Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Astronomy & Celestial
Thread started 27 Oct 2010 (Wednesday) 15:45
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

You don't need a telescope

 
Davenn
Senior Member
Davenn's Avatar
Joined Jun 2013
Sydney, Australia
Oct 24, 2017 03:53 |  #2101

Kwirk wrote in post #18479277 (external link)
First attempt at shooting the Orion nebula! Not as good as some of the other shots on here but I'm happy with it.

16x1 second frames unguided at ISO 12800.
Cropped from 200mm @ f/2.8 on a 6D


Also I know it's kind of a weird crop, as it's kind of just there on the right, but I liked how it looked so I left it.
thumbnailHosted photo: posted by Kwirk in
./showthread.php?p=184​79277&i=i15580672
forum: Astronomy & Celestial


awesome effort :-)


A picture is worth 1000 words ;)
Canon 5D3, 6D, 700D, a bunch of lenses and other bits, ohhh and some Pentax stuff ;)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Pagman
I just hold the thing :-)
Pagman's Avatar
Joined Dec 2011
Oct 27, 2017 16:12 |  #2102

Not a great shot here folks but it is my first attempt using a sky stacker, it contains 10 2sec 1600Iso shots from my 300mm on my tripod, I installed Deep Sky Tracker and uploaded the 10 raws and just followed the instructions, afterwards it created a Tiff file that I opend in LR5 where I adjusted a few things including pulling back the green slider as many stars had a green tint.
Its not of anything particular I just pointed my lens set up in the general direction slightly SE of the Milkyway.

Not sure what I think of my first try.

P.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Nikon D7100, Nikkor 300 f4 IF ED :-)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Senior Member
Capn Jack's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
NE USA
Oct 27, 2017 17:01 |  #2103

Pagman wrote in post #18482604 (external link)
Not a great shot here folks but it is my first attempt using a sky stacker, it contains 10 2sec 1600Iso shots from my 300mm on my tripod, I installed Deep Sky Tracker and uploaded the 10 raws and just followed the instructions, afterwards it created a Tiff file that I opend in LR5 where I adjusted a few things including pulling back the green slider as many stars had a green tint.
Its not of anything particular I just pointed my lens set up in the general direction slightly SE of the Milkyway.

Not sure what I think of my first try.

P.

thumbnailHosted photo: posted by Pagman in
./showthread.php?p=184​82604&i=i100193529
forum: Astronomy & Celestial

It's a start. Interesting to see what you get, thanks for sharing.


USA members- don't let the airlines buy the air traffic control system: http://www.atcnotforsa​le.com/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tareq
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Tareq's Avatar
17,670 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Jan 2006
Ajman - UAE
Post has been edited 17 days ago by Tareq.
Nov 03, 2017 00:38 |  #2104

Pagman wrote in post #18482604 (external link)
Not a great shot here folks but it is my first attempt using a sky stacker, it contains 10 2sec 1600Iso shots from my 300mm on my tripod, I installed Deep Sky Tracker and uploaded the 10 raws and just followed the instructions, afterwards it created a Tiff file that I opend in LR5 where I adjusted a few things including pulling back the green slider as many stars had a green tint.
Its not of anything particular I just pointed my lens set up in the general direction slightly SE of the Milkyway.

Not sure what I think of my first try.

P.

thumbnailHosted photo: posted by Pagman in
./showthread.php?p=184​82604&i=i100193529
forum: Astronomy & Celestial

You know, before in the past if i got this shot as yours i will be really happy that i managed to get stars, now even my latest with telescope stars images i am not satisfied with, in fact i managed to get the nebula itself, so i will never look back to those non telescope and non modified camera for shots of stars without amazing nebulae or galaxy, but good that the simple images i did get were done with a cheap achromatic telescope, so no harm there, it gave me results better than DSLR with lens without mount and unmodified, thanks also to my astro camera and a filter.


Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/external link
Gear List
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tareq
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Tareq's Avatar
17,670 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Jan 2006
Ajman - UAE
Nov 03, 2017 00:42 |  #2105

This is i think without telescope, but if it is with a telescope then it is taken with a one of my photography cameras not astro one i bought recently, i think you all know what is those stars.


1500
x
1001
TOO LARGE!
EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE:
https://s26.postimg.or​g/eq3jwhqd3/DSC3024.jp​g
Click here to see our image rules.

Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/external link
Gear List
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Inspeqtor
I never knew that!
Inspeqtor's Avatar
Joined Mar 2008
Elkhart, Indiana
Nov 03, 2017 00:46 |  #2106

Tareq wrote in post #18487436 (external link)
This is i think without telescope, but if it is with a telescope then it is taken with a one of my photography cameras not astro one i bought recently, i think you all know what is those stars.


1500
x
1001
TOO LARGE!
EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE:
https://s26.postimg.or​g/eq3jwhqd3/DSC3024.jp​g
Click here to see our image rules.

Tareq,

Your image does not show properly....

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Charles
Canon EOS 60D Gripped * Canon EOS XSi * Flickr Account (external link)
Tokina AT-X Pro DX 11-20 f/2.8 * Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC Macro OS * Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM
Canon 18-55 IS Kit Lens * Canon 70-300 IS USM * Canon 50mm f1.8 * Canon 580EX II *** iOptron 3302W Star Tracker

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tareq
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Tareq's Avatar
17,670 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Jan 2006
Ajman - UAE
Nov 03, 2017 00:54 |  #2107

Oh, sorry for that, then i better just post a link to it

https://s26.postimg.or​g/rhhq30055/DSC3024.jp​g (external link)


Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/external link
Gear List
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Inspeqtor
I never knew that!
Inspeqtor's Avatar
Joined Mar 2008
Elkhart, Indiana
Nov 03, 2017 00:57 |  #2108

Tareq wrote in post #18487441 (external link)
Oh, sorry for that, then i better just post a link to it

https://s26.postimg.or​g/rhhq30055/DSC3024.jp​g (external link)

:-) ;-)a :-)


Charles
Canon EOS 60D Gripped * Canon EOS XSi * Flickr Account (external link)
Tokina AT-X Pro DX 11-20 f/2.8 * Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC Macro OS * Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM
Canon 18-55 IS Kit Lens * Canon 70-300 IS USM * Canon 50mm f1.8 * Canon 580EX II *** iOptron 3302W Star Tracker

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tareq
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Tareq's Avatar
17,670 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Jan 2006
Ajman - UAE
Post has been edited 17 days ago by Tareq.
Nov 03, 2017 00:59 |  #2109

And those are just single exposure snapshots of what i did with telescope for test only or practice because i am new to astrophotography, cheap achromatic telescope, and i think i can have better results with my Canon lenses than this, because it is mainly a guide scope rather than a main imaging telescope.

https://s26.postimg.or​g ...0-07888400-1505394086.jpg (external link)

https://s26.postimg.or​g/m5wi3w65z/Horse_Head​.jpg (external link)

https://s26.postimg.or​g/luf1r4pq1/Rosette.jp​g (external link)


Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/external link
Gear List
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Pagman
I just hold the thing :-)
Pagman's Avatar
Joined Dec 2011
Nov 07, 2017 16:15 |  #2110

Hi folks, I decided to have another go tonight as it was cold but clear, I thought what I chose was Seven Sisters Nebula, so I set the tripod up and set the lens on manual focus and set about trying to get the sharpest focus using LV at max zoom in, I then set the self timer to 10 sec, and 1600 Iso f5 and 1sec exposure, I took 30 single frames no darks, then after loading them into LR I then opened them up in Deep Space Stacker and let it does its magic.
Then with the stacked Tiff saved - I opened it up in LR5 and adjusted the sliders etc, then into Photoshop CS2 where I did a few adjustments, the back into LR5 for a slight crop.

Here is the result (But dont think it is Seven Sisters)

P.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Nikon D7100, Nikkor 300 f4 IF ED :-)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ A. ­ Rust
Senior Member
Joined Dec 2015
Dallas, Texas
Post has been edited 13 days ago by Roy A. Rust.
Nov 07, 2017 19:05 |  #2111

Pagman wrote in post #18491152 (external link)
Hi folks, I decided to have another go tonight as it was cold but clear, I thought what I chose was Seven Sisters Nebula, so I set the tripod up and set the lens on manual focus and set about trying to get the sharpest focus using LV at max zoom in, I then set the self timer to 10 sec, and 1600 Iso f5 and 1sec exposure, I took 30 single frames no darks, then after loading them into LR I then opened them up in Deep Space Stacker and let it does its magic.
Then with the stacked Tiff saved - I opened it up in LR5 and adjusted the sliders etc, then into Photoshop CS2 where I did a few adjustments, the back into LR5 for a slight crop.

Here is the result (But dont think it is Seven Sisters)

P.

thumbnailHosted photo: posted by Pagman in
./showthread.php?p=184​91152&i=i116231992
forum: Astronomy & Celestial

I don't know why you doubt that it is the Seven Sisters (the Pleiades), because it is. You can reveal a lot more stars in the photo than you can see with the naked eye, but it's still the same cluster of stars. (Check it against the cluster in Stellarium if you want to confirm that.)

You do still need more exposure, though. Why did you close the lens aperture down to f:5.0? Open up the lens, and/or try for 2 or 3 seconds, or increase the ISO another couple of steps. Stacking a bunch of images will help reduce the noise created by a higher ISO quite a bit. Check the histogram after a trial exposure, and try to move the peak to at least the first 1/4 line on the screen. Stacking lots of underexposed images will only add a little to a thoroughly underexposed group of pictures... it can't substitute for the build-up of photons on the sensor! Push your limits until the star trails are unacceptable, or the ambient light from light pollution causes the image to be washed out, and then back off a little. Nothing can substitute for the accumulation of photons on the sensor.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Pagman
I just hold the thing :-)
Pagman's Avatar
Joined Dec 2011
Nov 07, 2017 19:53 |  #2112

Roy A. Rust wrote in post #18491283 (external link)
I don't know why you doubt that it is the Seven Sisters (the Pleiades), because it is. You can reveal a lot more stars in the photo than you can see with the naked eye, but it's still the same cluster of stars. (Check it against the cluster in Stellarium if you want to confirm that.)

You do still need more exposure, though. Why did you close the lens aperture down to f:5.0? Open up the lens, and/or try for 2 or 3 seconds, or increase the ISO another couple of steps. Stacking a bunch of images will help reduce the noise created by a higher ISO quite a bit. Check the histogram after a trial exposure, and try to move the peak to at least the first 1/4 line on the screen. Stacking lots of underexposed images will only add a little to a thoroughly underexposed group of pictures... it can't substitute for the build-up of photons on the sensor! Push your limits until the star trails are unacceptable, or the ambient light from light pollution causes the image to be washed out, and then back off a little. Nothing can substitute for the accumulation of photons on the sensor.


Hi Roy, next time i will give it more exposure, I held back this time because although my nikkor 300 f4 lens is sharp, I thought closing it down a bit would help the IQ and because of the lens length on a crop body, I understood 1-2 sec's was the borderline to avoid trailing, with the Iso I thought above 1600 would just be no good.
If its the same weather tomorrow I will try at f4 and Iso 3200 but keep the sh speed to 1 sec.

Do you think 30 light frames are enough and without any darks, when they are being stacked.?

P.


Nikon D7100, Nikkor 300 f4 IF ED :-)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ A. ­ Rust
Senior Member
Joined Dec 2015
Dallas, Texas
Nov 07, 2017 22:14 |  #2113

Pagman wrote in post #18491312 (external link)
Hi Roy, next time i will give it more exposure, I held back this time because although my nikkor 300 f4 lens is sharp, I thought closing it down a bit would help the IQ and because of the lens length on a crop body, I understood 1-2 sec's was the borderline to avoid trailing, with the Iso I thought above 1600 would just be no good.
If its the same weather tomorrow I will try at f4 and Iso 3200 but keep the sh speed to 1 sec.

Do you think 30 light frames are enough and without any darks, when they are being stacked.?

P.

I have no idea how many would be best for you. I've stacked as few as four, with pretty good results, and over 100 without gaining much improvement. I suppose it depends upon the subject, the ISO (noise), and the overall exposure. However, I doubt that you will be able to get the histogram peak very far away from the left edge while being limited by your exposure criteria (no tracker), but you need to be sure the entire peak is away from the left side or you will be very underexposed, and won't see much benefit from stacking. I doubt that you would gain much by trying for more than thirty, though - at least at this stage. Good luck... BTW, even though darks are beneficial, I seldom shoot anything but light frames, unless I expect the single images to be especially noisy. Not the best method, but I'm usually fairly happy with my results. Experimentation is the best teacher!




LOG IN TO REPLY
Pagman
I just hold the thing :-)
Pagman's Avatar
Joined Dec 2011
Nov 07, 2017 22:19 |  #2114

Roy A. Rust wrote in post #18491415 (external link)
I have no idea how many would be best for you. I've stacked as few as four, with pretty good results, and over 100 without gaining much improvement. I suppose it depends upon the subject, the ISO (noise), and the overall exposure. However, I doubt that you will be able to get the histogram peak very far away from the left edge while being limited by your exposure criteria (no tracker), but you need to be sure the entire peak is away from the left side or you will be very underexposed, and won't see much benefit from stacking. I doubt that you would gain much by trying for more than thirty, though - at least at this stage. Good luck... BTW, even though darks are beneficial, I seldom shoot anything but light frames, unless I expect the single images to be especially noisy. Not the best method, but I'm usually fairly happy with my results. Experimentation is the best teacher!


Many thanks Roy I will see what I can produce next time.:-)

P.


Nikon D7100, Nikkor 300 f4 IF ED :-)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ A. ­ Rust
Senior Member
Joined Dec 2015
Dallas, Texas
Nov 08, 2017 02:26 |  #2115

Pagman wrote in post #18491418 (external link)
Many thanks Roy I will see what I can produce next time.:-)

P.

After you asked how many images you needed to stack, I got curious to see what sort of difference it would make to stack a few, compared to stacking a bunch. Last month, I experimented with taking a lot of short exposures to stack with the camera on a standard tripod, so I used those images to see how much difference it would make. I had 297 exposures at 6 seconds each to stack. The exposure and stacking information is at the bottom of the pictures. For the stack of 10, I just used 10 of the 297 exposures I had in the file. They are the same images.

Apparently, I spent a LOT of time making more exposures for a tiny bit of difference. 287 more images resulted in a little more detail in the nebula! Dark skies and long exposures are what makes the difference in detail - not stacking a lot of pictures taken in light polluted areas, and having to underexpose to avoid having the ambient light in the sky wash out the picture. For good detail in faint nebulae, a tracker is absolutely necessary to make longer exposures, and a dark site makes the real difference! A single 20 minute exposure with a dark sky will produce a much better image than a stack of 300 from a light polluted area. At least that's been my experience... lots of people on here seem to be able to get all sorts of fantastic results in highly light-polluted cities, but I have no idea how they can! Filters can only do so much, and require even longer exposures.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

564,593 views & 486 likes for this thread
You don't need a telescope
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Astronomy & Celestial


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00346 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
852 guests, 422 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016