see in the Comet Hartley 2 inner coma.
PS Subscription to ASTRO line e mail
with SUBSCRIBE as the sole word in the body of the message and nothing in
the Subject line
Nick Martin, Bonnyton House, By Ayr, Ayrshire, Scotland, U.K.
Latitude 55 24'55" Longitude 4 26'00".