Some images of it on msnbc here http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/21/5688266-a-total-eclipse-of-the-moon

aetas said:
After seeing some of the shots people on this post are adding i had a question. How many people use a telescope with a f mount adapter? I was thinking of trying something like this but did not want to waste my time if not worth it?

I've wondered about this, as well. I'd like to try a 500mm mirror lens at some point, too.

Well, I have some shots from last night. By the time the eclipse was total we had some haze, but you can at least still see the moon's color. I have the same white balance for all of these so you can see the color changing (except the moondog, which is in black and white). The exposure is completely different from the full moon to totality (12-15 stops). It was fun to see stars appear as the moon dimmed and stopped overpowering them.

Moondog from the ice crystals in the air here. Seen at 17mm.

Now the series of moon shots (using a Tamron 70-200 at 200mm on a D7000):

We had fog set in so it was a no go in Tulsa.....bummer!

After seeing some of the shots people on this post are adding i had a question. How many people use a telescope with a f mount adapter? I was thinking of trying something like this but did not want to waste my time if not worth it?

Im going to try here in Indiana. We have been slammed with snow tonight, but the weather guy said it should clear up for an hour. It is suppose to be the darkest night in 400+ years.

Im going to try here in Indiana. We have been slammed with snow tonight, but the weather guy said it should clear up for an hour. It is suppose to be the darkest night in 400+ years.

We've got some haze, so no dice here. I was wrong in my previous post about the time. 3:15 am Eastern is the middle of totality. Sorry I misread the article before. I was incorrectly taking when the moon enters the penumbra as the beginning of totality.

Might be clear enough here, but probably too much light pollution.

Looks like I'll have cloud here, but I'm going to stay up and give it a shot anyway. I'll just sleep at work ;)

Cloudy here in Seattle too, unfortunately. Though they almost look like they are breaking up a bit. Will see what happens as it starts here at 10:32p.

If I can get up at that time I'm going to have my camera and etc ready to go shoot it. Hopefully our cloud cover will lift before then.

Looking at different "how to" sites today this one looked pretty good.

http://www.mreclipse.com/LEphoto/LEphoto.html

I'm thinking about it, although it depends on the weather. Right now, there's too much cloud cover to see anything good, but the weather reports are predicting clear skies around 1-2:00.

Of course, they've been horribly wrong before.

Is anyone here that's in North America going to photograph the lunar eclipse tonight? I guess it starts at 1:32 am Eastern Time and lasts for a little over an hour (So if it's too cold to spend an hour outside, 2:00 am is a good bet). It's looking like I'll have cloud cover, but I'll see if I can get anything.

I am still waiting. I has been cold at nights and or cloudy every time I thought about going out. Supposed to rain all weekend too :(

I would get registax to stack the images first, and then do your post processing.
That way you have just one file to work with, otherwise you have to process 800 images and then stack them. By stacking them you increase the Signal to noise ratio, so when you do your post processing the image should remain quite noise free.

You can do some of the processing in registax, by playing with the wavelets you can tease out the detail within the different brightness bands. Think of it as a graphic equaliser for images. Then save it as a 16bit, tiff and then post process in photoshop. by keeping it 16bit and processing it you can tease loads of detail out before changing to 8bit.

Mac.

another question about stacking. should i shoot underexposed, correct exposure in LR, then stack with registax? or should i give registax the underexposed pics and correct the final output.

I guess it depends on how the program works, which i don't know.

Thanks, thats what i figured from reading around.

next time i hope ill get clear skies, i figure the increased brightness could double my shutter speed. Also, i think ill try shooting underexposed a bit more, adding to shutter speed.

the f/9 really hurts, the stacked image at 200mm was at 5.6 1/1000 with no clouds. Clear skies should really help.

Raws are better however Nikon Raws are processed, compared to Canon Raws which are unprocessed, which is a bit of a problem when doing astronomical work. A Jpeg always has some of the data removed, its just the way its stored

The more images you stack the better the image will be as the software can work out which images can be used, i would stick to jpegs until you are happy with the results, and then change to raws. If you have 800, you might find that 50 of them will contain clouds, aircraft trails,slightly blury ect, so you can set the software to only use the top 80% of the images.

I would try and up the shutter speed, you will be surprised how much camera shake is introduced in to the images by the mirror going up. If you have a mirror up function use that and allow 3-4 seconds for the camera shake to die down.

Mac.

i only noticed the shadow after you mentioned it. I I left all the Registax settings on auto, i'm sure some of the dozens of sliders and settings can help with that.

Here is my best single shot through the telescope (Celestron 4.5" f/9 with a 1000m mirror).

The magnification great(i did no cropping), but it was slightly cloudy sky with fast moving clouds, and i shot at ISO 400 1/30th. so the clouds washed alot of detail out.

If i had done 800 1/60 or 1600 1/120 i would have gotten clearer results.

Also i'm pretty sure stacking would really make things much better. The full res flickr image shows some promising details.

One question for you anyone familiar with registax, i used jpegs both times i tried to make an image as RAWs fill my D60's buffer very fast. Will the results be much better if i go RAW? many other guides and forums suggest it. though they also say nikon does some preprocessing that makes it less useful.

Tip for focusing on astronomical objects.
Make yourself a hartmann mask fantastic little devices and take most of the guesswork out of focusing.
If the image is out of focus you have multiple images of the object. when its in focus you have just one.
Of if you are using a large piece of glass try using a bahtinov Mask
Works best for pinpoint light sources, but can be used on other objects.

Mac.

Meant to also comment on gelu's pics. It must be very tough to get good base shots with (only) a 200mm lens. And that must create trouble for the stacking software. I see a ghost image shifted down to 5 o'clock in your after image.

Did you ever get anything going with your telescope? I've been dying to try something bigger & better....

My latest efforts below. Single shots, no stacking. Updating my own tips above, I've gone fully Manual on exposure & focus--it feels so liberating! Using magnified Live View to focus really helps. Loving the flexible back screen of the D5000 too.

I tried my hand at a moon shot, i took 200 jpeg images, 1/1000 f/5.6 at 200mm with my 55-200.

stacked with registax

The moon is about 300 pixels across.

Here are the before and afters

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3401/4556561195_1af0997564_o.jpg</img&#62;

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/4557188794_bd3fb166f6_o.jpg</img&#62;

The full moon is probably the worst time to actually take any images, although if your starting its not a bad point, the best times are Waning Gibbous and Waxing Gibbous. (half for the non technical)
you get much more detail at the edges.

If you want a full frame image of the moon, then you will need to use a telescope. or failing that double up your tele-convertors so you end up with a focal length of around 2000 to 2500 mm.

Jonnyapple, the question regarding the wide angle.
The astro software will take any image!! and will stack them, so it dosent matter if you have a nice 50mm wide field or a very small 2000mm piece of the sky.
Some software will find the stars and match them. Others will allow you to select different parts of the image and then stack them. (i.e craters on the moon for alignment).
Dont forget though if your doing any astronomy photography, you will get field rotation as the earth rotates. you also get an effect on the moon called Liberation.

This can vary from as small as a few seconds upto about 30 seconds before the effects are visible.

Have a look at our astronomical gallery as well as our forum, might give you some idea of what you are actually up against should you wish to delve into this.

astronomical gallery

Mac