[ravnostic]

If you fashion waterhouse stops, you can use non-standard apertures, as well.

ETA: http://www.flickr.com/groups/homemadelens/discuss/72157623873502868/

Brilliant! Hadn’t thought of that. I’ll need a slit cut into the coupler, some thin sheets of firm plastic, and perhaps some black felt to ‘lock’ out unwanted light coming in through the stops. I’ll add this to the projects to do list! I’m looking forward to the different stop configurations–CMIIW, but isn’t that technique used in bokeh photography to acheive interesting patterns?

[ravnostic]

Some Darlots have that feature, sleeping, but not this particular one.

I meant to fabricate one – it would depend on the optics, but there’s a decent chance something like that would work if you put it right behind the lens instead of in the middle somewhere.

1.25″, in above post, not 1/25th.

I wouldn’t even know where to begin in fabricating a shutter without making it much more complicated to put together (I’m all for easy and cheap, it’s written on the bathroom stall, too). Perhaps Orionid can chime in with an idea (he got me finally going on the project, after all…).

[ravnostic]

/probably won’t do well ’cause it was my idea. That’s the way these things seem to work 😉

That’s been my experience, as well.

Early b’s; I’ll be late posting tonight as I’ll be in training. Most of these are variants on a theme, I like them all in one way or another. One or two might get used in upcoming contests. The last is one of the ‘b’s from “All Night Long” that was also considered for this one.

http://fossilspringsaz.com/pics/2011/mar/23/mlyltb01.jpg
http://fossilspringsaz.com/pics/2011/mar/23/mlyltb02.jpg
http://fossilspringsaz.com/pics/2011/mar/23/mlyltb03.jpg
http://fossilspringsaz.com/pics/2011/mar/23/mlyltb04.jpg
http://fossilspringsaz.com/pics/2011/mar/23/mlyltb05.jpg

[ravnostic]

Speaking of good options…
I’ve got these two pictures I’m trying to decide between:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/qTqMYKgd0A46vCWoaTyPqg?feat=directlink
and
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/FlZCy2pgLQj87166P_bS5g?feat=directlink

I’m leaning towards the second one, but I’m just not sure-which do you guys like better?

I’m staying away from ‘star’ shots also–but only because of the time of day and the length of exposure, in one image.

I think the first is a better lightning picture, but the 2nd is a better picture, with the addition of the observer being caught in frame. Not sure if the voters will notice, though. YMMV.

//I think this will be one of those ‘epic’ contests, IMHO. I hope so, at least.

[ravnostic]

Some Darlots have that feature, sleeping, but not this particular one. I know as the ‘raw’ lens goes, it’s f/2, but attached upon the PVC, being further away from the sensor, I’m just not able to do the maths for that, as I don’t know from what point to measure–the sensor? The camera body orifice (effectively the ‘diameter opening’ point)? Currently I have the telescope mount inner ring, which is 1/25 in diameter, attached–that could be considered the aperture?)

These things I do not know. Nor, honestly, will they make a difference to me once everything’s put together. I’ll learn proper exposures as I field test it. Needed are a ring around the exterior of the coupling wide enough that I can screw the flange to the coupler, and a few set-screws to attach the coupler to the t-mount. And the new t-mount, of course, dedicated to the cause. Right now I just hold it together with my hands.

[ravnostic]

Taking my tip from Orionid, I’ve started the Darlot Project. I quickly determined using my Tamrons as parts isn’t necessary nor even the most optimal way to go.

My t-mount adapter mount for the camera to telescope happens to have the same diameter around it’s widest point as the Darlot lens mount point–2-3/8″ (roughly). And there is a PVC pipe fitting from Home Depot that has that dimension as an interior diameter (it matches the exterior diameter of a 2″ interior pipe) and 3 inch length–just about perfect. I’ve ordered the adapter ring (so I don’t trash mine) separately for $12 on Amazon, but I had enough to get the configuration right (or what I think is right.) Thus, the first pictures with the Darlot as my prime lens to my canon (1879 meets 2005, technologically speaking):

No exciting photos; just a test run. It seems to result in very soft photos; I haven’t coaxed anything more crisp. This may be due to the PVC being white (where the hell is my matte black paint, anyway?), or just a property of the lens.

There is definitely some distortion; I should make up a lined posterboard and take a shot to determine that I suppose. I’m able to focus as near as 2-3 feet, and to ‘infinity’ using the original mechanical slide wheel. No aperture setting, of course, it’s f/2 all the way (or is it? The optics are clear at 3 inches from the body mount–does that count against the f/stop?). Shutter, of course, the alternative adjustment.

Suggestions as I go along? I’ll get this finished within a week or two–lots of work in the next couple’a, so I won’t have much time for this.

[/url]

[ravnostic]

Wow. Very nice. As Farktographer asked, HDR? Given the overcast, is it possible it’s not?

[ravnostic]

Take photos of things that look like one letter of the alphabet. Natural or man-made, the object(s) shouldn’t have been designed as a letter, nor should they be ‘arranged’ for the shot.

Better? No? Just a thought. We drinks, ya know.

[ravnostic]

Oh, and BTW, won’t show you yet some of the first pics from the EFS1855, but one will definitely be making it into the MLYLT contest this week. It’s sweet. Here’s the layout for the shot, only with added lighting so I could get a piss poor but viewable image of the ‘studio’:

[ravnostic]

Orionid such as? I don’t have your aptitude for rerigging.

Just off the cuff….

Mount the 75-300 in lieu of the stock lens on a cheap point and shoot with a thumbnail-sized sensor, this should give you a manual super-telezoom with an effective focal length of 300-1200.

Put the 28-80 on a Brownie Reflex Synchro in lieu of the stock lens. This should give a hard vignette on the corners of the 127 film while allowing you to adjust focal length. Hell, just put a canon mount on the brownie.

Take a mounting ring from one of them and put it on one of your scopes’ eyepieces for prime focusing.

Take the aperture blades out of the 28-80, then use it reverse-mounted for extrem macro goodness.

Take the rear mount ring from one and put it on your darlot

New dog toy

etc., etc.

this and that sound very interesting to me. The trouble with the darlot is it only gives me that great macro goodness when I’m looking through it through the regular canon lenses (of whatever size for whatever macro.) I’ve never seemed to find that focus with the xTi body alone. I’ll check again. It must be somewhere.

Okay, it seems to be around 3″ from the ring on the cam body. This could be a completely doable, exciting adventure!

//that man is brilliant.

[ravnostic]

Orionid such as? I don’t have your aptitude for rerigging.

I’ve thought of the redundancy factor. It’s under consideration.

caradoc, I’m not aware of such a thing with my xTi, but if it DID have it–it wouldn’t work with a Tamron Lens, I don’t think. But I’ve been through all the settings–never seen anything along those lines. Hence the tick marks, which did the job fine. I’ll have to see about the Canon telephoto (time to break out the manual, I guess…)

Thanks for the opins, all! I’ll wait to do anything hasty till I see what the new bag will hold; I should be getting that by Friday.

[ravnostic]

Happy to report I have a hard-to-get letter that I think is very nice–coulda done it without a flip, but flipped it’s just so much better. Only two more letters needed (I added the difficulty for myself that I have to shoot these new for the contest–no archiving!)

[ravnostic]

Miniscule, I know. Everything seems small after Subaru and Keck.

I remember dating them in the late 1990’s.

http://www.ravnostic.com/gallery0/moon20110320sml.jpg

Nothing spectacular. I dozed off before it hit the western horizon. I do still like that you can see the western limb (which is up top here) being distinctly not full and crisp–a testament to how fast she was moving in relation to us. It’s only some 15 hours after full.

[ravnostic]

Very nice, Curious! I think lokisbong and I have similar weather–lots of silvery haze around from blowing dust. We have whispy translucent clouds, as well. I’ve gotten off a few shots tonight, nothing spectacular. One I like, thusfar, you can easily notice the less-distinct sharp edge as is evident around the other three sides. Because she was a perigee, shes moving a bit faster than average, and the ‘full’ phase is visibly less so in this image just 15 hours after the event. The hazy skies are no help, though. I’ll continue trying.

[ravnostic]

good lord but i’m a dumbass sometimes. reading ravnostic‘s post and something clicked. i’d been using area metering and seriously overexposing the moon. changing to spot made soooooo much difference.

so now i have 30 decent exposures and won’t have to wait 19 years for this to happen again.

Yeay! Don’t we get to see one?

[Author]

Posts