Recent content by Andy Resnick

Hot off the press- the International Space Station, as seen from Cleveland, OH (300%): (Nikon D810 + nikkor 800/5.6 @ f/8, 1/2000s ISO 1000)

Some fall flowers shot with 55mm MicroNikkor at 1:2 reproduction ratio: These were shot at f/11, but by opening the lens to f/3.5 I can strongly emphasize the small depth of field: Unfortunately, the short working distance makes shooting insects tricky. I couldn't (safely!) get close...

Consecutive nights of a crescent moon: The first night was a complete disaster- I am amazed I got anything at all. In the best shot, Dorsum Oppel is barely visible as a bright curve on the left running roughly parallel to the outer perimeter of Mare Crisium: (Nikon D810 + Nikkor...

Now the samples are more strongly fenitized and are also more photogenic: Fenitized gneiss. This sample was been classified as having strong fenitization-1 and moderate fenitization-2. Strongly fenitized-1 rocks contain clear, euhedral alkali feldspar crystals forming a matrix of chessboard...

I guess it's possible? It doesn't really change my conclusion that for me, using flats is a super-frustrating PITA that isn't worth my time.

My test run using flats for 55mm imaging was a disaster. Regardless of the underlying reasons (possibly correctable reasons), my conclusion is that for my particular setups/imaging conditions, flats cause more problems than they correct. Just the flats, tho- darks and bias frames pose no...

Flats... yeah, I've tried those. Unlike dark/bias/bad pixel frames, I spent at least a year (maybe even longer) trying to get flats to work with my telephoto lens and in the end just up. I'm not exactly sure of the underlying cause(s), but using flats always increased the amount of...

I'm not done trying to locate the blemish, hopefully off-axis illumination (an idea borrowed from 'ultramicroscopy') will reveal the problem. I'd be surprised if it was inside the lens, but I can imagine a few scenarios (condensation, for example). I am not brave enough to take the lens apart :)

We've had an unseasonal stretch of clear nights and good seeing conditions for the past week or so. Since there's currently nothing "interesting" in my available field of view, I decided to experiment using a 55mm lens rather than a telephoto: In the (approximate) center of this image is NGC...

Can't forget "The Mob Rules": apologies for my lack of skill embedding the video properly...

Yet more fenitized gneiss: These gneisses are not the most photogenic of samples; I keep reminding myself that characterizing the samples is also an educational process... anyhow: Fenitized Gneiss. Prof. Verschure classified this sample as weakly fenitized-1 (2%, primarily chessboard...

I had to get up pretty early for these: Taken @ 800mm (f/8), these are about 1:2 or 1:3 downsized. Upper image @ 1/60s ISO 200, lower image was 1/6s ISO 5000. Tomorrow I would have to get up even earlier, so.... we'll see. Edit: cloudy this morning :(

Holmes, Lumley, Berkooz and Rowley's "Turbulence, Coherent Structures, Dynamical Systems and Symmetry" may be a good match for you. In addition, Saffman's "Vortex Dynamics" may be worth examining.

I'm starting to get the hang of it; in microscopy (unlike astronomy), the photographer must prepare their own objects to photograph. Epi-phase works best on extremely flat surfaces (polished metal, for example... or computer chips), and here's what I was able to produce: all images are JPG...

System Of A Down's songs are often quite propulsive due to the time signatures (7/4, 9/8, etc). B.Y.O.B. is an excellent example (using 6/8, among others):