3 ms·
There is a huge volume of literature for astrophotography - I think most random hits you'd get on Google will be OK (the vast majority will be digital oriented)
by joshvm 6y ago
There is a huge volume of literature for astrophotography - I think most random hits you'd get on Google will be OK (the vast majority will be digital oriented). For example: http://www.astropix.com/html/i_astrop/toc_ap.html http://www.astropix.com/html/i_astrop/toc_ap.html
I can probably give a better recommendation if you have a particular goal in mind. There are plenty of guides on how to take photos of the Milky Way with an SLR, but astrophotography is a broad (and quickly very expensive) field to get into.
If you're interested in a more technical angle, you can look at the Handbook of CCD Astronomy (Howell, 2006) which also discusses noise issues in detail. Nowadays we're moving to CMOS though. However when you go for astrophysics books they tend to focus more on measuring intensities accurately (photometry) rather than getting pretty pictures.
Although one nitpick with the article - tracking mounts do not follow the rotation of the Earth, they rotate in the opposite direction.
- Stratoscope 6y ago> Although one nitpick with the article - tracking mounts do not follow the rotation of the Earth, they rotate in the opposite direction. Maybe I missed something, but I don't see where the article contradicts what you wrote above. The one thing I did find seems correct (as it doesn't specify the direction): "With film and these very long exposures, the Earth’s rotation is a big problem — you’ll end up with star trails (which is a fun type of photo to take). The solution to this problem is a star tracker, a mount that precisely rotates your camera at the same rate as the Earth (known as sidereal rate)."
- joshvm 6y agoThis is true, I interpreted that to mean with the Earth, rather than against. But as you say, the direction isn't actually specified.