Neptune

[Guest KAYCE]

Took this on the 29th 6.20pm,reduced from 6000 to 2600 pixels,5 sec exposure

F/7.1 300 mm ISO 800,I think it is Neptune.

Using my Nikon D5300 on tripod.

Will have to use my scope sometime.

[+RonC]

With all due respect, it looks a long way out of focus??? The planet should still look round when the surrounding stars are pinpoint. Not a critisim just an observation 

[Guest KAYCE]

56 minutes ago, KAYCE said:

Took this on the 29th 6.20pm,reduced from 6000 to 2600 pixels,5 sec exposure

F/7.1 300 mm ISO 800,I think it is Neptune.

Using my Nikon D5300 on tripod.

Will have to use my scope sometime.

 

Yes not very good,I agree perhaps I should just use a faster speed,different aperture or ISO.

[Brantuk]

Looks more like mars to me Ken just from the colouring. I know Neptune was right next to it in the SW sky on that date/time in Aquarius. Neptune may be off to the left somewhere just out of frame. Venus must've been setting just ahead of the pair - so your image was looking through low thick atmosphere. Good shot though - I like it.

[Smithysteve]

Hi Ken, this is quite interesting, but when I saw your image I thought Mars! It's Mars colour with faint dark patches...

there is a faint object above and to the left of the main feature....

Let us know what you deduce.

Happy New year Ken, and keep posting... ??

14 minutes ago, Brantuk said:

Looks more like mars to me Ken just from the colouring. I know Neptune was right next to it in the SW sky on that date/time in Aquarius. Neptune may be off to the left somewhere just out of frame. Venus must've been setting just ahead of the pair - so your image was looking through low thick atmosphere. Good shot though - I like it.

 

You got there before me Kim ?

Happy New Year to you and yours too, let's hope it's a good one with a few more cloudless nights...? ?

[Brantuk]

I just ran it back in Stellarium and it was all there.

[Doc]

You will know when you see or capture Neptune, it definitely has a blue tint about it.

 

Same goes for Uranus but that's green.

[Daz Type-R]

Yep I agree, defo Mars, but, you have surface detail, ice cap on the southern pole and there are definate light / dark areas, so well done!!!

 

[Tweedledee]

1 hour ago, Daz Type-R said:

Yep I agree, defo Mars, but, you have surface detail, ice cap on the southern pole and there are definate light / dark areas, so well done!!!

 

Sorry to be a party pooper on new years eve, but the same polar ice cap appears on the out of focus stars as well if you zoom into the full res.

 

At 300mm focal length, Mars, if in focus, should be about 2 pixels across and would not show surface detail. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Tweedledee

[Tweedledee]

Having said the above, that image is far better than anything I could have taken. 

[Guest]

Getting accurate focus on  a DSLR is very difficult. I've failed enough times. It helps if you have a bright star to test focus on. Maybe (?) there's some trick somewhere. Quite often I can still get a credible image by resizing it down to a width of 500 or 600 pixels but only if it is slightly out of focus.

 

Although I'm grateful for the words of appreciation I get here, I'm still very much on the learning curve. The good things is that there's plenty of targets for DSLRs with and without a telescope.

Getting accurate focus on  a DSLR is very difficult. I've failed enough times. It helps if you have a bright star to test focus on. Maybe (?) there's some trick somewhere. Quite often I can still get a credible image by resizing it down to a width of 500 or 600 pixels but only if it is slightly out of focus.

 

Although I'm grateful for the words of appreciation I get here, I'm still very much on the learning curve. The good things is that there's plenty of targets for DSLRs with and without a telescope.