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

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Astronomy & Celestial 
Thread started 20 Oct 2011 (Thursday) 11:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Milkyway nightscapes

 
pdxbenedetti
Senior Member
Avatar
312 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1025
Joined Jul 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, United States
     
Jul 11, 2016 22:58 |  #3211

FEChariot wrote in post #18064500 (external link)
Of course the 600/4 comment was ridiculous but its point is to counter another ridiculous comment that using an UWA is misinformation. Why not use a Sigma 50/1.4 EX? It provides 4.3 times more light than the 24/1.4? By your logic it is as equally misinformed to use the 24/1.4 over that 50/1.4. But then where does it end? 85/1.4 lets in more light: 135/2 lets in more light, 200/2.8 lets in more light, 300/2.8, 400/2.8 and so on.

24mm probably would be great for me if there was an economical full frame camera that could do what my 7D can do in the other aspects of photography I do. So that means 24mm is just not wide enough. And seeing how there is no 15/1.4 for crop, what are other crop users and myself to do?

As to color temperature of the sky, you and Mikey are probably to best two posters on this thread and you both use different color temp. Does that take away from his images? Not in my opinion.

As far as stitching tracked and untracked images together, the only way I know to do it is to mask out the tracked group Ground layer and which mean selecting the ground layer and feathering it out to get it right. That is about right up there with stapling my testicles to a wood bench in the list of my favorite things to do. If you have a better way then I would love to see a tutorial. My PS skills are not what many others are.

Oh and for the record, I think there is a significant difference between 14mm and 24.

Again, the misinformation is mostly ISO recommendations as it pertains to image quality. Also, I do use my 50mm f1.8, but I don't feel that lens is as good as my 85mm f1.4 so I use the 85mm now for my zoomed Milky Way shots which I posted above. It ends where you've found lenses that you are comfortable with which produce the best possible results, in your case you don't use something like a 24mm for other reasons outside astrophotography. But I couldn't possibly recommend buying an ultra wide angle like the 14mm f2.8 for astrophotography when the 24mm f1.4 is a significantly better lens for not much more. On all technical levels the 24mm f1.4 is better save for field of view, but given the ease of modern technology something like field of view should not be a limiting factor unless you are zooming in very far, then hopefully common sense kicks in and you realize that lens is not being used in a manner it's built for.

I'm done fighting the color balance arguments, my mind obviously has a different thought process with regards to the subject. I personally don't believe the subject is one of those "personal opinion dictates practice" areas of photography/art because we have established science and data that supports reality, but I'm not going to tell people they have to use a specific color balance setting, it's up to them to create an image that they like whether it's accurate or not. I'm not saying images with a blue color balance are ugly or anything like that, obviously there are plenty of examples of breath taking night sky photos with it (including Mack's). I guess my philosophy from my career (laboratory research) extends to my hobbies and that's to present the most accurate image I possibly can.

I layer the foreground shot over the tracked sky shot, warp the blurry foreground from the tracked shot to align with the untracked foreground as best as possible, then mask the untracked foreground. It literally takes like 5 minutes to do, all those shots I just posted used that same process. Yes there can be tricky situations which take time (like super branched/leafy trees), but on average it takes minimal time compared to the rest of my editing to do. This winter I plan on putting several tutorials together on my workflow and processes for various shots, just don't have the time to do it until then.


flickr (external link)
SmugMug (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MedicineMan4040
The Magic Johnson of Cameras
Avatar
21,724 posts
Gallery: 1956 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 74790
Joined Jul 2013
     
Jul 11, 2016 23:25 |  #3212

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18064565 (external link)
Again, the misinformation is mostly ISO recommendations as it pertains to image quality. Also, I do use my 50mm f1.8, but I don't feel that lens is as good as my 85mm f1.4 so I use the 85mm now for my zoomed Milky Way shots which I posted above. It ends where you've found lenses that you are comfortable with which produce the best possible results, in your case you don't use something like a 24mm for other reasons outside astrophotography. But I couldn't possibly recommend buying an ultra wide angle like the 14mm f2.8 for astrophotography when the 24mm f1.4 is a significantly better lens for not much more. On all technical levels the 24mm f1.4 is better save for field of view, but given the ease of modern technology something like field of view should not be a limiting factor unless you are zooming in very far, then hopefully common sense kicks in and you realize that lens is not being used in a manner it's built for.

I'm done fighting the color balance arguments, my mind obviously has a different thought process with regards to the subject. I personally don't believe the subject is one of those "personal opinion dictates practice" areas of photography/art because we have established science and data that supports reality, but I'm not going to tell people they have to use a specific color balance setting, it's up to them to create an image that they like whether it's accurate or not. I'm not saying images with a blue color balance are ugly or anything like that, obviously there are plenty of examples of breath taking night sky photos with it (including Mack's). I guess my philosophy from my career (laboratory research) extends to my hobbies and that's to present the most accurate image I possibly can.

I layer the foreground shot over the tracked sky shot, warp the blurry foreground from the tracked shot to align with the untracked foreground as best as possible, then mask the untracked foreground. It literally takes like 5 minutes to do, all those shots I just posted used that same process. Yes there can be tricky situations which take time (like super branched/leafy trees), but on average it takes minimal time compared to the rest of my editing to do. This winter I plan on putting several tutorials together on my workflow and processes for various shots, just don't have the time to do it until then.

Very much looking forward to your video tutorials. If I may beg of you please add a tutorial on the Ioptron tracker.


flickr (external link)
Vid Collection: https://www.youtube.co​m/user/medicineman4040 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Inspeqtor
saying the wrong thing at the wrong time
Avatar
10,861 posts
Gallery: 133 photos
Likes: 3974
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Elkhart, Indiana
     
Jul 12, 2016 00:49 |  #3213

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18064584 (external link)
pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18064565 (external link)
Again, the misinformation is mostly ISO recommendations as it pertains to image quality. Also, I do use my 50mm f1.8, but I don't feel that lens is as good as my 85mm f1.4 so I use the 85mm now for my zoomed Milky Way shots which I posted above. It ends where you've found lenses that you are comfortable with which produce the best possible results, in your case you don't use something like a 24mm for other reasons outside astrophotography. But I couldn't possibly recommend buying an ultra wide angle like the 14mm f2.8 for astrophotography when the 24mm f1.4 is a significantly better lens for not much more. On all technical levels the 24mm f1.4 is better save for field of view, but given the ease of modern technology something like field of view should not be a limiting factor unless you are zooming in very far, then hopefully common sense kicks in and you realize that lens is not being used in a manner it's built for.

I'm done fighting the color balance arguments, my mind obviously has a different thought process with regards to the subject. I personally don't believe the subject is one of those "personal opinion dictates practice" areas of photography/art because we have established science and data that supports reality, but I'm not going to tell people they have to use a specific color balance setting, it's up to them to create an image that they like whether it's accurate or not. I'm not saying images with a blue color balance are ugly or anything like that, obviously there are plenty of examples of breath taking night sky photos with it (including Mack's). I guess my philosophy from my career (laboratory research) extends to my hobbies and that's to present the most accurate image I possibly can.

I layer the foreground shot over the tracked sky shot, warp the blurry foreground from the tracked shot to align with the untracked foreground as best as possible, then mask the untracked foreground. It literally takes like 5 minutes to do, all those shots I just posted used that same process. Yes there can be tricky situations which take time (like super branched/leafy trees), but on average it takes minimal time compared to the rest of my editing to do. This winter I plan on putting several tutorials together on my workflow and processes for various shots, just don't have the time to do it until then.

Very much looking forward to your video tutorials. If I may beg of you please add a tutorial on the Ioptron tracker.

I totally agree!!!!!!!!


Charles
Canon EOS 90D * Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM* Flickr Account (external link)
Tokina AT-X Pro DX 11-20 f/2.8 * Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC Macro OS * Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM Contemporary
Canon 18-55 IS Kit Lens * Canon 70-300 IS USM * Canon 50mm f1.8 * Canon 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OZS2KCA
Senior Member
801 posts
Gallery: 444 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2915
Joined Sep 2012
Location: California (central valley)
     
Jul 12, 2016 18:59 |  #3214

My first time photographing the Milky Way.


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


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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eddie
xpfloyd lookalike
Avatar
13,986 posts
Gallery: 638 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 9506
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
     
Jul 13, 2016 03:03 |  #3215

OZS2KCA wrote in post #18065390 (external link)
My first time photographing the Milky Way.

Superb


α7R III | Mavic 2 Pro | Osmo Pocket | GoPro Hero 7 Black

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Inspeqtor
saying the wrong thing at the wrong time
Avatar
10,861 posts
Gallery: 133 photos
Likes: 3974
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Elkhart, Indiana
     
Jul 13, 2016 06:31 |  #3216

OZS2KCA wrote in post #18065390 (external link)
My first time photographing the Milky Way.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by OZS2KCA in
./showthread.php?p=180​65390&i=i233233272
forum: Astronomy & Celestial

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by OZS2KCA in
./showthread.php?p=180​65390&i=i192769362
forum: Astronomy & Celestial

These are excellent shots!

Does anyone know or think they know what the bright streak is in the top photo? There are other fainter streaks which I suspect may be shooting stars......


Charles
Canon EOS 90D * Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM* Flickr Account (external link)
Tokina AT-X Pro DX 11-20 f/2.8 * Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC Macro OS * Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM Contemporary
Canon 18-55 IS Kit Lens * Canon 70-300 IS USM * Canon 50mm f1.8 * Canon 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OZS2KCA
Senior Member
801 posts
Gallery: 444 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2915
Joined Sep 2012
Location: California (central valley)
Post edited over 4 years ago by OZS2KCA.
     
Jul 13, 2016 09:36 |  #3217

Thank you! I just wished I had a wider lens with me. The ones above were shot with the sigma 35 Art. I also took this with one with the canon 24-105mm.


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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OZS2KCA
Senior Member
801 posts
Gallery: 444 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2915
Joined Sep 2012
Location: California (central valley)
Post edited over 4 years ago by OZS2KCA.
     
Jul 13, 2016 09:39 as a reply to  @ Eddie's post |  #3218

Thank you! I read this thread to learn a bit about this type of photography before, embarking on this trip.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikepj
Member
Avatar
204 posts
Likes: 63
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Central Michigan
     
Jul 13, 2016 09:39 |  #3219

OZS2KCA wrote in post #18065848 (external link)
Thank you! I just wished I had a wider lens with me. The ones above were shot with the sigma 35 Art. I also took this with one with the canon 24-105mm.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by OZS2KCA in
./showthread.php?p=180​65848&i=i64136160
forum: Astronomy & Celestial

It's funny seeing lens flare in an astro photo.

Nice shots.


Radiant Photography (external link) Instagram (external link) Instagram (Sports) (external link) Flickr (external link)
5D Mark IV, 7D Mark II, Rebel SL1
16-35 ƒ4L, 24-105 ƒ4L, 70-200 ƒ2.8L IS II, 100-400 ƒ4.5-5.6L, 85 ƒ1.8, 50 ƒ1.8 STM, 24mm ƒ2.8 STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TCampbell
Senior Member
452 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 284
Joined Apr 2012
     
Jul 13, 2016 13:44 |  #3220

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18064351 (external link)
How about one sentence: not using my tracker with my Nikon D600, use a 24mm f1.4 lens for largest aperture possible, set aperture to f1.4, ISO 1600 (ISOless point for my camera) and take a 12-15 second exposure.

My reasoning:

The two single most important things for getting the highest quality Milky Way images are 1) clear aperture area and B) exposure time. Ultra wide angle lenses (think lenses between 10-20mm) don't offer large aperture areas, generally the largest is f2 or f2.8. The amount of light your lens collects is proportional to the aperture and focal length, the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (for example) has a clear aperture area of (11/2.8) which equals 3.92mm. The Rokinon 24mm f1.4 has a clear aperture area of (24/1.4) which equals 17.14mm, this means the Rokinon collects (17.14/3.92)^2 = 19 times as much light. So even though you COULD take a 54 second exposure (using the rule of 600 and not taking DSLR crop sensor factor into account) versus a 25 second exposure with the Rokinon without getting star trails you'd still be collecting 9 times as much light with the 25 second exposure from the Rokinon.

You are absolutely right that the 24mm f/1.4 lens will ultimately collect more light than a 14mm f/2.8 lens, but the math has some errors which over-states the difference.

The area of a circle is computed as: Area = Pi x Radius^2

But it turns out there's more to it than this because a large opening at the back of a very long "tube" might actually collect less light than a smaller opening at the back of a relatively short tube (maybe... depending on the values). This is because a sensor at the end of a very long tube can only capture light if those photons of light were already headed nearly straight down the long length of the tube. Anything at much of angle will be masked out by the walls of the "tube". Whereas a short "tube" allows photons to enter and still hit the sensor from a relatively wide angle. Substitute "lens" for "tube". This value is succinctly captured in the "focal ratio" of the lens.

A lens with a lower focal ratio captures more light, because the ratio factors in both the "tube length" and the "aperture opening" size.

It also turns out that due to the formula of a circle, each time the diameter (or radius - it doesn't matter which) of a circle (or in our case a lens aperture opening) is increased by factor equal to the square root of 2 (roughly 1.41) then the "area" of that circle is exactly doubled. This is why the f-stops on a camera that we think of as "full" stops are not neat integer numbers, but rather are based on powers of the square root of 2.

e.g.:

√2^0 = 1 (anything raised to the zero power is 1)
√2^1 = 1.4 (rounded because f-stops on cameras only use the first two digits as significant)
√2^2 = 2
√2^3 = 2.8
√2^4 = 4
√2^5 = 5.6
√2^6 = 8
√2^7 = 11 (a little more rounding here ... technically it would be 11.2, but again, photography only uses the first two digits as being significant)
√2^8 = 16
√2^9 = 22
and so on. The pattern is that the base is always the square root of two (√2) raised to some power and it works out to all the full f-stops we used in photography.

So a lens which offers an f/1.4 focal ratio gathers exactly twice as much light as a lens at f/2. It gathers four times more light than a lens at f/2.8.

Suppose we use the rule of 600 (instead of 500 .... although the specific number used doesn't matter in order to illustrate the point. Many photographers prefer the lower number to make sure that they don't see any star elongation even when looking very closely). At 600 ÷ 24 = 25 (so you can do a 25 second shot). At 600 ÷ 14 = 42.8 (roughly a 43 second shot). HOWEVER... the 24mm is an f/1.4 lens and the 14mm is an f/2.8 lens. This means that the f/1.4 lens is collect four times more light for each 1 second that the shutter is open as compared to the f/2.8 lens. So ultimately it's "as if" you get to quadruple the exposure time when using the f/1.4 lens. In other words, multiple 25 (seconds) x 4 and you get 100 (seconds). So the 24mm lens collects as much light in 25 seconds as it would take the f/2.8 lens to capture if the f/2.8 lens was allowed to take a 100 second exposure (of course neither lens can take a 100 second exposure on a stationary tripod without very noticeable star elongation.)

This means that it if both lenses were f/2.8 lenses then it would be "as if" somehow the 24mm lens could take a 100 second image whereas the 14mm can only take a 43 second image. So the 24mm f/1.4 is getting to capture an exposure which is literally 2.33 (two and a third) times longer. The magic is in the focal ratio being so very low that it more than makes up for the focal length difference. If it were only an f/2 lens then it wouldn't be so very different (only about 1/6th of a stop better and not really enough to be very noticeable.)

At 35mm f/1.4 the lens is still better than a 14mm f/2.8 but now it's "as if" the 35mm can capture an exposure which is just slightly over 50% longer -- so it's still more than what the 14mm can do but about a 1/2 stop.

Astrophotography is all about collecting as much of the few photons of light at night as possible, to do that you need a lens with a wide aperture with a moderate focal length and you need to take as long as an exposure as possible. Everything else is digitization and manipulation of the signal after it's been converted by your sensor. ISO is a vestigial term from the days of film photography that literally means nothing for digital photography. People tend to have the idea that ISO still has some link to sensitivity (as in the days of film), it doesn't, all it is is a digital amplification of the post sensor signal by your camera. Every modern dslr camera will be the same, at some point the digital noise introduced by increasing ISO outweighs the signal noise from your sensor, that's the point you should stop increasing ISO. For most cameras these days that point is around ISO 800 or 1600, some of them up to 3200. Shooting higher than that point only decreases the dynamic range of your sensor which means you start clipping highlights (and the highlights in astro images are stars). Ever wonder why the majority of stars in most astro images are white instead of a wide variety of colors (blue, red, orange, yellow, and white)? It's because people are shooting at too high of an ISO point, clipping the stars highlights and the color data is lost. You're better off shooting at the ISOless point and then increasing exposure in post, doing that maintains dynamic range and doesn't introduce any more noise than just increasing ISO.

Very good points are made here. This is something that is missed by many photographers who use digital cameras. If you take a shot at, say, ISO 3200 and then take another identical shot at ISO 1600 but pull that shot into photo adjustment software and boost the ISO 1600 exposure by exactly one full stop, you will end up with identical images (or at least you should end up with identical images if your image processing software is working correctly). All the camera does when you boost ISO is take the data that it reads out from the chip and multiplies it by some value based on the ISO (and there's no reason you couldn't just have your computer do that instead of having your camera do that.)

Noise can come from a variety of sources and at low ISOs, many chips actually do get more "signal" and less "noise" as you boost the ISO values... but there's a point where all of that ends. On my 60Da it ends just after ISO 800. On my 5D II and 5D III it ends just after ISO 1600. This means it really doesn't matter how much I boost the ISO after that magic ISO value... I'll be boosting the noise every bit as much as I'm boosting the signal data and the image won't really be better.

So it turns out that what most astrophotographers will learn at some point is that it's really all about trying to improve the signal to noise ratio (SNR). This is why astrophotographers who use telescopes to shoot deep-space objects will take many many images of the same exposure (and may even use dithering) and also take "dark" frames and "bias" frames.

If I take two identical images back to back, the real signal data in each image should be the same... but the background noise should (hopefully) be different. Computer software can then align the frames to match and then "average" the data in the pixels and this will help smooth out the noise (the bad stuff) with the signal data (the good stuff like stars and nebulosity).

There's a Poisson relationship that says your ability to knock-back the noise levels will be based on the square root of the number of images you shoot. So if you shoot 4 images (the square root is 2) then you can do twice as good a job at getting rid of the noise as if you just shot 2. And if you shoot 9 images then you should be able to do 3x better.... or shoot 16 or 25 images to do 4 or 5 times better (respectively).

Something a little more magical can happen if you shoot 10 or more images and then use "sigma clipping" instead of "averaging". Sigma clipping is a statistical way to improve the image which works so well that even if a plane or satellite flew through one of the images it could be completely remediated. They idea is to find statistical outliers in the data. It is as if you decide to have each image "vote" on the color each pixel. If you shoot 10 frames and a given pixel is "black" in 9 out of 10 of the frames, but the pixel is "white" in just 1 frame, then the "white" value will be treated as a statistical anomaly (an outlier) and it can be completely ignored by the software... even though every other pixel in the same image is statistically more in agreement with the same corresponding pixel in all the other images (so you still use the image where the airplane or satellite flew through and in the final combined image the satellite or airplane trail is completely gone -- as if by magic. (ah, the magic of math!).

Camera sensors will have some random noise, but they will also have some pattern noise or stuck pixels. This means noise can pile up in the same spots on every image you shoot and this would fool the computer stacking software into believing the "noise" was actually valid data (dim stars) and are left in the image instead of being removed.

There are two ways to get around this... one way (the most common) is to shoot "dark" frames. These are identical exposures... except the lens cover is on the camera. This creates an image in which the noise piles up in the image... but no actual "light" from the subject reaches the sensor. In other words you just created a measurement of what is exclusively noise and no good "signal". The computer software can now take numerous samples of this "noise" data to build a statistical model of the noise and then "subtract" that noise from every "light" image that you shot.

The other way (which is technically even better but requires more equipment to pull it off) is to use "dithering". This technique means the camera lens (or telescope) is moved just a very very tiny amount BETWEEN each frame that you shoot. The movement is only enough to shift the image by a few pixels in a random direction. When the images are "stacked" by the computer, it uses the positions of stars to register each image frame to the other frames and align (or "register") all the images. This means your "stars" are all neatly aligned which also means any nebulosity is also neatly aligned... but what's mis-aligned is the "pattern noise". This noise is shifted in a random position in every frame because the camera sensor was moved between frames. Since pattern noise and stuck pixels are no longer in the same spots (relative to the stars) the computer can quickly (and accurately) recognize them for what they are... noise ... and eliminate them from the image. You get a much cleaner (lower noise) result.

I mentioned the "dithering" uses some special equipment because typically to pull this off, the camera is mounted to a telescope which also has a guide-scope and guide camera and auto-guiding software. The camera is being controlled by image capture software. The software is coordinating the "guide" system with the "image acquisition" system so that the scope will not be nudged while the camera shutter is open, but the acquisition software will notify the dithering system as soon as it closes the shutter so that the dithering system can tell the guide-software to nudge the scope by a small amount. Then guider then tells the dithering system that the movement is completed... it usually also factors in a "settle down" time (to make sure nothing is vibrating from the recent move). The camera then opens the shutter to capture the next frame. Of course now you have a camera attached to a full-blown equatorial telescope mount (not just a tracker head) and the in addition to your "camera" there is a separate guide-camera and guide scope (tracking a star) and this is typically connected to a computer (laptop) running some image acquisition software as well as guider software. PHD (which really does stand for "Push Here Dummy") is an easy-to-use and free auto-guider application (you still need a guide camera and guide scope) and "Backyard EOS" knows how to fully control the image capture session to nearly any Canon EOS DSLR camera (as long as it isn't an extremely old model.. I think it needs a Digic II or newer processor in the camera. So some of the original EOS models aren't supported.)

If you truly want the highest quality astrophotography images you should buy a tracker so you can actually collect long exposures at low ISO.

Yes, absolutely. The iOptron, the Sky Watcher Star-Adventurer, etc. I use a Losmandy StarLapse but that's a higher-end (more expensive because it's machine-tooled instead of mass-produced and costs around $600. It can handle heavier loads and is designed to hold the camera in such a way as to neutrally balance the load (load won't "shift" as it slowly rotates so this should minimize any flexure issues that might spoil the image.) The Star-Adventurer has an optional counter-weight bar -- also designed to balance the load to minimize flexure. It's an add-on feature (not included in the base product) but for serious users and longer exposure durations it can help you get longer imaging with help keep the stars sharp by minimizing flexure issues.

Think of it this way, a lot of people spend thousands of dollars on equipment for this hobby, you can spend probably a third of what you'd normally spend, buy the Rokinon 24mm f1.4 lens for $500 and an iOptron Skytracker for $300 and produce significantly better results. I kind of laugh thinking about all the money I've spent on photography equipment for this hobby on various lenses and other things, now I pretty much only use one lens for widefield (the 24mm), one lens for slightly zoomed portions of the sky/landscapes (85mm f1.4) and my 150-600mm monster for deep space stuff. Pretty much all my other half dozen lenses are now collecting dust unless I want to use them for non-astro purposes. Plus now instead of taking 200+ shots at night I take maybe 40 shots and I use all of them, much less hard drive space taken up and much less sifting through tons of shots to find the best ones. I never shoot above ISO 800 anymore and I can stop down to f2-f3 to get round stars with a star burst affect thanks to the aperture blades, then take 1-5 minute exposures.

This is just my reasoning, there's more than one way to skin a cat and people are producing quality astro images doing it other ways, but I truly believe that the best image quality (in terms of noise levels, detail, natural looking, accuracy, etc) is produced with the method I described.

I suppose I could sum that up to say "it's not always about the lens -- other factors are important too". This comes up on astrophotography forums (using telescopes instead of camera lenses) all the time. The relative newcomer asks for telescope buying advice and then mentions "I'd also like to do astrophotography with it". But there's a bit of a learning curve and price sticker shock. The mount is usually even more important than the telescope that sits on that mount... and it's not like we just attach a camera, take a photo, and a stunning image comes out... the effort put into the "image data acquisition" process is an art unto itself. There's also the "image integration" process (combining all the data to make one image -- even though you haven't even begun to start processing that image.) And then ultimately there's the "image processing" part (making the image visually appealing) which is another huge learning curve (and more of an "art" than a "science"... the first two parts, acquisition and integration, are more "science and math" than "art". But the last final phases of image processing are basically "art".)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NCHANT
Goldmember
3,011 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2141
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Jul 14, 2016 01:28 as a reply to  @ Inspeqtor's post |  #3221

Satellites and Iridium flares would be my guess :) the 1st one I haven't seen anything like that before though.


6D x 2 | TM SP 35mm ƒ1.4 | 50mm ƒ1.8 | 85mm ƒ1.8 | 24-105mm ƒ4L USM | 135mm ƒ2L | 200mm ƒ2.8L II | 17-40mm ƒ4L | Sy 24mm ƒ1.4 | Sy XP 14mm ƒ2.4 Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Davenn
Senior Member
Avatar
991 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 486
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jul 14, 2016 05:57 |  #3222

Inspeqtor wrote in post #18065727 (external link)
These are excellent shots!

Does anyone know or think they know what the bright streak is in the top photo? There are other fainter streaks which I suspect may be shooting stars......


a fireball meteor and a nice example of one at that

doesn't have the usual appearance of an iridium flare


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
Inspeqtor
saying the wrong thing at the wrong time
Avatar
10,861 posts
Gallery: 133 photos
Likes: 3974
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Elkhart, Indiana
     
Jul 14, 2016 07:59 |  #3223

NCHANT wrote in post #18066450 (external link)
Satellites and Iridium flares would be my guess :) the 1st one I haven't seen anything like that before though.


Davenn wrote in post #18066535 (external link)
a fireball meteor and a nice example of one at that

doesn't have the usual appearance of an iridium flare

Thank you both!!


Charles
Canon EOS 90D * Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM* Flickr Account (external link)
Tokina AT-X Pro DX 11-20 f/2.8 * Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC Macro OS * Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM Contemporary
Canon 18-55 IS Kit Lens * Canon 70-300 IS USM * Canon 50mm f1.8 * Canon 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NCHANT
Goldmember
3,011 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2141
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Jul 15, 2016 02:41 |  #3224

Davenn wrote in post #18066535 (external link)
a fireball meteor and a nice example of one at that

doesn't have the usual appearance of an iridium flare

Doesn't seem to have the colours of a meteor?


6D x 2 | TM SP 35mm ƒ1.4 | 50mm ƒ1.8 | 85mm ƒ1.8 | 24-105mm ƒ4L USM | 135mm ƒ2L | 200mm ƒ2.8L II | 17-40mm ƒ4L | Sy 24mm ƒ1.4 | Sy XP 14mm ƒ2.4 Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandwedge
Goldmember
Avatar
1,028 posts
Gallery: 157 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1401
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Rayville, LA
     
Jul 15, 2016 05:35 |  #3225

I recently shot a time lapse while I was in Yellowstone. Here's one frame from it. I'm a novice at astrophotography, but it was fun to give it a try, especially in such dark skies. C&C welcome.


IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Yellowstone-2016/i-Mp5MLkw/0/L/ys%209-013-L.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …ys%209-013-L.jpg&lb=1&s=A  (external link) on Smugmug

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/63710159@N07/ (external link)
http://www.DougMoon.sm​ugmug.com (external link)
5d mkIV, 80D, 7D, 5D, sx50, Canon EF 500 f/4 USM II, Sigma 150-600C, 100-400L, 70-200L II, 24-105L, 100mm Macro, Sigma 17-70, Sigma 50 1.4, Tamron 28-75, Tokina 11-20, Bower 8mm

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

1,784,650 views & 7,601 likes for this thread
Milkyway nightscapes
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Astronomy & Celestial 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Lucnow
698 guests, 261 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.