/p/ - Photography » Thread #2612824

[116 / 61 / ?]

New astrophotography thread

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Thu 25 Jun 2015 01:03:59 No.2612824 View View Reply Original Report

Night sky photography. Milky way, galaxies, nebulae, planets, comets or post your questions about telescopes / astro gear.

Almost 1 month since my last astrophoto session. Beautiful night, took a bunch of objects. Here is the trifid nebula (M20).
Skywatcher 200/1000mm, Canon 1100D, CLS filter for night pollution. I am processing my other shots right now

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO haltere2.jpg, 254KiB, 1000x666

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Thu 25 Jun 2015 01:29:20 No.2612832 Report

Quoted By: >>2618938

>The Dumbbell Nebula (also known as Apple Core Nebula, Messier 27, M 27, or NGC 6853)

I took a picture of it last year with my 1500mm but I like this one better. (1000mm Newtonian)

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_6002-2.jpg, 233KiB, 1000x667

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Thu 25 Jun 2015 01:48:16 No.2612837 Report

Quoted By: >>2613562

M8 lagoon nebula, single frame snapshot.
It was late and all my gear was covered with dew, but I wanted to have my first look at this object.
I will try a more elaborate shot of it next time the sky is clear.

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_5908.jpg, 167KiB, 667x1000

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Thu 25 Jun 2015 02:05:58 No.2612841 Report

Quoted By:

M57 ring nebula in Lyra.
the eye of god watching you fapping

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO milky1-2.jpg, 564KiB, 1200x800

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Fri 26 Jun 2015 00:51:54 No.2613559 Report

Quoted By: >>2614613

cloudy tonight, so no telescope. Tried a milky way shot instead. 78 second sub-exposures (about 20 of them stacked) with the Canon and the kit lens, on the scope mount. Not really sure how to edit it, especially the colors. Wish I added something in the foreground

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr..

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr.. Fri 26 Jun 2015 00:55:46 No.2613562 Report

Quoted By: >>2613572

As someone who tried to dabble in astro for a bit, props on getting some nice usable image of deep space objects. It's a hell of a lot more difficult than it seems and I failed spectacularly.

>>2612837 is pretty impressive for being a single frame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jun 2015 00:58:48 No.2613564 Report

Quoted By: >>2613580

Can anyone look up that Planet X shit? It seems Googly Sky has removed that black rectangle and now you can see a planet.

http://sys.4chan.org/derefer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intellihub.com%2Fplanet-x-just-revealed-by-google-sky-black-swath-gone-winged-disk-visible%2F

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO stacky1-2web.jpg, 452KiB, 1250x850

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Fri 26 Jun 2015 01:07:18 No.2613572 Report

Quoted By: >>2614613

>>2613562
thanks! Yep its a difficult (and fucking expensive) passion, and there are a lot of things than can go wrong when shooting deep sky. And I often feel that I wasted an entire night for stupid things (focus slighly off, poor polar alignment etc). But when I look at the pictures I took 1 year ago I can see I'm getting better at it.

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO m42_2602_w2.jpg, 317KiB, 1000x666

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Fri 26 Jun 2015 01:17:14 No.2613580 Report

Quoted By: >>2613733 >>2614613

>>2613564
I'll have a look at it for the keks, since they give coordinates in the "article". Maybe next night if the skies are clear. And post the results here.

>m42 nebula taken last winter.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO MWeezy2.jpg, 318KiB, 667x1000

Anonymous Fri 26 Jun 2015 02:23:31 No.2613625 Report

Quoted By: >>2614889

just messing around when I was walking home, very hastily done. no tripod, just placed pointing up on railing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jun 2015 02:47:45 No.2613635 Report

Quoted By: >>2613646

>>2612824
Sorry for being a noob but how do you focus when taking wide-angle photos of stars? I put the focus to infinity but it's never sharp enough.

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO horse_ex-3w.jpg, 305KiB, 666x1000

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Fri 26 Jun 2015 03:11:34 No.2613646 Report

Quoted By:

>>2613635
Basically I do the focus on a bright star (like vega, sirius..). I use the "live view" function on my camera with the maximum digital zoom (x10 on my canon). The star should be big enough on your screen to find a good enough focus. Better if you can see this live view on a laptop or bigger screen. There are software like backyardEOS or Astro Photography tool to control the focus (and every other settings) from a computer.
With telescopes, the focus will slightly move with atmospheric and temperature changes. Not sure if it plays a role in wide field. I usually take all my gear outside 1 hour before the shooting, so it can adapt to outside temperature. And when I take a lot of frames, I have to check if my focus is still ok (like every 20 or 30 minutes)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 078.jpg, 159KiB, 1440x960

Anonymous Fri 26 Jun 2015 03:17:07 No.2613654 Report

Quoted By:

I tried to frame that shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jun 2015 08:29:23 No.2613733 Report

Quoted By: >>2613759 >>2613928

>>2613580
The surrounding space is so smooth. Did you do a lot of post-processing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jun 2015 09:33:35 No.2613754 Report

Quoted By:

Summer nights around here aren't dark enough. Midnight sun can be pretty nice, but not for astro

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jun 2015 09:46:16 No.2613759 Report

Quoted By: >>2613928 >>2614268

>>2613733
Dark frames and flat frames get rid of most of the noise, except the line pattern one since it changes position and density at every exposure.
Interestingly Most Sony cameras have that sort of pattern, but in Nikon and Pentax with the same sensor there is no line pattern, only smooth even noise. Must be a readout or image processor thing.

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cygnus_veil_west-980x653.jpg, 144KiB, 980x653

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Fri 26 Jun 2015 18:15:20 No.2613928 Report

Quoted By: >>2614268

>>2613733
>>2613759
Yep two things for this image:
-as anon said, dark frames (and the stacking process itself) remove some of the noise. The more sub-exposures, the less noise in the final image.
-M42 (the orion nebula) is a fucking bright object, it will look beautiful at 400 ISO. For other nebulae (like the horsead above) I have to shoot at 6400 ISO to even begin to see it.

I usually make 2 versions of my images, one for facebook with heavy noise reduction (more "clean" image), and one for myself and photography forums with little or no noise reduction (more stars visible but maybe less aesthetically pleasant)

>veil nebula in Cygnus

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jun 2015 09:56:55 No.2614268 Report

Quoted By: >>2614615

>>2613928
>>2613759
I knew about the dark frames and stacking to remove noise (I imaged M104 for a project in uni and created a colour composite from different bad images) but your image looked incredibly smooth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jun 2015 09:58:21 No.2614269 Report

Quoted By: >>2614292

I have an m4/3 camera and a 25mm f1.4 as well as a 12-50 f3.5 - f6.3. I also have a tripod. How fucked am I?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 00001.m2ts_snapshot_17.51_[2015. (...).jpg, 421KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Sat 27 Jun 2015 10:42:08 No.2614292 Report

Quoted By: >>2614294 >>2614609 >>2614615

>>2614269
>tried to shoot astro in my backyard
>everything was orange.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 27 Jun 2015 10:43:29 No.2614294 Report

Quoted By: >>2614615

>>2614292
Light pollution mate. Gotta go where it's dark. Truly dark.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 01:52:52 No.2614609 Report

Quoted By:

>>2614292
Blame cities for lighting every single road and highway with a billion sodium vapor lamps. Gotta be a hundred miles or so away from any significant town (like, any place where more than a few thousand people live). Go check out http://darksitefinder.com/

Also wait for a new moon. The moon's bright enough to wash out the a lot of interesting things.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 02:04:16 No.2614613 Report

Quoted By: >>2614620 >>2614939

>>2613580
>>2613572
>>2613559
this stuff looks really cool but like

why even bother photographing something we can algorithmically generate on computers thanks to all the software available

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sombrero.jpg, 465KiB, 1200x800

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Sun 28 Jun 2015 02:15:25 No.2614615 Report

Quoted By: >>2614692

>>2614268
M104 is a beautiful galaxy. This is my only attempt at shooting it. It is a single frame through my 200/1000mm reflector. One of my favorite galaxies (with M33 because its big, bright with beautiful spiral arms)

>>2614292
>>2614294
Light pollution is a huge problem, I'm lucky to live in a small village away from light pollution. But even in my remote place, I can clearly see the light pollution halo from the city of Bern (30km away north). I'm always shooting south, or east because of this. I use a "light pollution filter" which removes sodium light and stuff like this. Works pretty good, but only for my telescope (cant adapt it with my canon and lens) With this filter, the sky is blue again, and not orange.

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO eagle_nebula_w1.jpg, 323KiB, 1200x800

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Sun 28 Jun 2015 02:31:31 No.2614620 Report

Quoted By: >>2614621 >>2614630 >>2614698 >>2614972 >>2625430

>>2614613
Why bother taking astrophoto when the hubble telescope takes pictures 100x better than yours?
Because its a completely diffrerent experience to see -and capture- stuff by yourself. Sure, we are flooded with incredible space photos everyday. But dude, everytime I show somone the rings of saturn for the first time, they are almost crying. Seriously, try it. Astronomy (and astrophotography) is extremely rewarding. You gather photons that travelled for millions of years, and finally hit your camera sensor. Thats why I'm fascinated by this; capturing stuff that you cant see with your naked eye. Sorry for poor englisherino.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 02:33:55 No.2614621 Report

Quoted By:

>>2614620
this is a good answer

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 02:50:08 No.2614630 Report

Quoted By:

>>2614620
fucking Midwestern USA. I have to travel six hours by car to find a spot that has even an "okay" rating for night sky work. to get truly good darkness, I have to fly out west to the fucking desert.

I love this sort of photography, and it's a goal of mine to spend a week or two out in the middle of nowhere with a telescope, but I don't love it enough to uproot my entire life just to get closer to it, unfortunately.

Thanks for the beautiful images. Please keep sharing.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 248756_1926020201872_1583168088_ (...).jpg, 62KiB, 691x451

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 06:28:57 No.2614692 Report

Quoted By:

>>2614615
This is the image I was talking about. The telescope wasn't all that big.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO saturn.webm, 95KiB, 640x480

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 06:48:57 No.2614698 Report

Quoted By: >>2617899

>>2614620
>see saturn through camera
>have to convince friend that it is actually saturn, because lolnotelescrope

Anonymous !!uPiHYFPeJke

Anonymous !!uPiHYFPeJke Sun 28 Jun 2015 12:29:42 No.2614828 Report

Quoted By:

Damnit, those images are gorgeous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 15:03:42 No.2614889 Report

Quoted By:

>>2613625
This is beautiful. Try to boost the exposure or something though cause you can barely see the milkyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 16:00:39 No.2614919 Report

Quoted By: >>2614937

Since you obviously can't see these features with your eye before you shoot, how do you know where to point the camera? Do you use a motorized tripod mount or something?

Could any old rube with a DSLR (crop sensor) get into this if they had a telescope tripod + telescope that can mount the camera body?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_0157-1.jpg, 874KiB, 6016x4000

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 16:34:33 No.2614928 Report

Quoted By: >>2617491

Got my new K-3 yesterday and took her out last night. This is probably the second or third time I've ever tried to take a serious night time photo. The stars aren't super bright as I wanted to highlight the Big Dipper. Also doesn't get too dark at night in the summer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 17:02:49 No.2614937 Report

Quoted By:

>>2614919
Generally you center the object with an eyepiece, then remove the eyepiece and attach the camera.

You don't need a computerized mount but you do need a mount with motorized tracking on at least one axis to compensate for the rotation of the earth and it needs to be stable enough to vibrate at the slightest breeze.

I'd say you need at least some experience in amateur astronomy and using telescopes before you start doing astrophotography, aside from star trails and such.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 17:09:34 No.2614939 Report

Quoted By:

>>2614613
Because, you know, nature.
We ain't all computer geeks :)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1434735690917.gif, 667KiB, 267x200

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 18:11:02 No.2614972 Report

Quoted By:

>>2614620

Post the Saturn pic

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO joopbest.png, 66KiB, 651x251

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 19:00:52 No.2615003 Report

Quoted By: >>2615021 >>2615349

Jupiter with my Rebel T3i and nifty fifty. You can see a couple of the moons, and I put a Stellarium example of how Jupiter looked at that moment, confirming it. Not bad IMO, considering the gear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 28 Jun 2015 19:27:24 No.2615021 Report

Quoted By: >>2615340

>>2615003
>nifty fifty
You gonna need better gear for that

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 09:40:25 No.2615340 Report

Quoted By:

>>2615021
I was pushing that lens to see what I could pull with it. Was surprised with the results. was just a test.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_3067.jpg, 23KiB, 770x514

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 10:18:20 No.2615349 Report

Quoted By:

>>2615003
here's my attempt at jupiter, with a 2x teleconverter that doesn't come up in the exif

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO received_786630594784130..jpg, 48KiB, 960x638

Anonymous Mon 29 Jun 2015 19:29:38 No.2615587 Report

Quoted By: >>2618757 >>2618804

One of my attempt's. Found a good area just outside of where I live to capture the milky way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Jun 2015 04:55:01 No.2615881 Report

Quoted By:

I've always tried to do this with no success. All I can shot is the moon, and the first time I did it was fucking amazing.
I own a Nikon D90 and a tele of 75mm-250mm. I need some serious advices because I'd love to experience this myself.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 5.jpg, 36KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Tue 30 Jun 2015 20:15:32 No.2616242 Report

Quoted By: >>2616345 >>2616346

jupiter and venus. sorry guys i'm poor

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_7206-2.jpg, 63KiB, 1200x800

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Tue 30 Jun 2015 23:12:50 No.2616345 Report

Quoted By: >>2616346 >>2616837

>>2616242
I almost missed it! Saw guys starting posting pics of it on facebook and I jumped outside with my scope.

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_7182.jpg, 124KiB, 1200x800

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Tue 30 Jun 2015 23:14:51 No.2616346 Report

Quoted By: >>2616837 >>2616863 >>2618581

>>2616345
>>2616242
..and my setup (without the camera attached :') tracking Venus and jupiter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2015 04:16:04 No.2616504 Report

Quoted By: >>2616505

>want to get a photo of venus and jupiter together
>tfw it'll probably be cloudy

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2015 04:16:35 No.2616505 Report

Quoted By:

>>2616504
That's me right now...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO StarTrails-123-720p.jpg, 441KiB, 1080x720

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2015 18:17:56 No.2616796 Report

Quoted By:

Defocused star trails.

Trying to get milky way shots, but can't seem to get it as clear as others. Not sure if it's my post processing or the light pollution in my city.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Jul 2015 19:54:47 No.2616837 Report

Quoted By:

>>2616346
>>2616345
I am jelly as fuck.
Since I have a K-3 I'll probably get the Astrotracer module but I'll need a geared head tripod for that.
Or I'll get an EQ5 mount, whichever I can afford at the time.

Anonymous !!uPiHYFPeJke

Anonymous !!uPiHYFPeJke Wed 01 Jul 2015 20:25:42 No.2616863 Report

Quoted By:

>>2616346
Pure sex. I am jelly as fuck.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_9825.jpg, 213KiB, 755x566

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 12:23:59 No.2617333 Report

Quoted By: >>2617459

best i could do with my 320mm equivalent.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_0482-01..jpg, 233KiB, 1621x1463

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 15:12:51 No.2617432 Report

Quoted By: >>2617459

The best of could do a few days ago with my smartphone and a fucking full of shit toy cheap telescope from my old bother which didn't even cost 30€ 15 years ago... I did have to coordinate the telescope and smartphone together by pulse...

Then I used Snapseed in an attempt to making something a bit more clear of it.

Sorry brehs, don't laugh at me so hard t.t

Anyways I enjoyed taking it. Nice thread by the way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 16:08:00 No.2617459 Report

Quoted By: >>2617473

>>2617432
mine >>2617333 looks better.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 103489_L-346x346_8,99£.jpg, 14KiB, 346x346

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 16:28:57 No.2617473 Report

Quoted By: >>2617924

>>2617459
Hi again. Of course your moon looks way better boy, how not. I didn't even though about comparing yours and mine.

I'm using a 290 euro smartphone (not a Canon etc) and a shitty telescope like pic related (most similar one I could find, mine didn't even have the "focus lock" so it moves up and down constantly)

9£ is says, sold in the UK, and of course a simply toy. The lense is also full of shit and the pic was taken in a city. (I'm not looking for excuses, just explaining the thing!) I admit I don't have any idea about photography breh.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO m51.jpg, 2MiB, 6016x4000

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 17:01:54 No.2617491 Report

Quoted By: >>2617536 >>2617538 >>2617575

>>2614928
You can see m51 in your picture if you look closely.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 18:32:47 No.2617536 Report

Quoted By:

>>2617491
That's just noise pattern brah

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 18:36:43 No.2617538 Report

Quoted By:

>>2617491
M51 is super duper dim and even Andromeda in that exposure would be faded but visible.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO horiz1.jpg, 86KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 18:39:06 No.2617540 Report

Quoted By: >>2617548 >>2617590

My shite attempt at the conjunction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 19:00:26 No.2617548 Report

Quoted By:

>>2617540
hehe

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 19:41:51 No.2617575 Report

Quoted By:

>>2617491

Get yourself up on that hill and create a wonderous silhouette astrophotography snapshit

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Milkyway.jpg, 805KiB, 2000x1333

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 19:59:45 No.2617584 Report

Quoted By: >>2617589 >>2617590

Small Milkyway Image, single frame, shot with EOS6D

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO m31fertig3.jpg, 1MiB, 1250x834

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 20:07:03 No.2617589 Report

Quoted By: >>2617599 >>2617735

>>2617584

Old image I shoot 2011, EOS400D on 800mm f/4 GSO Newton, mounted on EQ6Pro, sadly I don't have the Full-Res with me, my only Deep-Sky Picture I shoot with this telescope, now it's dusting in, because my studies started, and I can't carry it, since I don't have a car :(

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO m51_sigma_stack-1200.jpg, 389KiB, 1200x799

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Thu 02 Jul 2015 20:09:25 No.2617590 Report

Quoted By: >>2617674 >>2618202

>>2617584
impressive. location?
>>2617540
I love this foreground and colors

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_3585w.jpg, 211KiB, 667x1000

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Thu 02 Jul 2015 20:20:16 No.2617599 Report

Quoted By: >>2618202

>>2617589
beautiful. almost fits in the field of view :') this thing is so massive

-bump with a pic of last solar eclipse

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Jul 2015 22:43:12 No.2617674 Report

Quoted By:

>>2617590

I love the whirlpool galaxy. I have a 4 x 3 foot post of that sitting above my desk right now.

Some day when I buy a telescope that'll be the first thing I take a photo of.

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2 Fri 03 Jul 2015 00:19:26 No.2617735 Report

Quoted By: >>2618202

>>2617589

holy shit well done

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Jul 2015 06:01:18 No.2617899 Report

Quoted By:

>>2614698
>2spooky4me

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_3369.jpg, 29KiB, 1000x579

Anonymous Fri 03 Jul 2015 06:39:27 No.2617917 Report

Quoted By: >>2617976

Definitely don't belong here but here's the only good picture I've ever been able to capture of the moon.

Does astrophotography really just come down to gear?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Jul 2015 06:56:21 No.2617924 Report

Quoted By: >>2618101

>>2617473
>290 euro for a huawei
hahaha

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_8723k.jpg, 132KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Fri 03 Jul 2015 09:34:58 No.2617976 Report

Quoted By: >>2621806

>>2617917
essentially

although there is room for creativity if you work with objects on the horizon

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO mun.jpg, 529KiB, 1200x1750

Anonymous Fri 03 Jul 2015 12:40:22 No.2618029 Report

Quoted By:

One of my best moon shots.

The atmosphere usually limits how much detail you can resolve.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO P3030046.jpg, 721KiB, 1000x750

Anonymous Fri 03 Jul 2015 13:16:49 No.2618049 Report

Quoted By:

Shitty attempt at Saturn.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Jul 2015 14:57:57 No.2618101 Report

Quoted By:

>>2617924
Tell me something similar in specs at the same price and a year ago. I looked at Sony's, Meizu 's MX4, LG' s ,Xiaomi, Lumias etc

>good luck

I also thought about the OPO but ended up getting the Huawei Honor 6 in Amazon with 2 years warranty here in UE, plus it admits micro sd up to 128gb and takes better pictures, 3gb ram, 3100mha, able to change TV channels and shit, slim and light (130gr), receiving 5.1.1 this month

So don't be a fag brew.

Tell me which is your smartphone then or what should I have bought

>Inb4 /g/

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Jul 2015 18:28:57 No.2618202 Report

Quoted By:

>>2617590
>impressive. location?
At the observatory on La Palma (Canarian Islands), which, by the way, is a meeting point for hobby astronomers too, but to get to the observatory at night, you have to either "sneak" in, or get to know people who work there

>>2617599
>>2617735
Thank you! Yes, M31 is about 3 moon diameters

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Jul 2015 13:31:22 No.2618581 Report

Quoted By: >>2618585

>>2616346
What mount is that?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1805(lowcompv2).jpg, 1MiB, 4928x3264

Anonymous Sat 04 Jul 2015 13:34:35 No.2618582 Report

Quoted By: >>2618584

First time trying it out

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1783(compositelow).jpg, 941KiB, 4928x3264

Anonymous Sat 04 Jul 2015 13:35:45 No.2618584 Report

Quoted By:

>>2618582
Next time I'll let it expose longer

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO EQ5Prosynscanwhite.main.261.jpg, 21KiB, 261x261

Anonymous Sat 04 Jul 2015 13:41:42 No.2618585 Report

Quoted By: >>2621153

>>2618581
thats an EQ5

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Jul 2015 18:17:22 No.2618757 Report

Quoted By: >>2618943

>>2615587
That watermark is horrendous.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO WTF_0292-Edit 2.jpg, 252KiB, 666x1000

Anonymous Sat 04 Jul 2015 18:20:10 No.2618759 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Jul 2015 19:07:17 No.2618804 Report

Quoted By:

>>2615587
>comic
>fucking
>sans

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO starshits.png, 447KiB, 677x451

Anonymous Sat 04 Jul 2015 22:49:54 No.2618910 Report

Quoted By:

30s, f/2.8, iso 1600, 3 consecutive exposure stack, lightroom

wishes he had a telephoto lens

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Muin.jpg, 229KiB, 4928x3264

wishes he had a telephoto lens Sun 05 Jul 2015 00:53:52 No.2618936 Report

Quoted By:

Wish I had a telephoto lens

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Jul 2015 01:18:43 No.2618938 Report

Quoted By:

>>2612832
nice man, really like

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Jul 2015 01:51:30 No.2618943 Report

Quoted By:

>>2618757
And the jpeg compression.

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO milky_south_1000.jpg, 458KiB, 663x1000

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Tue 07 Jul 2015 00:07:02 No.2620317 Report

Quoted By: >>2621214

Milky way attempt. Bad data between two clouds, stacked like 5 pics instead of the 50 I wanted to do.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_6051_res.jpg, 274KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Tue 07 Jul 2015 22:42:44 No.2621092 Report

Quoted By:

Falcon 8mm, f/3.5, defished.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Jul 2015 00:16:05 No.2621140 Report

Quoted By: >>2621153

I can't get anything remotely decent with my Pentax K-50. I've got a dobsonian scope but those are probably not right for astrophotography. Should I just quit being poor and get a real camera and scope or what? I want to take nebula shots but this is one frustrating hobby.

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_2487w.jpg, 304KiB, 1000x667

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Wed 08 Jul 2015 01:09:02 No.2621153 Report

Quoted By: >>2621167 >>2621169

>>2621140
Dobsonians are fine for planets or bright objects. (and of course visual astronomy). For deep sky you need an equatorial mount like >>2618585 to take long exposures.
And yes thats a frustrating and expensive hobby :')

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Jul 2015 01:49:13 No.2621167 Report

Quoted By: >>2621427

>>2621153
Thanks. I'll start looking in that direction. I've tried long exposures but there's always something off, either my focus was bad or the settings weren't right. I need a better tripod for one and I haven't tried stacking exposures yet which seems to be what people are doing. What ISO should I use for stacking?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Jul 2015 01:50:59 No.2621169 Report

Quoted By:

>>2621153
This one came out pretty well btw.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Jul 2015 02:34:10 No.2621210 Report

Quoted By: >>2621427

Ive never tried this and Im glad this thread happened because Ive been thinking about doing it with my X-T1 and 500cm

What purpose does stacking images have? Does it just make your final print brighter? Are they different enough to fuck up the final print? How long would you exposure be before the stars start trailing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Jul 2015 02:36:54 No.2621214 Report

Quoted By:

>>2620317
Still looks bretty gud m8

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO rosette.jpg, 135KiB, 1200x799

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Wed 08 Jul 2015 12:31:26 No.2621427 Report

Quoted By: >>2621431 >>2621657

>>2621167
>>2621210
The purpose of stacking is to increase your signal to noise ratio (and your dynamic range). The stacking software detects stars on each image and align all your frames. It then keep the real photons from space (stars, nebulae) and add them together to increase detail. It also removes the noise (random electronic noise, skyglow..) by averaging it out. (noise is usually random on each frame, real photons are not)

my ISO settings change for each object, basically for very faint gas clouds like in this pic I have to shoot at 6400. I can lower it too 400-800 for brighter objects (planetary nebulae), M42 orion nebula etc.

For the exposure time before the stars start trailing, it depends on your focal length, accuracy of your polar alignment and quality of your mount. I have a cheap setup and my typical exposure time is between 50 and 90 seconds at 1000mm. With a good polar alignment and autoguiding you can push this number to 3 or even 5 minutes. The magical number for deep sky astrophotography is 2 minutes.

http://keithwiley.com/astroPhotography/imageStacking.shtml

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Sans titre-1.jpg, 129KiB, 923x556

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Wed 08 Jul 2015 12:37:21 No.2621431 Report

Quoted By: >>2621657

>>2621427
Signal to noise ratio and exposure time. You can see how fast the signal rises before 2 minutes exposures and how the curve becomes more flat after.

from the excellent video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO4QFb3ydNM

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Jul 2015 18:47:21 No.2621657 Report

Quoted By:

>>2621427
>>2621431
Nice info, thanks, I'll look into it further. Seems to do a pretty good job by what you're saying, interesting.
(I'm not the guy who asked about it)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO moon2..jpg, 116KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Wed 08 Jul 2015 21:33:49 No.2621806 Report

Quoted By:

>>2617976
you accidentally took picture of hidden aliens

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ISS_1300.jpg, 109KiB, 1300x402

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Sun 12 Jul 2015 16:33:06 No.2624343 Report

Quoted By: >>2624400 >>2624404

bump with my ISS attempt. Can see the solar panels and some modules.
fucking hard to track (I do it manually). 1500mm

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Jul 2015 18:04:41 No.2624400 Report

Quoted By:

>>2624343
do see the russian fappan?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Jul 2015 18:11:57 No.2624404 Report

Quoted By: >>2624425

>>2624343
>Tracking it manually

I would have died while trying to achieve it, just by thinking it I get mad, congrats

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Sun 12 Jul 2015 18:49:08 No.2624425 Report

Quoted By:

>>2624404
thanks! I attached a long stick to my scope to guide it with 1 hand, while I tried to keep the station in my field of view (I used a red dot sight and tried to keep it overlapped with the ISS) while shooting like crazy. The station was visible in maybe 1 of 10 shots.

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO eagle_m16_web.jpg, 418KiB, 800x1200

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Tue 14 Jul 2015 01:07:47 No.2625430 Report

Quoted By:

>>2614620
I did this nebula again tonight (M16, eagle nebula). But with a fucking long total exposure (1h 46minutes, 1mn subframes). I am very happy with the result, looks way better than my previous attempt. Not sure about the colors, will spend more time on it tomorrow.

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO M20_sigma1web.jpg, 318KiB, 1200x799

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Wed 15 Jul 2015 01:14:04 No.2626192 Report

Quoted By: >>2626501

come on guys, I'm not the only one taking night sky pictures? Its the perfect time of the year to take milky way shots.

Tonight I gave another shot at the Trifid nebula (M20). It's the same as the first pic I posted in this thread. But with a bigger stack of images (90x1minute). Its a beautiful nebula with its red and blue contrast. Too bad its so low on the horizon - I have really bad street lights pointing directly at my scope when I'm shooting south.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 011-1.jpg, 775KiB, 1200x780

Anonymous Wed 15 Jul 2015 06:31:47 No.2626437 Report

Quoted By: >>2626439 >>2626442

took a couple this weekend

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 049-2.jpg, 578KiB, 1200x833

Anonymous Wed 15 Jul 2015 06:33:13 No.2626439 Report

Quoted By:

>>2626437

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 080-3.jpg, 615KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Wed 15 Jul 2015 06:35:12 No.2626442 Report

Quoted By:

>>2626437

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMGP7525.jpg, 166KiB, 1510x1000

Anonymous Wed 15 Jul 2015 09:47:07 No.2626501 Report

Quoted By:

>>2626192
>come on guys, I'm not the only one taking night sky pictures? Its the perfect time of the year to take milky way shots.
I try, but I don't get very much that's worth posting. Illinois is a shitty state for many reasons, but one of them is that even the most rural areas of the it are pockmarked with these little farm towns. I drove 400 miles round-trip tonight and this was the best I could do in terms of darkness within that range. Andromeda and the galactic center both had to fall right on top of light domes from those worthless little towns that show up every five miles in any direction. I was also greeted by a huge swarm of insects as soon as I opened my car door.

DeepSkyStacker is being a pain and crashing, so here's one lousy frame. 60 seconds with my ancient Peleng 8/2.5 fisheye, wide open.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Jul 2015 22:34:22 No.2626868 Report

Quoted By: >>2626899 >>2627122 >>2627326

anyone ever shot astrophotography with film?
working with an rb67 and looking for tips

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Jul 2015 23:11:18 No.2626899 Report

Quoted By: >>2626906

>>2626868
i'm not sure i can imagine anything worse for astro tbh

you want high sensitivity and a decent crop factor

i guess if you want to do long exposures of the entire sky with wide angles it'd be cool

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Jul 2015 23:16:52 No.2626906 Report

Quoted By:

>>2626899
i like it when things go wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Jul 2015 05:02:33 No.2627122 Report

Quoted By: >>2627326

>>2626868
Don't try deep-sky objects with film. It's a damn pain and needs an exceptional mount. When film was all there was, people went to the trouble of "hypering" film (baking it in a hydrogen atmosphere to increase the sensitivity) and such. If you just want a landscape with the milky way in the background, you'll have an easier time. Though you'll still want as fast a lens and as sensitive a film as you can possibly get.

Astro is one of those areas where digital really is a clear-cut improvement over film, because of the high ISOs you can reach, and especially because of the tricks you can do with stacking exposures, dark-frame noise reduction, and so forth. By all means try it with film if you're curious, just expect a much tougher road.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 19436886008_a8ac0088f0_c.jpg, 252KiB, 800x530

Anonymous Thu 16 Jul 2015 08:10:00 No.2627236 Report

Quoted By:

d5100 and a kit lens

feedback pls

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO m3_cluster_sigma-w-980x654.jpg, 65KiB, 980x654

reflectorfag !uqqB2LHNAM Thu 16 Jul 2015 13:07:44 No.2627326 Report

Quoted By:

>>2627122
>>2626868
There are a few very bright deep sky objects that are fine with low ISO and short exposures. Never tried with film, but I'd give a try at M57 and M27 (and of course M42 in winter, huge and fucking bright).

Also, most of the globular clusters should be fine, even if they are less visually interesting. (pic related, M3) This is like a 10 or 15 second exposure.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_7506.jpg, 4MiB, 3456x2304

Anonymous Thu 16 Jul 2015 13:27:15 No.2627335 Report

Quoted By: >>2627738

on a normal tripod, a 30 sec exposure, with 300 lens, it looks like this...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO milkyway.jpg, 299KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Thu 16 Jul 2015 13:47:43 No.2627341 Report

Quoted By:

My (pretty shitty) first attempt, I barely knew what I had to do so I had to go with trial and error. I'm not sure how much I was limited by my sub-optimal gear (cheap mirrorless with kit lenses) and how much by my skill but I hope to improve a bit this summer (the colors are probably fucked up because my screen is so shitty that to have a vague idea of what I'm doing in post I need to view the pictures on my phone)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 17 Jul 2015 00:58:09 No.2627738 Report

Quoted By:

>>2627335
I don't know what you're implying

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

New astrophotography thread