Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Astronomy & Celestial 
Thread started 20 Oct 2011 (Thursday) 11:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Milkyway nightscapes

 
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 235
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
     
Apr 13, 2015 12:57 |  #2221

xpfloyd wrote in post #17515504 (external link)
archer1960 wrote in post #17515208Every single star that is visible from earth is in our Milky Way galaxy


Not quite. The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, but is visible in the night sky in the Andromeda constellation as a hazy patch of light about the size of the full moon.
The Large Magellanic Cloud and the Small Magellanic Cloud are 2 smaller satellite galaxies of our own Milky Way, and are visible in the southern hemisphere

(I didnt actually know that until 2 mins ago)


Respectfully, absolutely wrong!
Milky way is the galaxy that we are part of it. Earth and solar system with our beautiful small sun. We are approximately in its outer 2/3, if you think of it as a pizza and we can only see one side of this disc within, just like an ant on the top or bottom of this pizza (Northern or southern hemisphere viewers) and each view differs as expected. Like other galaxies, it is comprised of many many stars an planets. It is estimated that Milky way has about 100-400 billion (Thousand million), stars in it. Now our Milky Way is just one of many galaxies, now known to be billions in fact estimated at 1000s of billions. Then all these galaxy, visible to us (Many are too far for their light to reach to us during past 4.5 billion years - age of earth- May already turned off (Dead stars) that their light has passed us for ever so not seen) are what is formed after the Big Bang; and now don't forget that we are even discovering new things such as; our galaxy is not alone and in fact it is a part of Multiverse (Versus what was thought as only one, i.e. Universe in past). Now go do the math but sky is limit for what you find, then more importantly, whom you can make to believe.

Bottom line, by no means, all stars we see are Milky ways. It is not even a minute fraction of it. It is a lot smaller than what we can possibly think, yet 15 of April is approaching and for now you better have filed your Taxes for 2014, before thinking too far.


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
xpfloyd
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,610 posts
Gallery: 465 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 5989
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Post edited over 3 years ago by xpfloyd. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 13, 2015 14:23 |  #2222

samsen wrote in post #17515629 (external link)
Respectfully, absolutely wrong!


Bottom line, by no means, all stars we see are Milky ways. It is not even a minute fraction of it. It is a lot smaller than what we can possibly think, yet 15 of April is approaching and for now you better have filed your Taxes for 2014, before thinking too far.

I was just relaying what I read on google :) I didnt think the stars we saw were all milky way so googled it. Obviously the answers I read were wrong

EDIT - In fact pretty much every single website ive checked says what I said above. But im in no position to argue as I dont have the knowledge myself.

EDIT 2 - We are talking about individual stars that can be seen with the naked eye


Eddie | flickr (external link)| gear
α7R III | 15 | 21 | 28 | 55 | 85

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SteveInNZ
Goldmember
1,415 posts
Likes: 49
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Apr 13, 2015 15:07 as a reply to  @ xpfloyd's post |  #2223

Eddie, It's an argument of semantics but your initial statement is correct. Every star that we see as a star with the naked eye is within the Milky Way. We can't resolve individual stars in the Magellanic clouds or Andromeda without a telescope. We can barely see stars past our own arm in the Milky Way.
We can see things outside our Milky Way (globular clusters, Andromeda galaxy, etc) but they aren't individual stars.

Steve.


"Treat every photon with respect" - David Malin.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Apr 13, 2015 17:30 |  #2224

xpfloyd wrote in post #17515504 (external link)
Not quite. The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, but is visible in the night sky in the Andromeda constellation as a hazy patch of light about the size of the full moon.
The Large Magellanic Cloud and the Small Magellanic Cloud are 2 smaller satellite galaxies of our own Milky Way, and are visible in the southern hemisphere

(I didnt actually know that until 2 mins ago)

Yes, but they're not single stars. I realize I wasn't clear in my statement, but that's what I meant...


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 235
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
Post edited over 3 years ago by samsen. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 13, 2015 22:58 |  #2225

xpfloyd wrote in post #17515762 (external link)
I was just relaying what I read on google :) I didnt think the stars we saw were all milky way so googled it. Obviously the answers I read were wrong

EDIT - In fact pretty much every single website ive checked says what I said above. But im in no position to argue as I dont have the knowledge myself.

EDIT 2 - We are talking about individual stars that can be seen with the naked eye


No Eddie, I was only referring to Archer1960s statement and non of yours.

SteveInNZ wrote in post #17515801 (external link)
Eddie, It's an argument of semantics but your initial statement is correct. Every star that we see as a star with the naked eye is within the Milky Way. We can't resolve individual stars in the Magellanic clouds or Andromeda without a telescope. We can barely see stars past our own arm in the Milky Way.
We can see things outside our Milky Way (globular clusters, Andromeda galaxy, etc) but they aren't individual stars.

Steve.

Respectfully, but again absolutely WRONG! (Reference your bolded statement above).
Most galaxies, at best, are looking like a faint star to naked eye and not all that stars we see are part of Milky way. Many stars, (only several times, bigger than our own sun), are much much brighter than major galaxies, due to being much much closer to us. In fact in a lot of nights or certain hours of night, we may not see Milky way at all, due to being below the horizon plane, for the location of the certain observes of that night, from earth. Sky is still full of so called "stars" for the same observer. But lets get clear on definition of the STAR. Star is a large heavenly body that is made up of Hydrogen and due to its enormous mass and size, the gravity in its center is so great that the pressure itself, ignites the fusion reaction. That is in midget form, what we on earth, call Hydrogen bomb. Or in more scientific terms it is combination of two atoms of Hydrogen to give a single molecule of Helium with humongous amount of energy released. This happens only in "Core" of sun/ central portion of the star, where the gravity is highest. Now this released energy, including light or photons will have to find their way out of the core and to the surface. Funny enough, this process takes several million years!!!!!! Once the photons get to surface, say in our own sun, it only takes about next 8 minutes for the photon to reach to earth and for instance contribute to excite a pixel on your camera sensor, thus form an image for your. So please respect every photos that come to you only in ~8 sec that are actually several million years old!! This (Star) is different from plants that are large masses of larger atoms (Mostly) and have no light of their own as they do not have enough hydrogen (Earth) or enough mass (Jupiter) to ignite that fusion reaction and start to shine. But like every plant in solar system, they can reflect the light of nearby star (In case of solar system, sun) and can be seen from outer space, far far. Plants in terms can have large, but smaller than themselves, orbiting heavenly bodies called moons (In case of Earth, one and for Jupiter, about 64). Now that we are clear about Star/sun, plant and moon, lets see what is a galaxy. That is a system of humongous number star with their associated plants/systems, similar to our tiny solar system. As mentioned above, usually a galaxy is formed of 100s to 1000s of billions of star/suns. Funny enough, neighboring galaxies can collide and join to form a single, larger galaxy, in due course of time. For eg it was thought till recent years that one day our Milky way and its neighbor galaxy, Andromeda will collide to form Milkomedia or AndroWay!! But it is now believe at least this is not going to happen and our earth has better reason to annihilate than being displaced by merging galaxies. In general there are only 3 types of galaxies. This classification is merely base on morphology of galaxy as Edwin Powell Hubble described them initially (And he missed a few other forms). The larger ones or ellipticals (If you could go around them in outer space, they would look spherical or elliptical from every angel) that are mostly result of interrelation of many other galaxies and therefor are large and older, with few to form new stars. Second type is spiral galaxy that includes S or Muliples of Ss (More internal rotations) that are plate like/Flat, eg being our own Milky way Andromeda, M51(Whirlpool galaxy), (external link), when looked enface from top (In fact M51 was the first discovered Spiral galaxy), M82(Cigar galaxy) (external link) , same spiral but looked from the very side end so appreciating its flatness) etc. The only reason we see milky way as a white cloud band of stars, across the sky, at night is the fact that we are part of it and are looking into it like a giant disk or plate. And lastly Bizarre galaxies that surely have no well formed shape. Don't forget, no mater what is the shape of each galaxy, it is made of billions of stars. And if you thought our near by stars, beside the Sun (That actually is one of the smaller ones), like those you see as very bright light at night with the naked eyes, say: Sirius, Canopus, Arcturus, Alpha Centauri A, Vega, Rigel, Procyon , Betelgeuse, Altair, Spica, Pollux, Deneb etc are so bright only because the are located very close to us.
Even if you look at the darkest part of our galaxy, as it could be seen by orbiting eyes and not from earth itself, that Darkest black section of our galaxy is formed by thousands of galaxies and the only reason we can not see them, is because they are so far from us with no chance photons thus travelled could be picked up by ordinary means. This was proven when somebody who has a few extra IQ than IQ of we POTN reads (combined), thought; "How about taking a long image of darkest part of our galaxy"! You know Hubble telescope though is made through our tax money (USA hard working, hard earing residents), belongs to entire nations of the world and not USA alone and if you are an established person/organization, NASA gives you a limited time to ask for imaging of any particular section you want. To make long story short, this guy used that power and took an image, if I am not wrong, staking of 2 weeks continues photon acquisition from the darkest part of our galaxy, and the result is the famous Image below that except a single bright dot, every other spot you see, small or large, are galaxies, again each made up of 100 billions of stars. And PLEASE don't forget, this image is taken from the darkest part of our galaxy that you will see nothing but jet black darkness unless if you can combine the light of more than 10 days, then looked via giant eye of Hubble telescope, from outer space where there is no atmospheric distortion.

EMBED PREVENTED
CUSTOM DOWNLOAD SIZE LIMIT 2.5 MB EXCEEDED: 3.72 MB
http://www.nasa.gov …main_bulletclus​ter_HI.jpg
So called darkest part of the sky, as best stated: "The most important picture to mankind. This is the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field. For approximately 1 million seconds, the Hubble Telescope stared and recorded a seemingly blank patch of space. When it was finished, this final product was revealed. This is the deepest man has ever seen into the universe." , filled to the brim with galaxies and it is estimated that there are 1500 galaxies of various kind right in this darkest patch of sky...

So next time you thought all those tiny dots in sky are stars of Milky way, One single Galaxy, think again and in fact in the darkest part of our galaxy where you cant see anything but darkness, there might be more that 1500 galaxies....
And one more AGAIN! again as we are going to know it better (Or are we?), and as we are trying to understand the String Theory etc, we are coming to understand that we are only living in the so called "Universe" what is formed directly after Big Bang. And that is all that we can see directly or through its indirect evidences. But seems there are more than One Universe or what is said Multiverses..... Now go figure out how many galaxies are up or rather out there.

I hope I have not killed too much of your time and my point is clear (Or more blur) and I knew Steve you already knew this. Only wanted to make it more clear.

Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Davenn
Senior Member
Avatar
947 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 409
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Post edited over 3 years ago by Davenn. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 14, 2015 04:50 |  #2226

samsen wrote in post #17516346 (external link)
No Eddie, I was only referring to Archer1960s statement and non of yours.

Respectfully, but again absolutely WRONG! (Reference your bolded statement above).
Most galaxies, at best, are looking like a faint star to naked eye and not all that stars we see are part of Milky way..


sorry Samsen, that is incorrect, Steve is correct

There only 4 naked eye galaxies that I can think of and none of them are point like stars visually

M33, M32, LMC, SMC ... all definitely non stellar in appearance
I don't know of any individual stars naked eye stars that we can see that are not part of our Milky Way galaxy

would you care to name the ones you think are ?

SteveInNZ wrote:
We can see things outside our Milky Way (globular clusters, Andromeda galaxy, etc) but they aren't individual stars.

and tho we cannot resolve the individual stars with the naked eye, the globulars' are part of our Milky Way System as they surround the core as a halo :)

Dave


A picture is worth 1000 words ;)
Canon 5D3, 6D, 700D, a bunch of lenses and other bits, ohhh and some Pentax stuff ;)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 235
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
Post edited over 3 years ago by samsen.
     
Apr 14, 2015 09:47 |  #2227

Davenn wrote in post #17516504 (external link)
sorry Samsen, that is incorrect, Steve is correct

There only 4 naked eye galaxies that I can think of and none of them are point like stars visually

M33, M32, LMC, SMC ... all definitely non stellar in appearance
I don't know of any individual stars naked eye stars that we can see that are not part of our Milky Way galaxy

would you care to name the ones you think are ?

and tho we cannot resolve the individual stars with the naked eye, the globulars' are part of our Milky Way System as they surround the core as a halo :)

Dave


SteveInNZ wrote in post #17515801Eddie, It's an argument of semantics but your initial statement is correct. Every star that we see as a star with the naked eye is within the Milky Way.

Wow I'm speechless & all are said.


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xpfloyd
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,610 posts
Gallery: 465 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 5989
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
     
Apr 14, 2015 13:02 |  #2228

samsen wrote in post #17516346 (external link)
No Eddie, I was only referring to Archer1960s statement and non of yours.

No worries mate


Eddie | flickr (external link)| gear
α7R III | 15 | 21 | 28 | 55 | 85

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LoneRider
Senior Member
Avatar
913 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 838
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Marysville, WA.
Post edited over 3 years ago by LoneRider.
     
Apr 14, 2015 14:26 |  #2229

Words are great, but I prefer pictures ;)

My first attempt at a Milky Way shot from Mt. Baker in NW Washington State.

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7345/9702123003_cbd976e870_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/fMkV​9P  (external link)
Milky Way (external link) by Lone-Rider (external link), on Flickr

~I don't suffer from gear ADD, I embrace and enjoy it...~
GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mindf
Hatchling
2 posts
Joined Apr 2015
     
Apr 15, 2015 09:36 |  #2230

Awesome shots guys! Do you think a 17-40 f/4 is capable taking a milkyway shot with a bit of light pollution? i.e street lights




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 235
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
     
Apr 15, 2015 11:48 |  #2231

mindf wrote in post #17518165 (external link)
Awesome shots guys! Do you think a 17-40 f/4 is capable taking a milkyway shot with a bit of light pollution? i.e street lights

Yes, that is if so so is acceptable.

F4, 20-30 sec shutter and ISO 800-1600, should bring out something.
Pollution filter, (O-III, Hydrogen Beta) by LINK TO eg , (external link) blocking the Mercury and sodium emission and selectively allowing passage of Hydrogen alpha, Hydrogen Beta & ionized Oxygen, can help.
You need to know location and extension of the Milky way across the sky, as it is almost impossible to see it with naked eye, when there is city light pollution (A good indication that if you increase your EV enough to capture MW, you will get a white or red sky instead). Free download of Stellarium (external link) is very useful for that.

But all you want to remember about milky way or deep, wide field sky shooting is that: The single most important (Crucial) factor that can improve your images is DARK, moonless, pollution free, cold sky.
Try to find the closest at least Grey zone location by looking at Sky Light Pollution map and plan a night camp that could be very enjoyable specially when accompanied by a friend or family member, especially that these spring nights are getting warmer. BTW this weekend is excellent as there is not much of moon also.


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnPh
I smell like a Shoulder Shrugging Seal
Avatar
2,464 posts
Gallery: 181 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 1734
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Deepst darkest Cornwall
     
Apr 15, 2015 19:47 |  #2232

IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8695/17161954645_b74ff0472f_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/s9xv​cK  (external link) Botallack (external link) by T_J_P (external link), on Flickr

ՕFlickr (external link)500px (external link)
Facebook (external link)
serial underexposer
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ptcanon3ti
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,652 posts
Gallery: 320 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 3407
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Gloucester Co. NJ
     
Apr 15, 2015 20:17 |  #2233

JohnPh wrote in post #17518975 (external link)
QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/s9xv​cK  (external link) Botallack (external link) by T_J_P (external link), on Flickr


This is really good John. Great control of the high iso. and no star trails even at 30 seconds...very cool.


Paul
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/petshots/ (external link)
Body - Nikon D750
Lenses - Nikon 20 f1.8 / Nikon 16-35 f4 / Sigma 105 OS Macro / Sigma 24-105 f4 Art / Tamron 70-200 2.8 Di VC / Sigma 150-600 "S"

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mindf
Hatchling
2 posts
Joined Apr 2015
     
Apr 16, 2015 00:07 as a reply to  @ samsen's post |  #2234

Thanks for the info!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnPh
I smell like a Shoulder Shrugging Seal
Avatar
2,464 posts
Gallery: 181 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 1734
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Deepst darkest Cornwall
     
Apr 16, 2015 07:13 |  #2235

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17519010 (external link)
This is really good John. Great control of the high iso. and no star trails even at 30 seconds...very cool.

Thanks Paul :)


ՕFlickr (external link)500px (external link)
Facebook (external link)
serial underexposer
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

846,501 views & 4,418 likes for this thread
Milkyway nightscapes
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Astronomy & Celestial 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is tjarkom
870 guests, 365 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.