December 4, 2010 at 2:26 pm #2159ravnosticParticipant
Back in July, I wrote:
It’s hard capturing a moon not yet 2 days old.
Yesterday, at noon (PDT, which is Arizona standard time as we don’t need to ‘save’ daylight), the moon was new (and there was an eclipse of the sun, if you happened to be in the Pacific ocean.)
32 hours later, I took this shot. The moon is some 32 hours old (well, it doesn’t say so in my software program, but I extrapolated). What it does say is that the moon is 2.5% full. That’s not much. Newspapers write about capturing the moon when it’s 48 hours old–and how difficult it is to do so.
And I got it. I’ve tried years for this shot. In my 30+ years of looking upon the heavens, I’ve never seen it, let alone captured it on film. But now I have–both seen, and captured. I can die now. Life is complete. (Okay, I’ll need to get the companion shot of the moon just before going new, but then I can die.)
Click the link (below) for the full sized image.
Elsewise, here’s the mini-version:
Bird is an added shot to the crop. I have others where the elec. lines don’t interfere, but I mean, hey–it’s a bird, you gotta love having that in the picture, no?
Here it is 5 months later, and I got the ‘companion’ shot this morning. At only 1.69% full, it’s over 30% less ‘lit’ than before–a scant 28 hours before the new moon.
*I’m quite proud*
It was very close to the horizon, so powerlines again play a part in the shot, taken from the east side of my apt. complex. Sucks to be urban. Atmospheric blur didn’t help either. I need to try this with my telescope.
But I seriously doubt I’ll ever get a thinner moon. Not that I won’t try.
Full res/size version here:
I’ll just go ahead and die the ‘little death’ now. Anyone got a tissue to clean up the mess?
[edit–I did some fact checking, and my July picture was taken 33 hours past the new moon. This one is 28 hours. It’s possible, though hard, to capture it even less than 24 hours old. A good place to see those is this guy’s page: http://www.dl-digital.com/astrophoto/Moon-Thin.htm ]December 4, 2010 at 2:50 pm #36505CuriousParticipant
hey that’s really cool. idle curiosity but can you tell “before” and “after” by the side of the moon that you see.December 4, 2010 at 4:06 pm #36506ravnosticParticipant
hey that’s really cool. idle curiosity but can you tell “before” and “after” by the side of the moon that you see.
I think what you’re asking is whether you can tell if the moon is ‘going’ to be new or has just ‘past’ new by the side that’s illuminated?
The practical answer is you don’t need to. The moon travels from west to east against the background sky, so the moon is newest when you see it in the west after sunset, and oldest when seen in the east before sunrise.
When it’s full, the moon rises near sunset. If shortly after sunset you can see it [edit-“already”] somewhere up in the sky, then it’s ‘waxing’ (growing) toward a full moon. If it rises more than an hour after sunset, then it’s ‘waning’ (shrinking) toward a new moon.December 4, 2010 at 6:34 pm #36507CuriousParticipant
thanks. i think 🙂December 4, 2010 at 11:10 pm #36508orionidParticipant
Wow. That’s actually pretty spectacular.December 6, 2010 at 12:06 am #36509chupathingieParticipant
/me claps, pops open beer
^what he said.December 6, 2010 at 5:40 am #36510chupathingieParticipant
You do realize that you will only end up with aperture fever doing this, don’t you? 😉
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.