Photographing Venus (or a star)

[Brownbear]

Likely to be a doozy of a question but I tried to photograph what I think is Venus, but it could be the North Star.

It was a gorgeous star with a beautiful ring around it. I had great difficulty focusing on it even in manual focus.

I used the same settings as the moon (spot metering, iso 100, SS 1/250, A 6.7) but it didn't turn out.

The histogram is very interesting and the first I've ever seen like this.



I've never seen anyone post an image of Venus or a single star. I could see it beautifully even though it is just a spec here, and I'm curious as to whether it is possible to photograph a single star, and if yes, how.

Thank you.

[Benjy]

Christina,try a Selfie,your a star....

[IzzieK]

Can't help you there...my astro-photographer friends might be able to help you but I am sure none of them are members here. I just want to know the answer to your question without attaching a camera to big telescope...

[mknittle]

Maybe the "settings used for the "were the problem. the moon is much brighter So the DOF, shutter and ISO need to be set for a much darker situatuation. Lower f-stop slower shutter etc.

[Brownbear]

Benard, LOL I want to learn how to photograph a star!

Isabel, me too. This one just seemed large enough to photograph because I could see it so clearly.

Mark. Very likely the case. I did try a lower shutter speed. Here is a screen shot at 6 secs (iso 100, A 6.7) The raw photo in Picasa so you can see it better. Here I did capture the beautiful haze around it but the star or venus is just a blob which likely means the shutter speed was too slow, ie; not the nice star shape I saw. Perhaps it would have worked if I used a larger aperture F22 (guessing) because the star is obviously overexposed.

[Wavelength]

The starry shape of star is an illusion; you and your camera has overcome the illusion; congrats

[Brownbear]

Hi Nandakumar,

I didn't know that the star shape was an illusion. Thank you for advising.

you and your camera has overcome the illusion; congrats

Very funny... I've captured a blob with beautiful light around it!

The starry shape of star is an illusion; you and your camera has overcome the illusion; congrats

[mknittle]

The starry shape of star is an illusion; you and your camera has overcome the illusion; congrats

exactly. just like a huge rising full moon. just an optical illusion. you see a big orange moon, But the camera sees a much smaller one

[ajohnw]

This is the sort of thing a 10 sec exposure gives, ISO250, 50mm F2.8 on micro 4/3. I took it with an E-P3 to get some idea in very dark skies before having a real go.

It's a 100% resolution crop and the elongation of the stars due to the rotation of the Earth can be seen. If just a pixel then it's down to what are usually called warm or hot pixels depending on how bad they are. Taken some time ago and haven't been in the right place on a suitable night since.



Venus would be a good deal brighter than the bright one. If you can imagine the track of the sun during the day at night planets will be some where along it and close to it. The size of the bright star is down to light bleeding into adjacent pixels over time.


You will find plenty of web pages on photographing stars with a camera rather than a telescope. They will give some rules relating focal length of the lens and exposure time to avoid too much elongation.

The 10sec exposure wasn't sufficient to capture what I could see by eye.

John
-

[Shadowman]

A few years ago I photographed a strange object using 300mm lens, the object filled about two percent of my image. It had a strange orange hue and had a odd ring around circumference. I sent the photograph to a local astronomer, you can probably find one associated with a local university, unfortunately he could not identify the object either. He thought it could possibly be a weather balloon. If you send in the photo try to provide coordinates and day and time of the sighting.

[jcuknz]

Venus is not a star but a planet reflecting our sun's light. Unlike the moon I believe that Venus has a total cloud cover which means a white blob is the best you can get. To get away from over-exposure you need a faster shutter speed which helps counter earth rotation while the smaller aperture is heading for diffraction country.

It can be funny what the eye sees ... at the end of an overnight passage between ports I came upon Oamaru and becuase it had been raining I had removed my glasses. All the street lights along the foreshore looked like penguins, and I thought quite appropriate for Oamaru as they have a penguin watching tourist attraction. Putting my glasses on and they became street lights.
My daughter-in-law wears contacts for short sightedness and told me she also sees funny things though never penguins.

[Brownbear]

Mark, I like your explanation.

John, thank you for sharing. Truly appreciated. I was just curious as to why I couldn't photograph a single star properly, just for the sake of knowing why, and enhancing my understanding of photography.

John, It was definitely a star, not a weather balloon, as I tried photographing a few nights in a row with absolutely no success but your explanation is very intriguing.

[Brownbear]

Then I think for sure that it was Venus and not a star, as all my images of it are white blobs. When posting I wasn't sure if it was Venus or a star.

It seems I need glasses but I will do without as I would love to see some penguins.

Venus is not a star but a planet reflecting our sun's light. Unlike the moon I believe that Venus has a total cloud cover which means a white blob is the best you can get. To get away from over-exposure you need a faster shutter speed which helps counter earth rotation while the smaller aperture is heading for diffraction country.

It can be funny what the eye sees ... at the end of an overnight passage between ports I came upon Oamaru and becuase it had been raining I had removed my glasses. All the street lights along the foreshore looked like penguins, and I thought quite appropriate for Oamaru as they have a penguin watching tourist attraction. Putting my glasses on and they became street lights.
My daughter-in-law wears contacts for short sightedness and told me she also sees funny things though never penguins.

[Andrew76]

Christina, a very close friend of mine is an astrophotographer. Although he's an amateur, he comes up with some pretty good results with his telescope, and an inexpensive web cam that he's converted to fit into his telescope. All that being said, he has built a tracking mount for his Nikon (I know, he's a Nikon shooter but I still call him my friend).

If you would like, I can get some simple information from him, and maybe email you his instructions, or PM you?

[kap55]

This is probably more info than is needed, but I find it interesting.

http://amedleyofpotpourri.blogspot.c...e-visible.html

I think the photo was taken last month? If so it was likely Venus, but could have been Jupiter.

[Brownbear]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you so much, that is very kind of you. If it is possible to take a decent photo of Venus with a 300 mm lens and an extender, and a camera, yes I would love to give it another try. If I have to purchase a telescope, not necessary. I was just curious as to why it is possible to photograph the moon but not venus or a big star.

Thank you.

Christina, a very close friend of mine is an astrophotographer. Although he's an amateur, he comes up with some pretty good results with his telescope, and an inexpensive web cam that he's converted to fit into his telescope. All that being said, he has built a tracking mount for his Nikon (I know, he's a Nikon shooter but I still call him my friend).

If you would like, I can get some simple information from him, and maybe email you his instructions, or PM you?

[Andrew76]

Then I will ask him for sure.

If I had to take a guess, I'd probably say that it's because the moon throws off a heck of lot more light than Venus, and stars. For example, he uses the little cheapy web cam because it shoots at 30 or so fps. He takes a 30 second video, and then has a program that stacks the literally hundreds, nearly thousands of shots.

By I'm just speaking from memory, so I'll get the word from the horses mouth.

[AndrewMcD]

I'm not sure what your expectations may be in photographing a star or planet. With a planet and the appropriate optics you should be able to resolve a disc and even some detail in contrast or structure. I expect resolving a planet to more than a disc would require a telescope as part of the optical system. With a star any shape or form you see is likely an aberration or artifact of the optics and sensor. It is rather interesting to do a time exposure of the sky and see the trails made by stars as the Earth rotates.
Andrew

[Shadowman]

Christina, a very close friend of mine is an astrophotographer. Although he's an amateur, he comes up with some pretty good results with his telescope, and an inexpensive web cam that he's converted to fit into his telescope. All that being said, he has built a tracking mount for his Nikon (I know, he's a Nikon shooter but I still call him my friend).

If you would like, I can get some simple information from him, and maybe email you his instructions, or PM you?

One of the negatives to living in the city is the obstruction of the skies from city lights. Astrophotography is very fascinating, I've considered getting tracking software, right now I have software that at least points you in the right direction. Some of the advanced software can actually focus and position your camera.

[jcuknz]

If you are really thinking of a telescope I remember from previous discussions that the advice was not to buy a cheap one ... this was in the days of 5Mp cameras and limited zooms [x3 etc] and people were buying telescopes for bird photography ... I was tempted but didn't go for it after some thought.