Amazing photograph.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That all depends on the camera. Suppose the camera was hooked up to an 18" Dobsinian. I think you would gather enough light in a one second exposure to do exactly what the image suggests. Didn't you guys read the caption? It said the cave was lit up briefly by a flashlight during a longer exposure. By long in this case, it would have to be maybe less than a ...[text shortened]... it's real.
BTW, what's up with the astropic site, looks like the last show was 5 years ago.

Yes, it says the cave was lit briefly with a flash light.


@ you naysayers:
Look people, I was not advocating some amazing photography - I know nothing about photography.
It's just a great photo.

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
I'm not really familiar with astrophotography. How long an exposure would have been required to get that shot of the stars? Would it make a difference if you used high speed film? How long can you leave the shutter open on a fixed tripod before the stars start to look like streaks instead of points?

Nobody in astronomy, even amateurs, use fill anymore. It's all digital, with sensitivity ten times better than any film, you see what you get right away, you can manipulate the photo's and such, with 12 megapixel camera's hooked up to large (for amateurs) telescopes, 12 inch, 18, even 24 inchers are used by amateurs. The biggest problem with those light buckets is getting low magnification, that is to say getting wide angle shots while collecting a lot of light as happened in that great photo.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Nobody in astronomy, even amateurs, use fill anymore. It's all digital, with sensitivity ten times better than any film, you see what you get right away, you can manipulate the photo's and such, with 12 megapixel camera's hooked up to large (for amateurs) telescopes, 12 inch, 18, even 24 inchers are used by amateurs. The biggest problem with those light buc ...[text shortened]... say getting wide angle shots while collecting a lot of light as happened in that great photo.

Interesting. I don't know that much about digital sensors I guess. I was thinking that there were problems with long exposures and noise in the digital sensors--that's been fixed?

Originally posted by Crowley
Yes, it says the cave was lit briefly with a flash light.


@ you naysayers:
Look people, I was not advocating some amazing photography - I know nothing about photography.
It's just a great photo.

Don't sweat the hat'rz

P-

Originally posted by sonhouse
Nobody in astronomy, even amateurs, use fill anymore. It's all digital

While I wouldn't pretend to know as much about the subject as you make out that you know, I can state straight away that you're totally wrong in your initial sweeping statement, as can be proven by this photo, dated 2007...
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/SHOWCASE/IC1318.HTM

Also, the digital format isn't as good as film for very long (30 minute plus) exposure photography because of the length of time required for the sensor to be in operation. The digital sensor heats up and noise becomes very problematic. You don't have this problem with film. Most digital very long exposures are composites of a number of shorter exposures.

D

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Cool. Looks like a ... never mind. Can you fight with it?

It's so hard to find a picture of a turnip shaped as a thingy on the net. How is a guy supposed to make a cool Blackadder reference, without a picture of a turnip shaped as a thingy????

"I found it particularly ironic, because i've got a thingy, shaped like a turnip" 😛