July 13, 2010 at 3:43 am #1918
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?July 13, 2010 at 5:26 am #31003
Nice! That is one seriously thin sliver of moon…July 13, 2010 at 6:31 am #31004
That’s no moon…July 13, 2010 at 11:42 am #31005
Yes, Leica, it is. I can give you a dozen shots just like it, slowly setting down the horizon (some are blurrier than others; used bracketing, of course).
(Change the last two numbers from 44 through 67 for the full set)July 13, 2010 at 11:45 am #31006orionidParticipant
*like*July 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm #31007
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.
~Leonardo Da Vinci
Indeed.July 13, 2010 at 1:19 pm #31008
…it’s a space station.
/don’t tell me you missed that reference, rav?July 13, 2010 at 1:36 pm #31009
…it’s a space station.
/don’t tell me you missed that reference, rav?
Sadly, I did. It’s been a while since I paid any attention to all things ‘Lucas’. Why, if it weren’t for my ‘Princess Leia’ headphone-style hairpieces, I’d still not be getting it.July 14, 2010 at 8:54 am #31010
Dear-ho me, rav, an astronomy geek not up on his Star Wars. Next you’ll be telling me you hate Star Trek.July 14, 2010 at 6:43 pm #31011
Actually I was only a fan of Star Wars when I was a kid. As an adult, not so much. But Star Trek? Love them, even the odd ones.August 3, 2010 at 3:48 pm #31012
Not sure where else to post this, but we’ve got a CME headed our way tonight… should be a good night to set up a tripod and try for some aurora action, especially for you northern folks. I’m going to have a look myself, even as far south as I am. I’ve seen them as far south as Atlanta before, so ya never know. With my Clear Sky Clock looking like it does, I can’t miss the chance.August 3, 2010 at 4:35 pm #31013
Seems like a good enough place to post to me! I’ve never seen one, in all these years looking up; Phoenix isn’t exactly dark enough; I’ll think of heading north…August 3, 2010 at 5:15 pm #31014August 3, 2010 at 8:29 pm #31015
hmmmm… looks like expectations are that it will not extend below 49 degrees N latitude. Leaves me out, but you might catch some, Orionid… I suspect you’re not terribly far south of that. Should be visible from Toronto supposedly, which puts the Adirondacks in range.September 11, 2010 at 10:23 pm #31016
- The topic ‘The astrophotographer’s Holy Grail’ is closed to new replies.