Why are so many people trying to photograph Mars...

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by John M, Aug 27, 2003.

  1. John M

    John M Guest

    ....isn't that what we put the Hubble up into space for? I mean it's nice
    that people are interested in it, but it seems like so much effort to get a
    fuzzy reddish circle, when you can download fabulous shots of Mars for free.
    To each his own I guess - I just don't get it.

    The moon I can sort of understand - with modest equipment you can actually
    get a decent shot of it. With Mars, everything I've seen looks like a ball
    of fuzz.
     
    John M, Aug 27, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. John M

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Ah, just one of them things, there's millions of pics of the moon, and
    the sea, and the sky, and birds and blah blah, but we all got to do it,
    we have to have our own personal image.
     
    Paul Heslop, Aug 27, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. You may learn more trying to capture an impossible subject than you do with
    an easy subject where you only need to change one or two camera settings
    to succeed. And unlike those other subjects, this close pass for Mars
    is quite short lived.
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Aug 27, 2003
    #3
  4. John M

    SD Guest

    People like to take /their/ photos with the landmark so it is documented
    and the picture can bring to them their experience at the landmark. Who
    cares about the photo of the landmark, its just that /they/ visited it.
     
    SD, Aug 27, 2003
    #4
  5. John M

    daytripper Guest

    I wonder if the Hubble has enough FOV to get it all in one shot...
     
    daytripper, Aug 27, 2003
    #5
  6. John M

    Jean Craz Guest

    I strongly agree. I feel the same way about taking photos of famous land
    Ah, but you can just do that now with Photoshop! I have pictures of myself in
    front of all sorts of landmarks I have never been anywhere near.
    I think it is more of the mentality that there are certain things you are
    "supposed to" take pictures of.

    People don't take pictures to please themselves, but to please other people.
     
    Jean Craz, Aug 27, 2003
    #6
  7. Yeah, but so have rocks and trees and people and dogs. There's really
    nothing new to photograph, so you might as well give up photography entirely.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Aug 27, 2003
    #7
  8. John M

    Paul Bartram Guest

    Would you use fill-in flash, d'ya think?

    Paul
     
    Paul Bartram, Aug 28, 2003
    #8
  9. John M

    Lionel Guest

    Word has it that on Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:38:36 +1000, in this august
    I think it'd run the Hubble batteries flat too quickly. Besides, I
    believe that the built-in flash on the Hubble is only supposed to be a
    military secret.
     
    Lionel, Aug 28, 2003
    #9
  10. I think you'll find that is only half true. I take pictures to please
    myself - unless I suddenly become good enough to get paid for taking
    pictures (in which case, I might be tempted to work in a certain way in
    order to maximise my monetary goals), everyone else's likes and dislikes
    with regards to photography can go and take a flying leap at the moon (or
    mars). ;-) I am willing to bet at least half the posters here take pictures
    solely for their own pleasure.


    Rachael
     
    Rachael the Wiccan Rat, Aug 28, 2003
    #10
  11. John M

    John M Guest

     
    John M, Aug 28, 2003
    #11
  12. John M

    John M Guest

    LOL at least some people have found it to be a topic worth discussing...
    You've succeeded in wasting your time telling us you're not going to waste
    your time.
     
    John M, Aug 28, 2003
    #12
  13. John M

    John M Guest

    No - you can get different perspectives of most things, and photograph them
    in different lighting, etc... Mars is Mars is Mars. You can't light it -
    you can't get a picture from a different angle (ok - so it spins around...
    whoopdeedo) - you pretty much get a pic that is an inferior version of the
    exact same thing the hubble sees. Yes, you can learn how to improve
    resolution and/or reduce noise by stacking images. Yes you can learn how to
    hook up a 6 megapixel camera to your telescope (and spend a lot of money
    doing it) so you can expose 842 of the pixels to light from mars, and you
    can learn something about photography or astronomy in the process. It's not
    a bad thing overall... you'll defiitely learn a lot. But to me - it's just
    a dead end effort that will inevitably yield crappy results. Go here if you
    want a nice picture of Mars:

    http://marsrelease.stsci.edu/db/2003/22/images/a/formats/full_jpg.jpg

    And then point your camera and/or telescope at something that will not only
    teach you something, but will yield a photograph you can admire and show to
    people without saying - "Look! you can sort of see the polar ice capdown
    there!! I think!"
     
    John M, Aug 28, 2003
    #13
  14. The point is that the end result isn't everything, at least not for
    everyone. The process is interesting in itself, and I might value a
    crummy photograph of Mars that *I* took more than the beautiful Hubble
    image that I had nothing to do with.

    If you only care about the end result, by all means find the best image
    you can and print it. But don't put down everyone who wants to try
    shooting it for themselves.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Aug 28, 2003
    #14
  15. John M

    John M Guest

    Who's putting them down?
     
    John M, Aug 28, 2003
    #15
  16. See! It's a real challenge now!
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Aug 28, 2003
    #16
  17. John M

    DoublEE Guest

    Well with that logic why would anyone take a picture or anything?
     
    DoublEE, Aug 28, 2003
    #17
  18. The poster troll claims to have KF'd me, but for everyone else's benefit.

    3) It's much easier to land a manned (and therefore more controllable) craft
    on a moon 3 days away than it is to land a remote controlled craft that
    spends months to years. One had the vast majority of NASA's big 60s budget
    behind it, and radio communications that took only a few seconds round trip.
    The failed Mars trips took place in the TQM era implemented by Dan Qualye and
    director Dan Golden.
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Aug 28, 2003
    #18
  19. Both can be accomplished at the same time.
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Aug 28, 2003
    #19
  20. John M

    daytripper Guest

    [snipped]
    Hmmm....Whatever happened to TQM, anyway? And Six Sigma?

    /daytripper (33 years of outlasting managements' ideas du jour ;-)
     
    daytripper, Aug 28, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.