Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

what is needed for 'wow' astronomy photography ?

impactcrater

By impactcrater
in Getting Started With Imaging

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ronin

ronin

Posted
Posted

Lots of experience, good equipment, good understanding of that equipment, knowledge to process the image and an artistic appreciation of what to produce.

I say the latter as one of the best Orion Nebulas I have seen was processed so that it was a pale mauve colour, may sound odd but it really stood out above all the rest. The person was given a trip (all paid) to NASA owing to what they produced so it impressed a lot of others also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

If you take widefield pictures the kit needn't cost the Earth. Working at long focal lengths is inevitably expensive because the optics cost more and the mounts needed cost a lot more.

If you want to work in natural colour, as I do, then you do need a dark site. To work in narrowband you don't, though it helps.

A high quality small apochromatic refractor, CCD camera and mount like an HEQ5 can take remarkable pictures.

And then you need TIME. Long, long hours of exposures will get you deeper, smoother, sharper, better. Think 20 hours or more.

3.5 inch refractor, CCD camera, dark site and 20 hours will, with practice, deliver a Wow!

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pete Presland

Pete Presland

Posted
Posted

depends who you are looking to "wow" if it is the astronomy community then being in the right place at the right time will help, as shown by the stunning ISON and meteor shot that was on here a couple of weeks back. just a DSLR and a 200mm lense!

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/199285-comet-ison-with-passing-fireball/?hl=+ison

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swag72

swag72

Posted
Posted

I reckon that the biggest contributory factor in my experience (I've never been to a dark sky so can't add to that) is time. Long exposures and lots of them. Then the data is generally easier to work with, which brings me to another biggie - processing. If your data is good, captured with many thousands of ££ of equipment, but you can't process for toffee, then the final image will not be that good. But give mediocre data to someone who can process, and they will make it something good to look at.

So I reckon, time and processing prowess. Never underestimate the processing part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jambouk

jambouk

Posted
Posted

Lots of people get amazing images with relatively simple kit, but even simple kit isn't cheap. As said above, it depends what sort of stuff you think is "wow"; i think most of it is amazing.

It's great to have high expectations and a goal, but at the same time you need to have a realistic understanding of how difficult astrophotography can be, and i suspect many of the great imagers have learnt so much from their mistakes and bad purchases, that there are few short cuts. Therefore i suspect for most people it takes several years to get to the "wow" stage, and several [tens of] thousands of pounds.

But if you want to start at the bottom and work up, i recently heard Nik Szymanek talk and he was suggesting a starting budget of £1500-2000 would get you up and running for deep sky astrophotography.

James

(Want to be imager i think)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
impactcrater

impactcrater

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I took a real interest in this when I found dietmar hagar's site and there is no doubt he has the WOW factor....all your advice is carefully considered and therfore much appreciated. There does not seem to be a standout scope. I would have thought big apertures were an essence. It seems it is more art than science. 

I cannot help but think that the cameras will be incorporated into the 'advanced' scopes in the near future as there is such an interest in this aspect of heavenly viewing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LouisJB

LouisJB

Posted
Posted

Hubble? :)

Much of the wow factor also comes from the amazing results people manage to achieve with whatever equipment they have, often from their back gardens. Some of the images posted on here are definitely in the wow category for me.

In any case, experience, sky quality, time and patience seem to be the most important factors, put a newbie in front of 20K+ of equipment and they could still produce junk, an expert with just a camera and nothing more however can produce amazing shots - even without any fancy mounts or telescopes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jambouk

jambouk

Posted
Posted

There is no one telescooe as different subjects need different kit to image them to "wow" standards.

Planetary needs aperture and long focal lengths.

Solar needs dedicated solar scopes with expensive hydrogen filters in i don't attempt to understand.

Deep sky stuff often needs fast optics, more so than aperture, and means to address chromatic aberration and to give a flat field...

So there is no one scope for "wow", unless you narrow down what your"wow" targets are. Even then there will be a huge range of options, for budgets from £200 to £1,000,000 :)

Is this a theoretical question, or are you actually looking to spend £10,000 plus on a set up for imaging?

If you've got crazy amounts of money, you could hire an observatory in the high mountains of spain, and pitch your kit there and use it remotely every night of the year! For me, that doesn't appeal, as i'm not rich, but i also enjoy the frustrations of the british weather and tinkering with my kit and being out under the stars myself. But we all have different desires from this hobby.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naemeth

Naemeth

Posted
Posted

Define what you mean by "wow".

Olly, Damian Peach, Terry Hancock, Peter Shah (to name but a few) all produce, IMHO, "Wow" images. All of their kit varies immensely and all of it costs many £thousands.

Sara does some fantastic images too. Of course, a lot of members here do (the list is rather long :))

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/195449-ic1805-and-ic1848-heart-and-soul-mosaic-6-pane-ha-oiii/

For 'wow' DSO images, you need exposure time, clear & dark skies and a very accurate mount, good optics and skill in processing images. The last one comes with practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astrosurf

Astrosurf

Posted
Posted

Have a look at the equipment in my sig. I use my 200P for planetary and small DSOs such as small galaxies. I use the frac for wider field for nebulae (which tend to be large) and larger DSOs such as the Andromeda galaxy. You can also use just a sturdy tripod, camera and wide-angle lens that can produce wonderful shots. Just put on a nifty fifty or wide-angle lens (say 17 or 18mm) and take snaps of 30-45 secs, even one minute for very wide-angle (I think!). I've not done it myself much at all but I've seen cracking images. Then there's the Astrotrac (plus polarscope - important!) which you attach a camera and lens to, for nebulae and wider shots. Melsky does cracking shots with his Astrotrac. Plus it's very portable, as long as you can carry around the sturdy tripod which you'd need with it.

So lots of options. These are just a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
laser_jock99

laser_jock99

Posted
Posted

Not only do you need the location & equipment, it is the time, patience and dedication that the top imagers have. Plenty of people have the equipment but do not appreciate how much effort, skill and experience goes into producing a good image. Getting the data is only half the battle- as others have implied the processing time is often longer than imaging time.

EDIT- That said, it doesn't stop me and many others from having a dabble. I just have to except that given my limitations of time and equipment the 'wow' images will be by other photographers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lensman57

lensman57

Posted
Posted

So do I.

Unfortunately you can't simply buy 'wow' astroimaging, though plenty of people have tried.

I couldn't agree more. This reminds me of a similar question that I was aked a long time ago when I did photography as a semi pro. A friend asked me if he could take landscape photographs like he'd seen in an exhibition of Ansel Adams. I told him that I thought it would be highly unlikely, in reply he told me that he had no problem affording a Hasselblad and a few Zeiss lenses. I told him that top class equipment would be  of great help provided that he knew what to do with it and that was just the technical side, without a certain amount of talent the end result would just be a photograph without merit, flare or character. He bought a Canon A1 instead and to this day he still has it and enjoys it . With the onset of digital capture and software based development of data the craft is certainly less demanding nowadays but the basics still apply. I hope that I have not upset anyone as I consider myself firmly in the beginner's camp.

Regards,

A.G

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

I'd agree that it isn't really the kit.  Bucketloads of practice, the stubbornness of a mule and the patience of a saint.  Somewhere along the line you'll work out what kit you need to help capture the images that make you go "wow!"

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astrosurf

Astrosurf

Posted
Posted

Like pretty much everything else you need talent .

Well, I'd say I have no talent! I manage alright but will never be excellent, for various reasons. Not being technical is one of them. I don't think this image of M42 is too bad although the processing is rough. I must do it again. Processing for me is by far the hardest part and can take hours. If I can do it anyone can!

post-1704-0-33202400-1385552296_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.