what is needed for 'wow' astronomy photography ?

[Astrosurf]

Thanks James!  But I don't want to hijack this thread. I just want to illustrate what can be achieved when you're not a natural. I've been at this for some years now but still have to ask my astro club lots of questions with some basic hand holding!

[jambouk]

I'm a bit confused by the whole thread anyway. I'm not sure what the original poster wants; to just know out of curiosity what top kit is available to the amateur, or if they want to know what to buy to get the best possible images (and for this a budget needs to be revealed for those in the know to give accurate advice (that doesn't include me)). It will also be interesting to know if the original poster thinks your image is a "wow" image or not. Lots of unknowns! But entertaining none the less.

James

[Earl]

a wow image for me has plenty of contrast the colour punches though but also plenty of well processed Flux if it there to be seen.

[glappkaeft]

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!

Yeah, by mastering astrophoto I'm thinking about the true masters like Adam Block. I have some talent at astrophoto and playing the guitar but I'll never match Block or Hendrix. Still I get my own private wow-factor doing both. The importance of time is still true. I may not have spent 10'000 hours but I'm much better now (at both) after several thousands of hours practice then I was at the start.

[lensman57]

Hi to all,

Just to establish a reference point, I post a link to an image of the Horse head taken by the space telescope team, of course all images are courtesy of NASA. Hope you enjoy this.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Hubble-Telescope-Snaps-Stunning-Imageof-the-Horsehead-Nebula-2.jpg%3F1366441949&imgrefurl=http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hubble-Telescope-Snaps-Stunning-Image-of-the-Horsehead-Nebula-346996.shtml&h=1254&w=1200&sz=191&tbn  id=M8bOzOZ5ajtwSM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=86&zoom=1&usg=__WosE3KJdH8ViqhRQjesRzama9z8=&docid=gt7gRTJpWVYIpM&sa=X&ei=r12WUoupNsaBhAfJpoDQCA&ved=0CDoQ9QEwAg            

It would be nice if could even come close. but somehow I don't think so.

Regards,

A.G

[themos]

Compared to the images I remember seeing in magazines and books in my youth, every photo I take is a "wow" one!

[davew]

As an answer to the post heading then I think everyone has given you some idea. To answer the 1st posting then post 14 gives you a good idea also.

Let me take just one imager that does some " Wow " images. Rogelio Bernal Andreo. Not only does he have some very expensive gear, built up over many years, he also spends a small fortune on petrol ! Spend enough time looking into his imaging then it becomes obvious that he'll spend weeks or months building up the data. If he's not entirely happy with a night's work he'll ditch it no matter what it cost to get it. Once collected he'll spend many hours fine tuning it until he's satisfied enough to let the rest of us have a look.

You could of course ask the imagers who make Wow photos what it takes. I know a few imagers that will answer emails. Rogelio, Robert Gendler, Ken Crawford, Richard Crisp and the master himself, David Malin. You could even try Jukka Metsavanio who uses ordinary gear and then spends his time processing.

There is a short cut you can take though. Do an image. Hit it with the high pass filter. Wind the colours right up and people will say " WOW. What the hell is that "

Dave.

[impactcrater]

some posters wondered if this was a theoretical question so I will detail my equipment-

MY SCOPE is SO LARGE that when I set it up on my verandah and aim it at the BLACK HOLE in the middle of our MILKY WAY , the far end of it rests on the event horizon !

Seasons Greetings and Cheer to all !

[impactcrater]

'wow' varies over time...compare the film special effects in 2001-a space odyssey which was 'wow' on first release . they are relatively mundane by what is achievable today....the power of some huge scopes to produce a 3D like image certainly does take your breath away....

[RikM]

For deep sky imaging, the 'size' (aperture) of the telescope is of very little direct  importance. The optical speed (focal ratio) and focal length are the important parameters, the aperture is just the result of choosing the other two. You choose the focal length you want, as this sets the field of view in your image (together with the size of your camera sensor), then you want as fast a focal ratio as you can afford at that focal length. And you have to consider if the manufacturer can produce something that can work well enough to give good images at that focal ratio, because it gets harder and more expensive to produce reliable, mechanically sound, equipment as you get faster.

The top priority for 'wow' deep sky images is the accuracy of the mount. Next in importance is the field and sensitivity / noise of the camera. Last on the list are the optics.

[themos]

 The top priority for 'wow' deep sky images is the accuracy of the mount. Next in importance is the field and sensitivity / noise of the camera. Last on the list are the optics.

I disagree. The optics come first: if you mess up where the photons go after they leave the glass, there's nothing you can do to fix it. For shaky mounts and noisy cameras, you can always throw more time at the problem. 

[LouisJB]

everything has to be matched and well balanced otherwise it's only going to be as good as the weakest-link part is bad. It's the same with cars, hi-fi etc, no point a 300mm Newt on an EQ1, a 120 triplet on a simple dobsonian mount (eeek!) or an n-thousand mm focal length and no effective guiding... It's also probably not worth building that observatory to house your new £££££ 1+ meter reflector, when you live in the city and not up a mountain with exceptionally dark-skies.

[RikM]

I disagree. The optics come first: if you mess up where the photons go after they leave the glass, there's nothing you can do to fix it. For shaky mounts and noisy cameras, you can always throw more time at the problem. 

There are very different priorities between solar system and deep sky imaging. I agree, for planetary imaging you do need tip-top optics to get the focal length and angular resolution for 'wow' images, and yes, with fast frame rate you can get away with a shaky mount. With deep sky, if your mount moves during the sub, that sub is lost...if you want 'wow'.

Put an ED80 on an HEQ5 with an autogiuder and in the right hands you can get a 'wow' image. Put an FSQ85 on an EQ1 and it will be far more of a struggle. Better optics are only 'better' if the performance of the mount is a given.

[ollypenrice]

I disagree. The optics come first: if you mess up where the photons go after they leave the glass, there's nothing you can do to fix it. For shaky mounts and noisy cameras, you can always throw more time at the problem. 

This is a fair point but in the amateur world of finite budget I would not put optics first, I'd put them last. In first place would be the mount, with a caveat. It has to track accurately enough for the resolution of the system but it doesn't need to exceed that by much. A bit of margin is a real world 'good thing.' Such a mount might be an HEQ5. Do you need a Paramount for a small refractor? No. WIll it improve your images over the HEQ5? Usually not. Now, DSLR and Takahashi FSQ or ED80 and Atik 460? For me this is an absolute no brainer. Give me the ED80 and the Atik.

So my advice is mount (with caveat), camera, optics. Why are amateurs now beating relaitively recent (short focal length) professional images? Is it because their optics and mounts have improved? No. It's because their CCD cameras have changed the game forever.

Olly

[kirkster501]

Compared to the images I remember seeing in magazines and books in my youth, every photo I take is a "wow" one!

Absolutely.  Its quite astonishing what can be done with the modestly costed equipment available today by the amateur determined to learn and experiment. I think we'd all be a lot better too if the British weather would cooperate a bit more.

[sloz1664]

Absolutely.  Its quite astonishing what can be done with the modestly costed equipment available today by the amateur determined to learn and experiment. I think we'd all be a lot better too if the British weather would cooperate a bit more.

Totally agree. I spend as much time as I can to gather information & perfect my imaging techniques. British weather being the blocker.

I'm still learning the post processing skills (lots of theory) but I'm putting this as being secondary. Gathering the right images is what I need right now

and then I'll master the processing lark.

cheers

Steve