Sort of late... dagnabit.

[Kharakov]

I used a mirror to project the eclipse onto a wall outside. Last second thing because I couldn't find any eclipse glasses (worked all weekend... and slacked before that). Photo is blurry... so.. anyway.

Next eclipse checklist:

1) mirror
2) better camera
3) still be alive
4) hope someone takes over TFT so I can still discuss crazy stuff with smarty people

 

[Angry Floof]

2024 is not that far off.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The "Great" American Eclipse:

Moon: Hey, look at this!

Mother nature: Nope.

(I'm far enough away from totality that I didn't bother--but couldn't have seen anything anyway. The clouds cleared at the end of the eclipse.)

 

[Kharakov]

Loren, you're norther than me. I saw the crescent, still thought it was cool, although I was in La Grande, Oregon in '79, so.....

I took a mirror, propped it up on the back of my car, and projected the partial onto the wall across the lot so I could see what happened.


It was already getting hot in the sun by 9am, but by 10:21, it was cool again. Pretty awesome to have a cool sunny day. Anyway..

 

[RavenSky]

I took a mirror, propped it up on the back of my car, and projected the partial onto the wall across the lot so I could see what happened..

That is a totally cool idea. I wish I had known about it earlier today

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, you're norther than me. I saw the crescent, still thought it was cool, although I was in La Grande, Oregon in '79, so.....

I took a mirror, propped it up on the back of my car, and projected the partial onto the wall across the lot so I could see what happened.


It was already getting hot in the sun by 9am, but by 10:21, it was cool again. Pretty awesome to have a cool sunny day. Anyway..

IIRC it was 72% here had it been visible. That's a big bite out of the sun but how is looking at the real thing any better than pictures? It's still just a bite out of the sun. Now, totality would be another matter but that would have been 3 states away (and the weather maps say it would have been pretty overcast.)

I have seen an interesting picture posted, though--natural "projection" of a lot more than 72%. The sun was shining through trees--and the shadows were these thin crescents.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I had no idea that glasses would evaporate at the stores. But I had a ND10 filter, but just for my stock camera lens. I'll definately be looking to get one for my zoom lens. I also now know that when taking pics, the absolute fastest shutter speed is the way to go. My 1/4000 sec images came out the best. I was taking shots and running up to the office and checking out how they looked. At 300 mm, need a tripod at 1/4000? I suppose I can practice that.

Now I need to try and get software to process RAW images (as I was taking both at the same time). I was aiming the shots with a building in it, hoping to post-process and regain some dynamic range.

- - - Updated - - -

Loren, you're norther than me. I saw the crescent, still thought it was cool, although I was in La Grande, Oregon in '79, so.....

I took a mirror, propped it up on the back of my car, and projected the partial onto the wall across the lot so I could see what happened.


It was already getting hot in the sun by 9am, but by 10:21, it was cool again. Pretty awesome to have a cool sunny day. Anyway..

IIRC it was 72% here had it been visible. That's a big bite out of the sun but how is looking at the real thing any better than pictures?

Pretty much the same difference as looking at Saturn in the scope verses a picture.

 

[starwater]

I saw totality 2 plus minutes, in middle of nowhere Nebraska, dirt road between two corn fields. I somehow ended up with 30 pairs of glasses (looong story). We went to Farmington, NE because it was suppose to have 2 minutes 37 seconds totality, but it was cloudy. Could not even see the sun. So we jumped in cars and drove 40 miles, north and west to sunshine, got off first exit off of I80 and was able to see totality! Great stuff.

 

[Shadowy Man]

IIRC it was 72% here had it been visible. That's a big bite out of the sun but how is looking at the real thing any better than pictures?

Pretty much the same difference as looking at Saturn in the scope verses a picture.

Or pretty much anything. If you're the kind of person who is content on experiencing the world through pictures of it then it's probably just fine for you to look at a picture of it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Loren, you're norther than me. I saw the crescent, still thought it was cool, although I was in La Grande, Oregon in '79, so.....

I took a mirror, propped it up on the back of my car, and projected the partial onto the wall across the lot so I could see what happened.


It was already getting hot in the sun by 9am, but by 10:21, it was cool again. Pretty awesome to have a cool sunny day. Anyway..

IIRC it was 72% here had it been visible. That's a big bite out of the sun but how is looking at the real thing any better than pictures? It's still just a bite out of the sun. Now, totality would be another matter but that would have been 3 states away (and the weather maps say it would have been pretty overcast.)

I have seen an interesting picture posted, though--natural "projection" of a lot more than 72%. The sun was shining through trees--and the shadows were these thin crescents.

I think that it is more the "feeling" of being in the path of totality than it is in looking at the sun being blocked. Feeling the temperature drop several degrees, hearing the birds stop singing, the "eeriness" of being in real darkness in the middle of the day, etc. A picture is probably better than just seeing the eclipse itself since the corona can be much better seen in a picture.

It was heavily overcast here and there was better than a 95% of the moon's blocking the sun. So I didn't see the eclipse through the clouds but it did get significantly darker - sorta like dusk after sunset - until the moon passed and it again became like a normal cloudy day. The feeling, even though it wasn't a total eclipse, was rather eerie.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Good point. Need two tripods, one for photos, the other for video. And duck tape to keep chatty kathys quiet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[barbos]

I watched it on a computer in stellarium and few hours after the fact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pretty much the same difference as looking at Saturn in the scope verses a picture.

Or pretty much anything. If you're the kind of person who is content on experiencing the world through pictures of it then it's probably just fine for you to look at a picture of it.

Some things pictures are fine. Some things they simply can't convey the experience.

I don't think Saturn through a scope is any better than Saturn in pictures--and in many cases the pictures are better because they're taken with gear far better than anything I'll be looking through.

However, there are also things like Victoria Falls (think Niagara on steroids) where no picture can possibly do it justice. I strongly suspect totality is in this latter category.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I don't think Saturn through a scope is any better than Saturn in pictures--and in many cases the pictures are better because they're taken with gear far better than anything I'll be looking through.

When I saw Saturn through a telescope the first time it wasn't that I saw a better view of it than a Voyager photo that impacted me (because the Voyager photos were better, obviously); there was just some more emotional connection to knowing that I was just seeing it up there in space with my own eyes, a direct, personal connection to the cosmos that isn't felt simply by looking at photos. YMMV.

 

[Shake]

One small area (see picture below) gets the privilege of being in the path of totality for both the recent eclipse and the one in 2024. We had around 70% coverage here this year, but in 2024, we'll be right in the path!