|WikiProject Astronomy||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Photography||(Rated C-class)|
I'm planning on doing considerable expansion here, along the lines of a "how-to" guide. Anyone who wants to help is more than welcome at User:JohnOwens/Pet Projects/astrophotography. --John Owens (talk) 19:54, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the page and removed whole sections on "How-To". How-Tos are specificaly listed as not being encyclopedic (please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information---> Instruction manuals). I took it on my self to add the deleted information to WikiHOW. It can be seen (and edited) at How to Photograph the Night Sky (Astrophotography). Other sections were re-worded to make them more descriptive and less "How-To". Halfblue 02:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have cleand up links to conform with WP:EL and added a notice. Links should lead to websites that have further information on Astrophotography in general (i.e. describe Astrophotography). Links should not lead to sites about "how-to" conduct Astrophotography, or sites of your, or other peoples Astrophotographs (see: WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:COI, and WP:EL). 22.214.171.124 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
it is a great page.I learnt so many new things through this page.so thank you very much.JAYANTI BISWAS> From INDIA------- NEW DELHI
This article needs work
I have added a "refimprove" tag. What is "astrophotography"? Is it a field of hard science that has since become a hobby? The article seems to state that since it describes little science. I don't know if "astrophotography" is even discussed as a serious subject in scientific circles. We need some sources that better describe what astrophotography is all about (and NOT "how to" sources). Maybe there should be another article with a name along the lines of "Astronomical imaging" that better describes the current state of the art in the professional field. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The "how to" corral
How to links fall under WP:NOT#LINK - They are not "content-relevant links" since articles do not contain "how to" or "instruction" content. This is also stated at WP:EL, links to be avioded, statement Number 1. Even if we allow "How To", what do we link? Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, so the linked "how to" would have to have a lot of relevant "how to" and other information. The "how to" I just removed is about a very narrow topic with no other information and is even about a single news related event. I am moving current and previous "how to" links here (Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)) (one added Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)):
- An introduction to astrophotography
- Tips on Photographing Lunar Eclipses
- Astrophotography: Film and Digital
- Astronomy Online - Astrophotography
- Lodriguss, Jerry. "Catching the Light: Astrophotography". Retrieved 2006-08-24. (reference)
- Kennett, Peter. "Classic Astrophotography". Retrieved 2007-01-16. (reference)
- John Pazmino, ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY WITH SIMPLE DIGITAL CAMERAS (reference)
Did a major edit of this article for reasons cited above. I also WP:BRD merged/redirected Unconventional astrophotography and Digital camera astrophotography since they don't seem to be verifiable topics WP:V and were how-to articles WP:NOTHOWTO. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Is the use of telescopes with cameras to photograph satellites and the space station called astrophotography ?
I want to add links from the sightings section of the International Space Station article to the Astrophotography article.
There are no references on any page to satellites in relation to people who are interested in photographing them, are satellites and the space station considered to be celestial objects or astronomical objects ? it says 'natural bodies' does that need redefining, or should astrophotography be identified as a misnomer, and if so, what is this activities technical definition ?
Is photographing the ISS considered Astrophotography ?
- Sounds like a good add to the "Amateur astrophotography" section since it sometimes is listed as a subject (pros do this as well but it just seems to fall under "satellite tracking"). I am noticing when I did a rework of this article that I missed something like an "Activities and goals" sub-section explaining "so what do amateurs shoot and why do they do it?" Could go above the gallery with the gallery being a sub of it and satellite photography could be mentioned as one of the activities. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds good. Now, in relation to my other question, is this astrophotography ? well, is it ? I'm not an expert, is it disqualified in any way because it is a man-made object? Do you think the answer to that question is a good thing to include on your page within the definition of 'what is astrophotography' in the articles lead ? I'm going to go and ask this on theTalk:Astronomical object page as well. It's in common useage, and I want to clear it up, and update the ISS page, which is my field of expertise. (I've edited my original enquiry above) Penyulap talk 21:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well looking at the links, I'm seeing one for it being AsPh, and one that is ambiguous, it's satellite photography, but as a subbranch of AsPh. Anyhow, I need to get back to my ISS page, I'll check back here looking for anything like 'astrophotography differs from satellite tacking because satellites are not considered celestial objects ' or 'satellite tracking is a sub-branch of astrophotography which specializes in photographing man-made objects ' although of course  good one would do !Penyulap talk 23:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- The problem I have had with this article is "Astrophotography" itself is ambiguous as a topic. Professionally you don't see it at all, each type of astronomical imaging is broken down into its relative sub-disciplines (star cartography, astrometry, stellar classification, spectroscopy, etc). It is a term in Amateur astronomy that seems to me to be on par with "Deep sky object", it is a general amateur related topic with no solid definition. Non-celestial objects are lumped into astrophotography re: Aurora and satellites and even meteors, so an ambiguous sub-set of an ambiguous term? I would think satellites merit a passing mention. We only need to tell a reader this is part of the referenced literature out there, we don't need to define it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- So would it be fair to say 'Astrophotography is a term used by Amateur astronomers and it's (conversational) meaning is evolving' or something like that ? By the way, I have no desire to edit this page in any way, I just noticed it does not assist in it's own definition, for people who will make what I think is, or will be, a popular enquiry. It needs to mention artificial satellites which if nothing else, can get in the way of people taking pictures of other things. ! lolz Penyulap talk 23:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Extended "History" section
An extended "History" section dif created by Dstuddfelix was added on 10 December, 2012. I moved it here to talk because it needs cleanup re: primary sourced and un-sourced claims need secondary sources (WP:PST). It also needs minor tweaking for formal third person tone (WP:TONE). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Berkowski's first name might be "Julius"
According to this, it looks like the eclipse photographer's full name was Julius Berkowski, but I don't speak German, so I can't be sure. http://www.astro.uni-jena.de/~schie/20130000_WittmannSchielicke_Parish_Mitt_Gauss-Ges_Nr_50(2013)_S_37-54.pdf see page 45. Battling McGook (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)