Unfair Comparisons.

[barkis]

Taking a cue from CW's post comparing the 200" with todays instruments, I had a look through the old Messier Album I have had for yonks.

I stop way short of criticising the images in it, most of them produced by Evered Kreimer's 12.5" Cave reflector from Prescott Arizona, and the late John Mallas, who's instrument was a 4" Unitron refractor used in Covina California. These instruments were by no means suitable for all the differing images in the book, Kreimer had the best skies in Arizona, while Mallas was plagued by light pollution from Los Angeles.

The imaging equipment today is far superior to what those guys used. Kreimer had a custom made Guidehead with a microscope for viewing a guidestar. A film holder in the centre, and a dry ice box to cool the film. I don't think any of them used hypered film, but Kreimer could cool Tri-X down to -109degrees Fahrenheit, which enabled 19th. magnitude stars to be recorded in 8 to 10 minutes.

Of course, it was all manual guiding. No sophisticated electronics to do the job for them.

So, the whole story is not just image comparison, there is lots more to be considered.

I wonder if there would be as many astrophotographers around today, had those old methods still to be employed.?

I know it's an unfair question, because the imagers of those days, would have readily abandoned their methods for the ones available today.

Now, there is no way I am saying todays imagers have it easy, far from it, there is enormous skill involved in producing the final product from the data that is collected. It is not just sticking a CCD in the focuser, and a few mouse clicks, far from it. I have the greatest respect for all who do this for their own pleasure, and the respect of their peers.

The point I am trying to make, is don't forget the giants who's shoulders we are standing on.

Ron.

[Naz]

Very valid point there Ron, it was much more of an effort when the only recording medium was silver halides. But today, the quality of the images from the amateur is impressive, but I don't know of any that has achieved the results straight out of the box. Modern digital cameras on auto into a simple photo process software can produce reasonable results for the novice, but step up to serious photography is a hugh leap, and astro work is a quantum leap. This can take even a experienced photographer a considerable period of time to master.

My hat is off to those that have dipped into the black magic art of astro imaging, past or present.

naz

[Astroman]

Hear, hear. :wave:

[timetraveller]

i want to echo the comments made on here, just the advances in optical grade glass manufacture and the computer guided grinding systems make the modern scopes far superior to that used by previous astronomers. But most of what we know, was still discovered by the likes of Edwin Hubble and even my ancestors George Wilhelm and Otto and just to show just how good the older instruments were both of the telescopes designed by my ancestors are still being used to this day, with modern measuring instruments attached to carry out up to date science. Just makes me wonder what Hubble and co would have discovered using the Hubble space telescope and the great Keck. Would they be any more awe struck than we at the images?

[Cloudwatcher]

I wonder if there would be as many astrophotographers around today, had those old methods still to be employed.......................

The point I am trying to make, is don't forget the giants who's shoulders we are standing on.

Ron.

Me thinks not,Ron.

The thought of mucking about with all them there chemicals,hypo and such is enough to put me off the idea!

Just think,you have just reached a delicate point, after being stuck in the dark room for hours on end working on a negative that itself took hours to create when the door swings wide open and the wife says "Cup of tea dear"?

CW

[Whippy]

don't forget the giants who's shoulders we are standing on

That's the proverbail nail on the head there. It amazes me that I can spend a few hundred quid and manage to pull out a fairly decent image just from having a couple of goes. But without the pioneers of imaging constantly forging ahead and making life relatively easy for amateurs, I wouldn't even consider buying the gear I now have. Technology is a wonderful thing, but remember where it came from!

Tony..

[barkis]

I wonder if there would be as many astrophotographers around today, had those old methods still to be employed.......................

The point I am trying to make, is don't forget the giants who's shoulders we are standing on.

Ron.

Me thinks not,Ron.

The thought of mucking about with all them there chemicals,hypo and such is enough to put me off the idea!

Just think,you have just reached a delicate point, after being stuck in the dark room for hours on end working on a negative that itself took hours to create when the door swings wide open and the wife says "Cup of tea dear"?

CW

Just got a peal of laughter from the wife there CW, it's her stock phrase, used about 65 times a day/night.

[GazOC]

I wonder if there would be as many astrophotographers around today, had those old methods still to be employed.?

Given how much the ratio of amateur imagers to observers has increased over the last few years, you'd have to say 'no'. That side of the hobby is a lot more accessable these days and it attracts a lot more interest than it used to. Even just a few years ago the general advice for newcomers to astronomy wanting to get into imaging was to not even think about it for the first 5 years!!!!!

[Ant]

If we were still using film I suspect that very few of us would still be imaging - I wouldn't be.

Imaging with film is incredibly hard - there's no preview screen, just getting focus is a nightmare...

These guys did a fantastic job... it is true that we can get as good a results if not better than professionals did 20 years ago. But imagine what they would have been able to do given the equipment that we have.

Ant

[barkis]

I wonder if there would be as many astrophotographers around today, had those old methods still to be employed.?

Given how much the ratio of amateur imagers to observers has increased over the last few years, you'd have to say 'no'. That side of the hobby is a lot more accessable these days and it attracts a lot more interest than it used to. The general advice for newcomers to astronomy wanting to get into imaging was to not even think about it for the first 5 years!!!!!

You're right Gaz., only for me it was much longer than 5 years, more like double that. The thought of it terrified me, as it seemed such a difficult field to get into. I had some success, but mostly widefield, and lunar stuff. DSO's demanded constant attention at the guide scope, but poor drive systems, and flexure were a nightmare.

I honestly think I will do better this time around, but that need not be a great improvement to be better than my attempts with that older gear. I am looking forward to another go, but as I've said before, I won't be gutted if it doesn't work out. I still love optical astronomy.

Ron.

[GazOC]

I know what you mean Ron, I enjoy taking my Lunar images but if I had to stop tomorrow then I wouldn't be too bothered, its the observing side thats the big attraction for me. I never get in from a night of taking lunar/ planetary images thinking "That was a GREAT night" like I do when I've had a good nights observing. But thats the beauty of astronomy, we can all take what we chose from the hobby!!

[Tim]

It is not just sticking a CCD in the focuser, and a few mouse clicks, far from it.

NOW you tell me.........

TJ

[John]

I know what you mean Ron, I enjoy taking my Lunar images but if I had to stop tomorrow then I wouldn't be too bothered, its the observing side thats the big attraction for me. I never get in from a night of taking lunar/ planetary images thinking "That was a GREAT night" like I do when I've had a good nights observing. But thats the beauty of astronomy, we can all take what we chose from the hobby!!

Me too Gaz - nicely put

John

[Astroscot2]

Imaging with film was way more difficult to get good results, you really did need a good, dark , moonless night to do anything at all, months would go by without getting a single image, then you would need to wait till the film was developed to see if your 40 mins standing still freezing cold watching a star in the crosshairs was worth the effort. But it was exciting waiting for the negs to be developed and there was always surprises.

CCD cameras and technology has made it easier to obtain good images, however there is a greater chance of something just not working on the night which I'm sure we have all experienced. CCDs have opened up the hobby and allow more imaging time even in bright moonlight.

It was good reading this thread today - yesterday in the post I received 5 rolls of 120 medium format film for my Mamiya camera, I wont buy a DSLR at the moment as I think there is still life in film yet, well.... widefield imaging anyway

[barkis]

Imaging with film was way more difficult to get good results, you really did need a good, dark , moonless night to do anything at all, months would go by without getting a single image, then you would need to wait till the film was developed to see if your 40 mins standing still freezing cold watching a star in the crosshairs was worth the effort. But it was exciting waiting for the negs to be developed and there was always surprises.

CCD cameras and technology has made it easier to obtain good images, however there is a greater chance of something just not working on the night which I'm sure we have all experienced. CCDs have opened up the hobby and allow more imaging time even in bright moonlight.

It was good reading this thread today - yesterday in the post I received 5 rolls of 120 medium format film for my Mamiya camera, I wont buy a DSLR at the moment as I think there is still life in film yet, well.... widefield imaging anyway

I agree, I still have Olympus SLR cameras and lenses, and I am by no means finished with them. When I finally get my autoguide capability, I aim to go to a good dark site which will give me access to the near galactic centre, and get some long exposures. Followed by some clusters, open and globular. I will use slide film so I can dig out my old projector and enjoy the fruits of my labours.

I used to love the Society slide shows. Most were achieved using the old Scotch Mount drives.

Ah, memories.

Ron.

[Astroscot2]

Imaging with film was way more difficult to get good results, you really did need a good, dark , moonless night to do anything at all, months would go by without getting a single image, then you would need to wait till the film was developed to see if your 40 mins standing still freezing cold watching a star in the crosshairs was worth the effort. But it was exciting waiting for the negs to be developed and there was always surprises.

CCD cameras and technology has made it easier to obtain good images, however there is a greater chance of something just not working on the night which I'm sure we have all experienced. CCDs have opened up the hobby and allow more imaging time even in bright moonlight.

It was good reading this thread today - yesterday in the post I received 5 rolls of 120 medium format film for my Mamiya camera, I wont buy a DSLR at the moment as I think there is still life in film yet, well.... widefield imaging anyway

I agree, I still have Olympus SLR cameras and lenses, and I am by no means finished with them. When I finally get my autoguide capability, I aim to go to a good dark site which will give me access to the near galactic centre, and get some long exposures. Followed by some clusters, open and globular. I will use slide film so I can dig out my old projector and enjoy the fruits of my labours.

I used to love the Society slide shows. Most were achieved using the old Scotch Mount drives.

Ah, memories.

Ron.

Ron, I used to have one of those Bard door trackers myself, The kit was simple back then. no wires, laptops or batteries. Ive got an Astro trac now and look forward to using it at Keilder next week , weather permitting offcourse

[barkis]

Imaging with film was way more difficult to get good results, you really did need a good, dark , moonless night to do anything at all, months would go by without getting a single image, then you would need to wait till the film was developed to see if your 40 mins standing still freezing cold watching a star in the crosshairs was worth the effort. But it was exciting waiting for the negs to be developed and there was always surprises.

CCD cameras and technology has made it easier to obtain good images, however there is a greater chance of something just not working on the night which I'm sure we have all experienced. CCDs have opened up the hobby and allow more imaging time even in bright moonlight.

It was good reading this thread today - yesterday in the post I received 5 rolls of 120 medium format film for my Mamiya camera, I wont buy a DSLR at the moment as I think there is still life in film yet, well.... widefield imaging anyway

I agree, I still have Olympus SLR cameras and lenses, and I am by no means finished with them. When I finally get my autoguide capability, I aim to go to a good dark site which will give me access to the near galactic centre, and get some long exposures. Followed by some clusters, open and globular. I will use slide film so I can dig out my old projector and enjoy the fruits of my labours.

I used to love the Society slide shows. Most were achieved using the old Scotch Mount drives.

Ah, memories.

Ron.

Ron, I used to have one of those Bard door trackers myself, The kit was simple back then. no wires, laptops or batteries. Ive got an Astro trac now and look forward to using it at Keilder next week , weather permitting offcourse

I sincerely hope you get the skies, I'm sure you will, and I'll look forward to the results.