Forget what I said about "more dramatic trails tend to be shorter".
<http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000715.html> :) t On 11/7/04 20:40, Tim Sherburne wrote: > > Amita... I think the 1000 with the 28mm will give you good results. > > "As long as possible" may not give you quite what you're looking for. The > lengths of the trails are directly proportional to the amount of time the > shutter spends open, and (IMO) the more dramatic trails tend to be shorter, ie > less than 1 hour. Also, the longer the film is exposed can lead to more > significant light pollution and lower contrast. It's really something you've > got to play with. Here's a few that I've taken: > > <http://www.sherb.org/albums/startrails/index.html> > > I have yet to get nice crisp trails; I think the problem is partly the > acutance of the film, but very slight vibrations, lengthy shutter times, and > condensation may be affecting my results. > > Here are some other examples that are far better than what I've come up with: > > <http://www.astrophoto.vze.com/astro/trazos.html> > > Also, adding something to the frame other than just star trails will help > build interest in the image. > > t > > On 11/7/04 19:18, Amita Guha wrote: > >> As I mentioned before, I'm hoping to get some star trails this week, and I >> want to make sure I'm not forgetting anything. I want to use the slowest >> film and the widest lens I have at the widest aperture for as long as >> possible, correct? And obviously I want to try for a good composition. Am I >> forgetting anything? I'm probably going to stick my SMC-A 28mm on my K1000 >> and use ISO 100. >> >> Thanks, >> Amita >> >> >>
