Fuddland

The blustery day resulted in a very clear sky last night, so I thought I’d have a go at photographing the night sky from my back garden — something I’ve always wanted to try. The trouble with conventional film-based cameras and no experience is that you have no real idea whether the settings you’ve chosen were right or wrong until you’ve processed the film; it’s a very slow learning process. Digital cameras of course allow you to see the results immediately and this allow you to hone in on the right settings rather than having to work them out from experience.

Armed with some Blu-Tack and a couple of books for a makeshift tripod [I really need to get around to finding a proper one], I stood on a chair beside my garden shed and set about finding the right settings. The first thing I learnt was that the night sky moves a lot faster than I’d ever given it credit for — my camera has a maximum exposure time of sixty-four seconds, and I initially thought that I’d have to use that if I was to stand any chance of capturing a few stars. Yet when I checked out my first few shots, I found that the stars had formed definite streaks rather than just points of light. However, to me the streaks looked a bit too short to appear “intentional” — they almost just look like camera shake, and spoilt the overall effect.

So I dropped down to shorter exposure times of twenty-four, thirty-two and forty-eight seconds, with nicer-looking results. The other thing I found was that unless you can capture astounding detail such as clouds of interstellar gas, a photo of a bunch of stars doesn’t look all that interesting without some context at the bottom of the image — treetops and chimney-stacks really help to get things in perspective.

The third thing I [quickly] noticed is that at this time of year, you can only take three or four long-exposure night-time shots before your fingers are so cold that you can no longer feel the buttons to adjust the camera-settings. Much ducking indoors is required to avoid chilblains.

After a dozen or so attempts, battling with aeroplanes blipping across my chosen area of sky and the yellow glow of the city’s light pollution, I finally hit upon a shot I was pleased with.

It’s a far cry from what can be achieved with much longer exposures and equipment which tracks the stars as they move, but for a bloke balancing a camera on his shed roof in the middle of a city, I’m pretty pleased.

[There’s also a Flickr version of this photo with a couple of notes on the visible stars.]

#1

Brown | 2005 / 01 / 09 – 18:03

Cool photo david. I’m suprised you captured stars as close to the horizon as you have over the glow of Leicester, well done. Orion is such an interesting constellation :) Also note worthy is Rigel. To look at, I love the contrast between Rigel and Betelguise and your photo does show that contrast to some extent.

#2

Richard | 2005 / 01 / 09 – 21:40

You might try focusing in on a star cluster such as the Pleiades, that might make an interesting shot.

I remember when I was given a decent telescope as a Christmas present some years ago. The first time I used it, I thought the tripod was loose and the telescope was slipping down because Jupiter seemed to move out of the field of view really quickly. Then I remembered that the planet I was standing on was rotating…

#3

David | 2005 / 01 / 09 – 23:14

Re #1 & #2: Thanks chaps. It was rather a stroke of luck which allowed me to get a photo of Orion [a constellation I particularly like] — although it was low in the sky at that time of night, in that direction [south-east] there seemed to be very little light pollution compared to other regions of the sky, and I had a good couple of hours in which to experiment with the various settings on the camera, whilst still capturing that all-important foreground detail.

I was keeping an eye out for Comet Machholz in the southern sky, which is supposed to be visible to the naked eye at the moment, but could see no sign of it. The Pleiades could well be something I could see though — it’s cloudy tonight, but next time I can see Orion, I just have to look above and over to the right of him [pretty much along the straight line formed by Betelgeuse and Bellatrix].

By the way, if anyone doesn’t know the individual names of the stars which make up Orion [and I must confess that Betelgeuse is the only one I’m ever sure of], my Flickr entry has notes which highlight the main ones [Flash required].

[Edited by commenter — 23:26]

#4

Daisy | 2005 / 01 / 10 – 10:19

Damn, that second one in particular would make a great desktop image.

#5

felicity | 2005 / 01 / 10 – 16:02

very impressive david. (and completely without the aid of a telescope!)

#6

David | 2005 / 01 / 11 – 08:06

Re #4: Indeed it does. ;)

Re #5: Now there’s something else I’d like to try — shots of the moon through a telescope. I wonder if I can hire one, perhaps on my next trip out to Ireland [practically zero light pollution at my Dad’s place]?

#7

felicity | 2005 / 01 / 11 – 15:18

ah! the moon through a scope! more beautiful than imagined…. you may need an adapter of some sort to fix the camera to the eyepiece of the scope.

Commenting on this post is closed. Thanks to all those who left comments. If you'd still like to say something about this entry, feel free to email me.