The second core fact about programming as a career is that software creates its own demand. If you have one system and you write a second system, then in addition to all of the from-scratch systems that you could write, you also have the option of writing a system that integrates the first two. The mere existence of software increases the number of potential projects that exist, and it does so on a super-exponential curve.
I've been thinking of doing something like this, though I worked in programming in college I really thought about going into photography. Of the photography students I talked with in college, most wanted to create a website they could use as part of their portfolio. Some also asked about software to help run a business. So what I was thinking was stitching various OS software together, from accounting to image editors, to create a sort of turnkey solution for photographers. One package would be installed which would call up any function. A person could edit a photo, then enter it into a database, and printout a bill. All without quitting one app and starting another. I'd use the software myself as well could sell it to other photographers.
But for astrophotography (except where you can't stack) they're completely outclassed by pretty much anything digital. A DSLR of any type, or a digital compact, or even a $50 webcam will outperform any film camera.
So the signal to noise ratio means nothing?
There's a reason amateur astronomy became MUCH more popular around when digital imagers became commonly available.
And prices had nothing to do with this? The prices of digicams became a lot lower than the price of a film camera that was good for astrophotography. Also the prices of telescopes are such that many more people can afford one. You can go down to Ritz Camera and buy a 'scope for less than $200, heck their website lists 3 under $100. One with a tripod and Autostar Controller is $300.
A cheap DSLR on a stick will let you image objects that are out of reach for all but a really patient expert with a several thousand dollar equatorial mount and a film camera.
I didn't check all of them but one 'scope Ritz has has an equatorial mount and Ritz lists it as $150. They also have a universal mount to mount a camera to the 'scope for $50. Next is the camera, Ritz lists the Canon EOS Elan 7E SLR Camera with a Canon 28-90 Auto Focus Lens for $450. Together that comes to $650, less than $700 with sales tax, and tfa did say around a $1000. Then the $300 remaining will pay for at least 15 rolls of 36 exposure film and the development and scanning of the film.
I've got to try star trails again with a DSLR. You can shoot them in chunks, but then you get little discontinuities where the shutter closes and then opens again. Still, if you did it fast enough. Maybe if it were automated.....
I don't know what DSLR you have but have you checked to see if there's a cable release for it? Maybe it will help with this, I don't know if it will or not. If not you can still use it in other low light areas. Myself, I shoot in a number of situations, broad daylight to night tyme. The only type of shooting I haven't done, at least in years is macro or wide angle, oh and infrared. I'd like to get a fisheye lens. I also need to get at least one ND, Neutral Density, filter Not for astrophotography but for daylight shooting.
In high school I loved 2 things - computer programming and aerospace. I studied Von Braun, I read about the Saturn V, I built homemade rocket engines behind the shed. At night I programmed on the computer - various things, but a lot of them aerospace-y simulators. When college approached, I didn't know which I loved more, space or computers. I picked Aerospace.
I was kind of like that myself. Though not aerospace or programming. While the high school I started at had a model rocketry club I joined the one I finished hs at when I moved didn't. In hs I started learning to program on my own but I didn't want to be a programmer, instead I wanted to do Computer Engineering. At the same tyme though I took a Marine Biology class and loved it. Back then I wanted so badly to combine the two, Marine Science and Computer Engineering but I didn't know how. Knowing what I know now if I could start over I'd double major, major in both CE and Marine Science.
Again, if you're competent, you don't need years of experience. I graduated from a decent CS program, and hired straight into a software engineering job. If you can show that you actually know what you're doing, there's a lot of places ready to hire you even if you don't meet their "10 years experience" criteria. There just aren't enough people to fill all those jobs at the set requirements.
I think that's something that sets people off, someone just coming out with a degree sees adds saying 5 or 10 years experience is required get turned off. If they're intelligent while they're working on the degree they'll get internships or coops. Then if they do well, even if they aren't hired others there can help them find employment. Another possibility is while working on the degree they can pick an open source project they are interested in or want to concentrate in and work on it. Maybe someone here can correct me if I'm wrong but I've read previously on/. the easiest way to join an OS project is to go through the bug reports, fix bugs, and submit them. Once they've fixed a few they will be asked to join the team.
Here is a puzzle piece for you: A couple aluminium smelting plants that draw several gigawatts of power to operate.
Giant solar power concentrators. Solar Energy Generating Systems are able to concentrate the energy to create the power needed. This one has a 354 MW installed capacity, and it is being expanded. "The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that by 2020 there may be as much as 20 gigawatts of concentrating solar power capacity installed worldwide." However this can be ramped up.
Digital has a HUGE advantage over film in almost all areas of astrophotography. It's well worth getting a DSLR. You don't need full frame (for telescopic use full frame is fairly useless because the edges of the field in most telescopes are quite degraded). You can get an older model DSLR for less than what you'd spend the first year in film and processing.
As I've said previously I don'y do just astrophotography, I also do wide angle and want to do macro and would like to get a fisheye lens. If you're lucky a sensor that's not fullframe will turn a fisheye into a wide angle lens. One more adavantage, that's important in astrophotography, fullframe sensors have is they also have a better signla to noise ratio.
The one exception I've found is star trails. I've still got my film SLR and it's unbeatable for that kind of shot. Long exposures you can't stack are still much easier with film.
Ah, I also like long exposures. One of the things I want to do is take delayed release photos to get the star trails you mention. I already do some, but want to do more, shooting of delayed exposures, for instance there's a waterfall near here where I'd like to make the water falling look like mist early in the morning. I've got a cable release just for shots like this.
I don't get this whole "Let's use film!" or "Let's force a DSLR to work!" notion when there are cameras designed around the needs of astrophotography ready-made on the market nowadays.
Which, if you also do macro photography requires more equipment. Not everyone only does one type of photography, some like me, prefer to do various types of photography. I do cultural, macro, nature, and people photography and want to do wide angle as well. Two lenses I want to get are an 800mm and a fisheye lens. A sensor from a dslr that isn't fullframe changes a fisheye lens into, if you're lucky, a wide angle lens.
No point in buying a fullframe DSLR for astrophotography. Reduced frame gives you a blow-up factor, meaning you can get better shots with shorter lenses. Seriously, how often do you need ultra wide angle field of view when photographing the night sky?
Ah, but I don't and wlon't just shoot the sky. As it is now I shoot mostly nature and outdoors recreation. One place I love to shoot at is a lake not far from me, 10 to 15 minutes bike ride. I love shooting the sailboats during the summer and ice sails in the winter. I also shoot closeups like pestles and stamen of flowers, and want to get into macrophotography shooting with wide angle, fisheye, and macro lenses. Only a fullframe sensor allows this. With the same lenses I can get pretty much the same image with my film camera and a fullframe dslr.
And how often do you wish you had a lens just _that_ bit longer?
Ah, for shooting the night sky, the telescope is the lens. Besides I'd rather get a longer lens, I'd love to get an 800mm lens, and I don't like cropping small sensors do. Fullframe sensors have one more advantage, the signal to noise ratio is much better on fullframe sensors, which is important for night sky, astrophotography.
They're all disassembling their darkrooms and have gone completely digital. Film is dead there, they use Epson printers with the Ultra Chrome inks. While the ink isn't cheap it is better and more durable than current photographic methods.
Pro photographers debate whether digital or film is better, but as they both have strengths and weaknesses, many use both. I only have a film camera now but when I can I'll get a dslr. First I want to setup a darkroom as well as get a medium format camera with a film back. Later I can get a digital back for it, I'll then be able to shoot both film and digital with the same camera.
While hp and canon make nice stuff too it seems to be the Epson that everybody I know has gone for.
Epson is pretty much recognized by pros as having the best printers. There may be some debate, like there is between those who prefer Canon and those who prefer Nikon. But most comparisons I've seen say Epsons are better.
The big advantage with digital is that you don't have to develop the film. You can try as much as you want, and you don't have to wait days to get the result and then realise that it's underexposed (while still having to pay for the film. With digital, you can take a trial-and-error approach, without having to spend money on film.
True but bracketing helps here. As for developing film, many of us including me loves to work in darkrooms. Though I haven't worked in a darkroom in years, and don't have one setup, I plan on joining an imaging group that does have darkrooms members can use. I can shoot a few 36 exposure rolls of film a day but the expense of having the film developed and digitized holds me back. Digital helps there but being able to develop my own film won't hold me back. I can then scan and digitize exposures myself, and get better resolution. Later as I hope to start working as a photographer I want to setup my own darkroom. I have the space in a corner of the basement but it needs to be light proofed, plumbed, and wired.
It doesn't have to be a fancy camera, a webcam mounted on your telescope will get you quite far already. I've made a complete mosaic of the moon that way, 2000x2000 pixels with a simple toucam.
Panoramas can also be stitched together from film photos, and the prints will be high resolution as well as can be made bigger. As for fancy cameras, though I have a 35mm slr it's not fancy. An slr can be bought for less than than a digital camera and it'll have better specs. Amazon sells the film based Canon EOS Rebel K2 35mm SLR Camera with EF 28 to 90mm II USM Lens for less than $200. You can't get a prosumer digital camera with equivilent specs for less than 4 or 5 tymes that price. You can shoot and turn in for development a roll of 35mm film a week for years before you spend as much. Now if you shoot a roll a day, then digital will pay for itself in a year or two.
and you'll want fast glass (the ability to shot at faster shutter speeds in low light).
While fast, and prime, lenses help in some types of photography, for night shots what you really want is a shutter release cable for time delay, elapsed tyme shots.
whatever you buy if you decide to go the camera / tripod route invest in a really good lens
Tripods are very handy, I use mine about 10% of the tyme, but for shooting the stars what you want is a camera mount for your telescope.
Or someone who enjoys nature hikes, away from the Americanized restaurants and such? Anytime I've had the opportunity to venture far from civilization on my travels (e.g., into a rainforest), I've always brought my SLR (an old non-digital one, which may someday be replaced with a digital, funds allowing). Photographing flowers, birds, and landscapes is just more fun with an SLR!
Same here, I too love hiking and will bring my 35mm with me. Because of budget constraints I haven't got a dslr yet but hope I can get one soon. Even when I get one though I'll still carry my 35mm film camera, I'll just have two bodies to carry instead of one. I'd also like to get a medium format camera, and eventually a digital back for it.
Personally, if I had the kind of space you had, with no light pollution, and if I had the budget you mentioned: I would buy a high quality digital SLR camera. Obviously, if you're looking to photograph things that you need a telescope to see, this wouldn't be a good use of money for you. But, if you're looking to take shots of constellations and the moon and such, then a high-quality digital SLR with a tripod will work beautifully.
To stay within budget and get good exposures of the night sky, stars and planets, it's better to get a 35 mm film camera. Then get a mount along with the telescope, using the mount the camera can be attached to the telescope. Someone at Astronomy.com asks for advise on getting a camera and mount for $500. Here's an adapter and mounts for different cameras for less than $100. If there is already a camera then several hundred dollars is available for the telescope. However if a camera is needed as well, one can be bought for $300 leaving $600 for the telescope. Oh, and a high quality dslr won't fit in that budget, for astrophotography and high quality a fullframe DSLR is where it's at. And the cheapest fullframe DSLR I know of is the Canon EOS 5D which retails for about $3000.
Though I haven't spent much tyme researching it, I have done some because I'm interested in astrophotography myself. I've got the 35mm and have been looking at telescopes, unfortunately I live in a brightly lit city and know of no place where I can go to shoot the stars.
Simply put, we need to store it somewhere. If Yucca mountain is the best we got, then that's the best we got. It may not be a panacea, but storage in above ground casks in-situ is orders of magnitude worse.
But it's not the best site. When storage was originally proposed several sites were studied and the list was narrowed down to Nevada, Texas, and Washington. Both Texas and Washington had relatively strong congressional power and they had their states removed from the list leaving only Nevada which didn't have the congressional mussel. In the end it was politics not science that picked Yucca as the storage site for nuclear waste. However now, because it's so close, California is fighting using Yucca as well as those in Nevada.
So, now you're going to ask, would you say that, if it were in my back yard?
I live in Minnesota, quite a ways from Nevada and if anything were to happen it's have to go over the Rockies to reach me. So I'm not just saying Yucca is bad because it's in my backyard. Currently I oppose nuclear power but because waste already exists it needs to be stored somewhere and I want it stored in the best place for it. Yucca doesn't fit that by a mile, er several hundred miles.
It was italy and sweden and it was done in 1880's. But that does not work everywhere. In particular, here in the west, water is more important than is energy. By exposing that amount of water it causes high loses. In light of what is expected, it is best to not use that.
That's oh so true especially in the western US. The Ogalala Aquifer is being pumped faster than it can be recharged. The same is happening not just all over the US but over the entire earth. This is getting to be critical in India, especially when a Coca Cola or Pepsi bottling operation starts up. Indian farmers see their water wells running dry.
If it is to replace our current coal power plants and power our industry, yes, it has to.
Like too many others, you're focusing on the 1 BIG Thing, energy source in this case, when instead people need to think of it more as a puzzle. Take a bunch of small peaces and fit them together. Use solar where feasible, wind where feasible, and others where feasible. Heck I read of a study by the DOE, Department of Energy, that concluded the wind potential in just the Rockies is more than enough to power all the the US. The northern midwest is a great place for wind as well. Minnesota produces several gigawatts of wind power and next door in the Dakotas, North and South, produces even more. In western Texas there are wind farms producing producing more. California is another state with good wind potential. Yet none of these state have filly utilized their potential. Why, during the rolling blackouts in CA a few years ago there was a wind farm sitting idle when it could of been producing electricity. Why was it idle? Because the wires, cabling, wasn't available to transmit the electricity. California along with AZ, NM, Texas, and Florida are great spots for solar power. Remember when the northeast had that blackout because the power grid failed? There were some who it never affected, they didn't suffer power outages because they produced their own power. Cod Cod is a great place for a wind farm but some NIMBYs are fighting siting a wind farm there. Although many can be called environmentalists, they don't want a wind farm in their backyard, someone else's backyard but not theirs.
So my topic was off topic but this one isn't, is that it?
Do you understand how threaded discussions like those at Slashdot work? Each sub-thread can have its own topic.
Just like you can start a subthread, so can I. Or are you saying only you and those you say can start one?
I was only counting the realistically large-scale ones.
Ah, so it has to be large scale to be realistic? Small scale distributed electrical generation, as solar and wind are capable of, are quite capable of producing enough electricity. Those building homes Off the grid prove it every day. And more and more people are doing just that.
This sub-discussion is about how the free market is incapable of keeping nuclear power safe and in fact encourages unsafe nuclear power. It is more about free markets than nuclear power.
So my topic was off topic but this one isn't, is that it?
You should probably not enter a grocery store or pharmacy. Every one of them has Pepto Bismol for sale, which is a compound of bismuth, a radioactive element with no stable isotopes, which has a half-life of over 20 billion billion years!!
And the quantity of radiation in Pepto Bismol is a very small fraction of that in a nuclear power plant. But I rarely ever go near the pharmacy section of grocery stores and haven't been in a stand alone pharmacy in more than a year. That overlooks the fact that there is radiation that is good in small quantities such as solar radiation and radiation that is bad when concentrated as in the uranium in nuclear power plants.
With the possible exception of mining, nuclear power is by far the most environmentally responsible kind of energy production right now.
How so? Both solar and wind power are more environmentally responsible.
But that was not really the topic, now, was it?
Oh, but seeing as how TFA is about accidents in nuclear power plants, it is part of the topic. Accidents in these plants have health as well as environmental consequences.
if we can get inexpensive energy storage, then we can flatten our loads out. I would think that one idea would be to move away from the generator->user, and move to generator->storage->user, which would allow us to have different grids.
I think it was Norway that came up with a novel idea on storing energy. There wind produces a lot of energy however because it's periodical or cylindrical what they did was to use excess wind energy to pump water above a dam. When the air dies down they let the water flow through the dam generating electricity. I hate dams but liked the idea still. Also usually when wind is slow it's usually sunny and when there's not much sun it's windy. You'd still need storage to smooth out the roughness though. However without a lot of work many won't accept this, they want one thing that fixes everything, but there isn't one that does not introduce problems itself.
And how will all that nuclear stuff in the core be gotten to? Mining? Do you know what the deepest humans have drilled into the crust, and what the size of the bit was? You can use the geothermal energy you get to before you drill so deep to generate electricity. Here are some houses being built in New York that use geothermal energy. Instead of mining uranium or other radioactive metals, the geothermal energy can be used. That energy will be there just as long as the material in the core stays hot.
I'd like to avoid "maybes" as well, like "maybe no more nuclear accidents will happen." Maybe no more land will be ruined from uranium mining. Maybe we'll figure out what to do with the shell of the nuclear plant in 20, 50, or 100 years.
and get going on getting America Off of Coal and Imports
Same here. I read of a study that concluded the Rockies only, contain more than enough potential wind power to energize the whole USA. Minnesota produces several gigawatts of wind power as does both of the Dakotas and Texas. Several years ago while California had those rolling blackouts, there was a wind farm just sitting idle when it could have been producing energy. Why, because there wasn't any power cables to distribute the power. Cape Cod is a good site for an offshore wind farm. Most if not all southern states are good for solar power. Fact is is there is no One energy source that with replace either oil or coal but if a bunch of smaller projects using alternative energy sources are put together they can significantly have an impact, if not eliminate any need to burn fossil fuels and build more nuclear power plants.
I believe in not putting our eggs in one basket
I think that's the biggest problem alternative sources of energy has, people think in absolute terms and they want one thing to fix everything when what it will take is a number of things done together.
Slashdot Mirror
The second core fact about programming as a career is that software creates its own demand. If you have one system and you write a second system, then in addition to all of the from-scratch systems that you could write, you also have the option of writing a system that integrates the first two. The mere existence of software increases the number of potential projects that exist, and it does so on a super-exponential curve.
I've been thinking of doing something like this, though I worked in programming in college I really thought about going into photography. Of the photography students I talked with in college, most wanted to create a website they could use as part of their portfolio. Some also asked about software to help run a business. So what I was thinking was stitching various OS software together, from accounting to image editors, to create a sort of turnkey solution for photographers. One package would be installed which would call up any function. A person could edit a photo, then enter it into a database, and printout a bill. All without quitting one app and starting another. I'd use the software myself as well could sell it to other photographers.
FalconBut for astrophotography (except where you can't stack) they're completely outclassed by pretty much anything digital. A DSLR of any type, or a digital compact, or even a $50 webcam will outperform any film camera.
So the signal to noise ratio means nothing?
There's a reason amateur astronomy became MUCH more popular around when digital imagers became commonly available.
And prices had nothing to do with this? The prices of digicams became a lot lower than the price of a film camera that was good for astrophotography. Also the prices of telescopes are such that many more people can afford one. You can go down to Ritz Camera and buy a 'scope for less than $200, heck their website lists 3 under $100. One with a tripod and Autostar Controller is $300.
A cheap DSLR on a stick will let you image objects that are out of reach for all but a really patient expert with a several thousand dollar equatorial mount and a film camera.
I didn't check all of them but one 'scope Ritz has has an equatorial mount and Ritz lists it as $150. They also have a universal mount to mount a camera to the 'scope for $50. Next is the camera, Ritz lists the Canon EOS Elan 7E SLR Camera with a Canon 28-90 Auto Focus Lens for $450. Together that comes to $650, less than $700 with sales tax, and tfa did say around a $1000. Then the $300 remaining will pay for at least 15 rolls of 36 exposure film and the development and scanning of the film.
I've got to try star trails again with a DSLR. You can shoot them in chunks, but then you get little discontinuities where the shutter closes and then opens again. Still, if you did it fast enough. Maybe if it were automated.....
I don't know what DSLR you have but have you checked to see if there's a cable release for it? Maybe it will help with this, I don't know if it will or not. If not you can still use it in other low light areas. Myself, I shoot in a number of situations, broad daylight to night tyme. The only type of shooting I haven't done, at least in years is macro or wide angle, oh and infrared. I'd like to get a fisheye lens. I also need to get at least one ND, Neutral Density, filter Not for astrophotography but for daylight shooting.
FalconHell, I remember a job ad in 2002 that listed as essential "5 years experience with Windows 2000".
I remember those in the late 1990s, "5 years experience web programming" or "5 years experience developing website."
FalconIn high school I loved 2 things - computer programming and aerospace. I studied Von Braun, I read about the Saturn V, I built homemade rocket engines behind the shed. At night I programmed on the computer - various things, but a lot of them aerospace-y simulators. When college approached, I didn't know which I loved more, space or computers. I picked Aerospace.
I was kind of like that myself. Though not aerospace or programming. While the high school I started at had a model rocketry club I joined the one I finished hs at when I moved didn't. In hs I started learning to program on my own but I didn't want to be a programmer, instead I wanted to do Computer Engineering. At the same tyme though I took a Marine Biology class and loved it. Back then I wanted so badly to combine the two, Marine Science and Computer Engineering but I didn't know how. Knowing what I know now if I could start over I'd double major, major in both CE and Marine Science.
FalconAgain, if you're competent, you don't need years of experience. I graduated from a decent CS program, and hired straight into a software engineering job. If you can show that you actually know what you're doing, there's a lot of places ready to hire you even if you don't meet their "10 years experience" criteria. There just aren't enough people to fill all those jobs at the set requirements.
I think that's something that sets people off, someone just coming out with a degree sees adds saying 5 or 10 years experience is required get turned off. If they're intelligent while they're working on the degree they'll get internships or coops. Then if they do well, even if they aren't hired others there can help them find employment. Another possibility is while working on the degree they can pick an open source project they are interested in or want to concentrate in and work on it. Maybe someone here can correct me if I'm wrong but I've read previously on /. the easiest way to join an OS project is to go through the bug reports, fix bugs, and submit them. Once they've fixed a few they will be asked to join the team.
FalconHere is a puzzle piece for you: A couple aluminium smelting plants that draw several gigawatts of power to operate.
Giant solar power concentrators. Solar Energy Generating Systems are able to concentrate the energy to create the power needed. This one has a 354 MW installed capacity, and it is being expanded. "The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that by 2020 there may be as much as 20 gigawatts of concentrating solar power capacity installed worldwide." However this can be ramped up.
FalconDigital has a HUGE advantage over film in almost all areas of astrophotography. It's well worth getting a DSLR. You don't need full frame (for telescopic use full frame is fairly useless because the edges of the field in most telescopes are quite degraded). You can get an older model DSLR for less than what you'd spend the first year in film and processing.
As I've said previously I don'y do just astrophotography, I also do wide angle and want to do macro and would like to get a fisheye lens. If you're lucky a sensor that's not fullframe will turn a fisheye into a wide angle lens. One more adavantage, that's important in astrophotography, fullframe sensors have is they also have a better signla to noise ratio.
The one exception I've found is star trails. I've still got my film SLR and it's unbeatable for that kind of shot. Long exposures you can't stack are still much easier with film.
Ah, I also like long exposures. One of the things I want to do is take delayed release photos to get the star trails you mention. I already do some, but want to do more, shooting of delayed exposures, for instance there's a waterfall near here where I'd like to make the water falling look like mist early in the morning. I've got a cable release just for shots like this.
FalconI don't get this whole "Let's use film!" or "Let's force a DSLR to work!" notion when there are cameras designed around the needs of astrophotography ready-made on the market nowadays.
Which, if you also do macro photography requires more equipment. Not everyone only does one type of photography, some like me, prefer to do various types of photography. I do cultural, macro, nature, and people photography and want to do wide angle as well. Two lenses I want to get are an 800mm and a fisheye lens. A sensor from a dslr that isn't fullframe changes a fisheye lens into, if you're lucky, a wide angle lens.
FalconNo point in buying a fullframe DSLR for astrophotography. Reduced frame gives you a blow-up factor, meaning you can get better shots with shorter lenses. Seriously, how often do you need ultra wide angle field of view when photographing the night sky?
Ah, but I don't and wlon't just shoot the sky. As it is now I shoot mostly nature and outdoors recreation. One place I love to shoot at is a lake not far from me, 10 to 15 minutes bike ride. I love shooting the sailboats during the summer and ice sails in the winter. I also shoot closeups like pestles and stamen of flowers, and want to get into macrophotography shooting with wide angle, fisheye, and macro lenses. Only a fullframe sensor allows this. With the same lenses I can get pretty much the same image with my film camera and a fullframe dslr.
And how often do you wish you had a lens just _that_ bit longer?
Ah, for shooting the night sky, the telescope is the lens. Besides I'd rather get a longer lens, I'd love to get an 800mm lens, and I don't like cropping small sensors do. Fullframe sensors have one more advantage, the signal to noise ratio is much better on fullframe sensors, which is important for night sky, astrophotography.
FalconThey're all disassembling their darkrooms and have gone completely digital. Film is dead there, they use Epson printers with the Ultra Chrome inks. While the ink isn't cheap it is better and more durable than current photographic methods.
Pro photographers debate whether digital or film is better, but as they both have strengths and weaknesses, many use both. I only have a film camera now but when I can I'll get a dslr. First I want to setup a darkroom as well as get a medium format camera with a film back. Later I can get a digital back for it, I'll then be able to shoot both film and digital with the same camera.
While hp and canon make nice stuff too it seems to be the Epson that everybody I know has gone for.
Epson is pretty much recognized by pros as having the best printers. There may be some debate, like there is between those who prefer Canon and those who prefer Nikon. But most comparisons I've seen say Epsons are better.
FalconThe big advantage with digital is that you don't have to develop the film. You can try as much as you want, and you don't have to wait days to get the result and then realise that it's underexposed (while still having to pay for the film. With digital, you can take a trial-and-error approach, without having to spend money on film.
True but bracketing helps here. As for developing film, many of us including me loves to work in darkrooms. Though I haven't worked in a darkroom in years, and don't have one setup, I plan on joining an imaging group that does have darkrooms members can use. I can shoot a few 36 exposure rolls of film a day but the expense of having the film developed and digitized holds me back. Digital helps there but being able to develop my own film won't hold me back. I can then scan and digitize exposures myself, and get better resolution. Later as I hope to start working as a photographer I want to setup my own darkroom. I have the space in a corner of the basement but it needs to be light proofed, plumbed, and wired.
It doesn't have to be a fancy camera, a webcam mounted on your telescope will get you quite far already. I've made a complete mosaic of the moon that way, 2000x2000 pixels with a simple toucam.
Panoramas can also be stitched together from film photos, and the prints will be high resolution as well as can be made bigger. As for fancy cameras, though I have a 35mm slr it's not fancy. An slr can be bought for less than than a digital camera and it'll have better specs. Amazon sells the film based Canon EOS Rebel K2 35mm SLR Camera with EF 28 to 90mm II USM Lens for less than $200. You can't get a prosumer digital camera with equivilent specs for less than 4 or 5 tymes that price. You can shoot and turn in for development a roll of 35mm film a week for years before you spend as much. Now if you shoot a roll a day, then digital will pay for itself in a year or two.
FalconTry Dark Sky. Click on Dark Sky Finder version 3 and input your coordinates. It will show you the dark sky sites closest to you.
Thanks, I may check it out later.
Falconand you'll want fast glass (the ability to shot at faster shutter speeds in low light).
While fast, and prime, lenses help in some types of photography, for night shots what you really want is a shutter release cable for time delay, elapsed tyme shots.
whatever you buy if you decide to go the camera / tripod route invest in a really good lens
Tripods are very handy, I use mine about 10% of the tyme, but for shooting the stars what you want is a camera mount for your telescope.
Or someone who enjoys nature hikes, away from the Americanized restaurants and such? Anytime I've had the opportunity to venture far from civilization on my travels (e.g., into a rainforest), I've always brought my SLR (an old non-digital one, which may someday be replaced with a digital, funds allowing). Photographing flowers, birds, and landscapes is just more fun with an SLR!
Same here, I too love hiking and will bring my 35mm with me. Because of budget constraints I haven't got a dslr yet but hope I can get one soon. Even when I get one though I'll still carry my 35mm film camera, I'll just have two bodies to carry instead of one. I'd also like to get a medium format camera, and eventually a digital back for it.
FalconPersonally, if I had the kind of space you had, with no light pollution, and if I had the budget you mentioned: I would buy a high quality digital SLR camera. Obviously, if you're looking to photograph things that you need a telescope to see, this wouldn't be a good use of money for you. But, if you're looking to take shots of constellations and the moon and such, then a high-quality digital SLR with a tripod will work beautifully.
To stay within budget and get good exposures of the night sky, stars and planets, it's better to get a 35 mm film camera. Then get a mount along with the telescope, using the mount the camera can be attached to the telescope. Someone at Astronomy.com asks for advise on getting a camera and mount for $500. Here's an adapter and mounts for different cameras for less than $100. If there is already a camera then several hundred dollars is available for the telescope. However if a camera is needed as well, one can be bought for $300 leaving $600 for the telescope. Oh, and a high quality dslr won't fit in that budget, for astrophotography and high quality a fullframe DSLR is where it's at. And the cheapest fullframe DSLR I know of is the Canon EOS 5D which retails for about $3000.
Though I haven't spent much tyme researching it, I have done some because I'm interested in astrophotography myself. I've got the 35mm and have been looking at telescopes, unfortunately I live in a brightly lit city and know of no place where I can go to shoot the stars.
FalconSimply put, we need to store it somewhere. If Yucca mountain is the best we got, then that's the best we got. It may not be a panacea, but storage in above ground casks in-situ is orders of magnitude worse.
But it's not the best site. When storage was originally proposed several sites were studied and the list was narrowed down to Nevada, Texas, and Washington. Both Texas and Washington had relatively strong congressional power and they had their states removed from the list leaving only Nevada which didn't have the congressional mussel. In the end it was politics not science that picked Yucca as the storage site for nuclear waste. However now, because it's so close, California is fighting using Yucca as well as those in Nevada.
So, now you're going to ask, would you say that, if it were in my back yard?
I live in Minnesota, quite a ways from Nevada and if anything were to happen it's have to go over the Rockies to reach me. So I'm not just saying Yucca is bad because it's in my backyard. Currently I oppose nuclear power but because waste already exists it needs to be stored somewhere and I want it stored in the best place for it. Yucca doesn't fit that by a mile, er several hundred miles.
FalconIt was italy and sweden and it was done in 1880's. But that does not work everywhere. In particular, here in the west, water is more important than is energy. By exposing that amount of water it causes high loses. In light of what is expected, it is best to not use that.
That's oh so true especially in the western US. The Ogalala Aquifer is being pumped faster than it can be recharged. The same is happening not just all over the US but over the entire earth. This is getting to be critical in India, especially when a Coca Cola or Pepsi bottling operation starts up. Indian farmers see their water wells running dry.
FalconAh, so it has to be large scale to be realistic?
If it is to replace our current coal power plants and power our industry, yes, it has to.
Like too many others, you're focusing on the 1 BIG Thing, energy source in this case, when instead people need to think of it more as a puzzle. Take a bunch of small peaces and fit them together. Use solar where feasible, wind where feasible, and others where feasible. Heck I read of a study by the DOE, Department of Energy, that concluded the wind potential in just the Rockies is more than enough to power all the the US. The northern midwest is a great place for wind as well. Minnesota produces several gigawatts of wind power and next door in the Dakotas, North and South, produces even more. In western Texas there are wind farms producing producing more. California is another state with good wind potential. Yet none of these state have filly utilized their potential. Why, during the rolling blackouts in CA a few years ago there was a wind farm sitting idle when it could of been producing electricity. Why was it idle? Because the wires, cabling, wasn't available to transmit the electricity. California along with AZ, NM, Texas, and Florida are great spots for solar power. Remember when the northeast had that blackout because the power grid failed? There were some who it never affected, they didn't suffer power outages because they produced their own power. Cod Cod is a great place for a wind farm but some NIMBYs are fighting siting a wind farm there. Although many can be called environmentalists, they don't want a wind farm in their backyard, someone else's backyard but not theirs.
So my topic was off topic but this one isn't, is that it?
Do you understand how threaded discussions like those at Slashdot work? Each sub-thread can have its own topic.
Just like you can start a subthread, so can I. Or are you saying only you and those you say can start one?
FalconI was only counting the realistically large-scale ones.
Ah, so it has to be large scale to be realistic? Small scale distributed electrical generation, as solar and wind are capable of, are quite capable of producing enough electricity. Those building homes Off the grid prove it every day. And more and more people are doing just that.
This sub-discussion is about how the free market is incapable of keeping nuclear power safe and in fact encourages unsafe nuclear power. It is more about free markets than nuclear power.
So my topic was off topic but this one isn't, is that it?
FalconYou should probably not enter a grocery store or pharmacy. Every one of them has Pepto Bismol for sale, which is a compound of bismuth, a radioactive element with no stable isotopes, which has a half-life of over 20 billion billion years!!
And the quantity of radiation in Pepto Bismol is a very small fraction of that in a nuclear power plant. But I rarely ever go near the pharmacy section of grocery stores and haven't been in a stand alone pharmacy in more than a year. That overlooks the fact that there is radiation that is good in small quantities such as solar radiation and radiation that is bad when concentrated as in the uranium in nuclear power plants.
FalconWith the possible exception of mining, nuclear power is by far the most environmentally responsible kind of energy production right now.
How so? Both solar and wind power are more environmentally responsible.
But that was not really the topic, now, was it?
Oh, but seeing as how TFA is about accidents in nuclear power plants, it is part of the topic. Accidents in these plants have health as well as environmental consequences.
Falconif we can get inexpensive energy storage, then we can flatten our loads out. I would think that one idea would be to move away from the generator->user, and move to generator->storage->user, which would allow us to have different grids.
I think it was Norway that came up with a novel idea on storing energy. There wind produces a lot of energy however because it's periodical or cylindrical what they did was to use excess wind energy to pump water above a dam. When the air dies down they let the water flow through the dam generating electricity. I hate dams but liked the idea still. Also usually when wind is slow it's usually sunny and when there's not much sun it's windy. You'd still need storage to smooth out the roughness though. However without a lot of work many won't accept this, they want one thing that fixes everything, but there isn't one that does not introduce problems itself.
FalconUm, dude? You've got your scales backwards.
Here's a hint: why is the Earth's core molten?
And how will all that nuclear stuff in the core be gotten to? Mining? Do you know what the deepest humans have drilled into the crust, and what the size of the bit was? You can use the geothermal energy you get to before you drill so deep to generate electricity. Here are some houses being built in New York that use geothermal energy. Instead of mining uranium or other radioactive metals, the geothermal energy can be used. That energy will be there just as long as the material in the core stays hot.
FalconI'd like to avoid "maybes" as well, like "maybe no more nuclear accidents will happen." Maybe no more land will be ruined from uranium mining. Maybe we'll figure out what to do with the shell of the nuclear plant in 20, 50, or 100 years.
and get going on getting America Off of Coal and Imports
Same here. I read of a study that concluded the Rockies only, contain more than enough potential wind power to energize the whole USA. Minnesota produces several gigawatts of wind power as does both of the Dakotas and Texas. Several years ago while California had those rolling blackouts, there was a wind farm just sitting idle when it could have been producing energy. Why, because there wasn't any power cables to distribute the power. Cape Cod is a good site for an offshore wind farm. Most if not all southern states are good for solar power. Fact is is there is no One energy source that with replace either oil or coal but if a bunch of smaller projects using alternative energy sources are put together they can significantly have an impact, if not eliminate any need to burn fossil fuels and build more nuclear power plants.
I believe in not putting our eggs in one basket
I think that's the biggest problem alternative sources of energy has, people think in absolute terms and they want one thing to fix everything when what it will take is a number of things done together.
Once again, what goddamn use is safe nuclear power if it's a niche market?
None, until it becomes environmentally responsible I'll oppose nuclear power. And that includes the mining and long term storage of waste.
Falcon