So I took some rather interesting photos of the sky tonight...

Originally posted by lovebeck

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by lovebeck
reply to post by Nevertheless

 

Maybe I was unclear but this thing DID NOT move much out of the area in the sky it was in. It definitely was not a plane. I know what planes look like, and ironically, shortly after these were taken there were three in the general area. Seemed too high up for a plane anyhow, IMHO. When I went back about 10 mins after the last one, it was gone.

These were taken with a DSLR and decent lens and the longer exposures were taken with the camera on a tripod, so no camera shake. I do know how to take a pretty decent photo and understand about camera shake, etc...

Even on a tripod to make sure you have NO vibration lock up mirror if possible, use self timer or a remote release also as you were using a 200mm telephoto lens any vibration is exaggerated. Also your using a Nikon D80 which is a crop sensor camera so if it was a 200 mm lens that's 300mm on a crop sensor so again any vibration is exaggerated that's all basic info for sky shots wide field astro-photography.

Responses like THIS (lol face, really?) is why I was reluctant to post here. I don't claim to be an astrophotographer, but I did use my hands free remote on the 1 and 2 second exposures.

Well you claim to be a photographer that's BASIC stuff for long exposure shots irrespective of subject matter it's not rocket science.

Originally posted by lovebeck
reply to post by SolarE-Souljah

 

There was movement within the subject. That is what caught my eye. Not zooming around the sky, but like a morphing/shape change type of movement and that may not even be the way to describe it. I don't want to describe it as twinkling, because it was definitely more than a twinkle!

The longer exposed ones were taken on a tripod with a vibration reduction Nikkor lens. The shorter ones were hand held with same lens. I have only seen weird things twice, both times on my way home from work and this is the first time I was able to get a few photos of something.

I am totally open to all comments, suggestions, and any tips to make the photos better for viewing here. I am not interested in trolls who want to bash and dispute them, hence the openness on my part!

en.wikipedia.org...


Maybe a good starting point and re check that nothing was meant to be there

reply to post by Phage


The Op stated "my iPhone night sky app did not indicate it was a satellite or planet. "
Thanks for posting in my humble opinion they are some of the best pictured posted on here for some time

My friend,

Originally posted by dashdespatch
reply to post by Phage

 

The Op stated "my iPhone night sky app did not indicate it was a satellite or planet. "
Thanks for posting in my humble opinion they are some of the best pictured posted on here for some time

Have you checked your self to see if your research has collaborated with the OP's take on the position of the " Blur "?

Be safe be well

Spiro

reply to post by Spiro

Really? Can you read? The first photo was taken on a tripod w/ the remote, etc. The ones that are hand held, were hand held. Do you have nothing to do but pick this apart? I am not MISLEADING anyone and would really rather you go troll somewhere else if you have nothing constructive or worth while to say.

Your being a total troll and it is people like yourself that made me think long and hard before I posted them.

Originally posted by dashdespatch
reply to post by Phage

 

The Op stated "my iPhone night sky app did not indicate it was a satellite or planet. "
Thanks for posting in my humble opinion they are some of the best pictured posted on here for some time

Thank you. I appreciate your feed back.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by lovebeck

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by lovebeck
reply to post by Nevertheless

 

Maybe I was unclear but this thing DID NOT move much out of the area in the sky it was in. It definitely was not a plane. I know what planes look like, and ironically, shortly after these were taken there were three in the general area. Seemed too high up for a plane anyhow, IMHO. When I went back about 10 mins after the last one, it was gone.

These were taken with a DSLR and decent lens and the longer exposures were taken with the camera on a tripod, so no camera shake. I do know how to take a pretty decent photo and understand about camera shake, etc...

Even on a tripod to make sure you have NO vibration lock up mirror if possible, use self timer or a remote release also as you were using a 200mm telephoto lens any vibration is exaggerated. Also your using a Nikon D80 which is a crop sensor camera so if it was a 200 mm lens that's 300mm on a crop sensor so again any vibration is exaggerated that's all basic info for sky shots wide field astro-photography.

Responses like THIS (lol face, really?) is why I was reluctant to post here. I don't claim to be an astrophotographer, but I did use my hands free remote on the 1 and 2 second exposures.

Well you claim to be a photographer that's BASIC stuff for long exposure shots irrespective of subject matter it's not rocket science.

What is your point exactly? There was no vibration, and AGAIN, the photos that were zoomed out were not blurry, at all. I feel like this must be rocket science if you cannot understand that there was no camera shake. Maybe the fact that their was no camera shake is your problem? Idk what your damage is, but like the other troll, if you have nothing productive to add to the conversation then...

Originally posted by Yakwise
In the first photo you posted is that the silhouette of a tree? If you don't know what I'm referring to I'll outline it.

Yes. We have a Cottonwood tree that has its full leaves already. I tried to get my shots around it but I was a bit skittish of moving too far away from the house, lol.

Sorry dear,

it all looks like a single light source where the shapes are created by motion blur due to low shutter speeds.
ISO creates noise, which messes with colors. Mostly camera's that aren't fullframe DSLR's can't go much
higher then 1000, a non dslr gets issues at 400, shooting in the dark negatively affects it too.

If there is really something out there and you are looking to capture it,
put your camera on a tripod. Find the shutter delay and set it to at least 10 seconds,
try your shutter speed at 1/20 and 1/50 and try to keep the ISO below 800.
Set the f number as High as you can without the subject getting extremely underexposed.
Before you do that, set your color space to Adobe RGB.

If you want to shoot hand held, shutter speed 1/200 is the minimal.
This is the speed you need to completely freeze a human being.
This also counts for a photographer handling the camera.

I have uploaded all the photos to a Flickr account. You can read all the EXIF data, etc. on there. There are seven photos total. Thanks.

Flickr

What is that little curved line on the black picture?

Never mind, that is a piece of cat hair on the screen.

I do see a light of some kind on the second picture.

My dear friend,

I wouldn't have the energy to troll

Originally posted by lovebeck
reply to post by Spiro

 

Really? Can you read? The first photo was taken on a tripod w/ the remote, etc. The ones that are hand held, were hand held. Do you have nothing to do but pick this apart? I am not MISLEADING anyone and would really rather you go troll somewhere else if you have nothing constructive or worth while to say.

Your being a total troll and it is people like yourself that made me think long and hard before I posted them.

I can read just fine, thank you. Perhaps stop attacking me and get down to brass tacs?

In THIS POST you claim all three to be hand held. How am I not reading this right?

I'm not trying to pick it apart in the way you think, I am merely trying to get you to understand something that you are unwilling to listen to.

Anyway, I had better troll off somewhere else then. See you around

Oh, and please take peoples advice, just sometimes because the hand held ones that you are showing here are actually blurred images, when you are saying they are not. Strange!

Be safe be well

Spiro

Well... This is now a sad thread. Lovebeck, at first you saying "I'm not claiming ufo" sort of thing, which was great. However, with all the following spot-on input from respected members you jump down their throats calling them 'trolls'. Phage explained the motion you saw, and everything else you have said since has been a disappointing read I'm afraid.
I'd suggest you research into night photography yourself as you will only improve your photography skills and understanding, it may become a new hobby for you!

But please don't label members trolls who we're just trying to educate you.

Originally posted by Spiro
My dear friend,

I wouldn't have the energy to troll

Originally posted by lovebeck
reply to post by Spiro

 

Really? Can you read? The first photo was taken on a tripod w/ the remote, etc. The ones that are hand held, were hand held. Do you have nothing to do but pick this apart? I am not MISLEADING anyone and would really rather you go troll somewhere else if you have nothing constructive or worth while to say.

Your being a total troll and it is people like yourself that made me think long and hard before I posted them.

I can read just fine, thank you. Perhaps stop attacking me and get down to brass tacs?

In THIS POST you claim all three to be hand held. How am I not reading this right?

I'm not trying to pick it apart in the way you think, I am merely trying to get you to understand something that you are unwilling to listen to.

Anyway, I had better troll off somewhere else then. See you around

Oh, and please take peoples advice, just sometimes because the hand held ones that you are showing here are actually blurred images, when you are saying they are not. Strange!

Be safe be well

Spiro

edit on 1-5-2013 by Spiro because: (no reason given)

Brass tacks? OK, let me explain this to you once again. THE PHOTOS LABELED "HAND HELD" WERE HAND HELD. The photos I posted here were "enlarged" by using the "scale" tool in Lightroom 4. I NEVER claimed that these images were not zoomed/enlarged/original. What I did say was that the original photos are NOT BLURRY and rather that they are clear, however, are very small points of light that do not show much detail, etc. That is why I used the scale tool to enlarge them. hree of the four were hand held. I can take a clear photo holding the camera as it is something I do almost every single day. Many photogs do this on a regular basis and their images come out just fine, as did mine.

I posted these photos hoping for an intelligent conversation about the photos and what they might be and how best to process them. Such as, if it is a star/planet, I would like to know which one, things like that. I was not looking for a discussion on basic photography techniques as I understand photography and how to take a photo.

You're claim that you are not "picking" but merely trying to make me understand and that I am unwilling to listen is B to the S. I am willing to listen and I am not attacking you. I have explained my self four or five times to you already. You are insistence that I am somehow trying to mislead people is wrong. In fact, I have been transparent and open about the subject matter, how the photos were processed, where I took them, what camera equipment I used, provided EXIF data, and even uploaded them to FLICKR.

So, again, Idk what it is you're trying to get out of me but I have explained all of this to you, more than once, and I am not doing it again. Go find another thread to hijack or maybe go outside and get some exercise, take some photos, whatever. Just leave me be.

Originally posted by MyNoa

Sorry dear,

it all looks like a single light source where the shapes are created by motion blur due to low shutter speeds.
ISO creates noise, which messes with colors. Mostly camera's that aren't fullframe DSLR's can't go much
higher then 1000, a non dslr gets issues at 400, shooting in the dark negatively affects it too.

If there is really something out there and you are looking to capture it,
put your camera on a tripod. Find the shutter delay and set it to at least 10 seconds,
try your shutter speed at 1/20 and 1/50 and try to keep the ISO below 800.
Set the f number as High as you can without the subject getting extremely underexposed.
Before you do that, set your color space to Adobe RGB.

If you want to shoot hand held, shutter speed 1/200 is the minimal.
This is the speed you need to completely freeze a human being.
This also counts for a photographer handling the camera.

These were shot with my old Nikon D80 with a Nikkor 55-200mm VRII (it was the quickest camera I could get to at the time) which is a DSLR at an ISO of 1600 which is nothing for that camera. There is not much noise in them, at all. While I appreciate your suggestions, I can shoot a clear photo hand held at less than 1/200. Way less. Full frame versus cropped sensor does not have much to do with ISO noise (newer DSLR vs. older DSLR, does) and I always shoot in aRGB. Also, the images were "zoomed" in using the scale tool in Lightroom 4 which makes them appear pixelated and noisy. All were shot in NEF (RAW) format and were not edited, at all, except for cropping and the use of the scale tool. NEF images are ugly SOOC and always require editing and conversion to jpeg. Heck, just converting to jpeg causes artifacts. All of those things combined leads to an unedited, pixelated photo, however, I did not edit them because I did not want to provide "edited" images for this purpose.

The photos labeled hand held, were shot hand held. The rest were shot on a tripod utilizing a remote control to avoid camera shake/mirror vibration. All of them were uploaded to Flickr and can be seen here Flickr.

When I get a minute I will upload the original, un-zoomed (scaled) images as well for comparison.

I was in the process of exporting the original photos and realized that they were set to come out in sRGB mode. I'm not sure why LR changed that except I exported as jpeg and not tiff like I normally do before finishing touches in Lightroom. However, sRGB is perfectly fine for this purpose and for general Walmart printing & is essentially better for posting photos online. Adobe RGB however does represent a wider range of colors and I use it only because I have my customers' photos printed at a pro lab. If I printed those same photos at Walmart, they would look horrible.

Originally posted by inthewinterdark

posted by lovebeck
There was movement within the subject. That is what caught my eye. Not zooming around the sky, but like a morphing/shape change type of movement and that may not even be the way to describe it. I don't want to describe it as twinkling, because it was definitely more than a twinkle!

I'm very interested in knowing more about it's motion and shape changing.

Did it look anything like the following video?

No, it was not rounded but more uniform. I hate to say it, but sort of like a triangle. It should be getting dark here in the next hour or so and I am anxious to see if it is out there again. I have a fresh star map for my area and my handy Night Sky app on my phone as well.

Originally posted by Qumulys
Well... This is now a sad thread. Lovebeck, at first you saying "I'm not claiming ufo" sort of thing, which was great. However, with all the following spot-on input from respected members you jump down their throats calling them 'trolls'. Phage explained the motion you saw, and everything else you have said since has been a disappointing read I'm afraid.
I'd suggest you research into night photography yourself as you will only improve your photography skills and understanding, it may become a new hobby for you!

But please don't label members trolls who we're just trying to educate you.

I have been doing photography for many years and have been doing it as a business for almost 6 years now. While I appreciate constructive comments, suggestions, etc, I have explained over and over that I know how to take a photo and how to use a tripod and remote to fire the shutter.

This website isn't a photography web site and I am not in need of any help or suggestions in this area. I posted the photos and asked for any suggestions on editing them to get the best quality and to avoid any type of "photoshopped" label. It is a disappointing read, you are right, because instead of discussing the photos and what they could be, I have been repeatedly explaining how the photos were taken and that the images are not due to camera shake/vibration/etc.

When someone comes back just to post the "last word" or to dispute what I have already explained then yes, I consider that trolling. If you started this thread, how would you feel about it? I have been honest and open and transparent about everything. However, my camera did not shake and I can take a crystal clear photo hand held at 1/5 sec.

I do more landscape and portrait work than astrophotography and have not claimed to be an astrophotographer by any stretch, but I do understand the fundamentals of photography and in this particular case, the fundamentals are all that is needed.

I have uploaded the original photos. The only change I made was to make them smaller to fit onto Flickr's site. You can see that the object changed shapes/colors even on the ones that were taken on a tripod and with a longer exposure (photos 4 thru 7).

Originals

Mystery solved. The photos are of Capella. Using a fresh star map and a compass I found it. Go out and take a look, in my part of the US (Ohio) it is in the north western part of the sky and is very bright! Thanks to the poster that suggested it, you were right!

reply to post by lovebeck

Your welcome.
Thank you.