Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

No laughing please ....


darthvader

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, maw lod qan said:

Nice image. The more you practice, you'll get better and better!

Dont worry about anyone laughing at this image, I still provide all the material they need for that!

With no tracking mount, I've only managed the core of Andromeda, but even that made me smile.

As much as we all like the compliments from those who are more talented at this than we might be, I'm certain everyone will say the important person to make happy is ourself.

I suffer with this insanity for my own pleasure!

The dummy battery is a wonderful thing. My Canon SL1 just sits there clicking away all night long plugged in to it.

ย 

Hey, I made myself very happy getting the Adventurer to work at all ๐Ÿ™ƒ๐Ÿ˜ even the Mrs. was impressed with the galaxy and she don't impress easy ๐Ÿ˜œ mind you the dog didn't seem too impressed he was more interested in my packet of wotsits ๐Ÿคฃ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your histogram is ok, quite bright but not too far over to the right. Find out what the optimum ISO is to use for your camera. Quick levels and you can see the data is processable. Hopefully focus will be better next time out, you had great tracking and star colours

2310Capture.JPG.cd519cb314bcc6cdb5f9881aaf4bfaa9.JPG

Edited by happy-kat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, happy-kat said:

What was your ISO?

A bit bright is better than too dark, as long as the light histogram is clear of the left edge that should be ok.

Yes, it really wants to be well clear of the left hand side, the back of the camera image is a jpg and it has been tone curved.
The RAW image will still be over hard to the left, this is why it's best to expose to at least 25% on a Canon camera histogram.
This way the RAW should just be detached from the left.

It is a trade off, if you go any further right the bright stars all lose colour and over expose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks a great image for a first attempt, you should be proud of it as we all start there somewhere imaging galaxies. You have great fun with your star adventurer and dslr. Once you have found focus a good tip is to place a piece of blu tak or electrical tape across the focus ring to stop it nudging out of focus, I have only been imaging M31 for a couple of weeks but hopefully improving all the time, when clear skies allow, I have an omegon lx2 star tracker as like the portability and no power issues. Clear skies and just have fun, I've found all the hard work is in post processing ๐Ÿ“ท๐ŸŒŒ๐Ÿš€๐Ÿ”ญ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/10/2020 at 08:21, happy-kat said:

@wxsatuserย Doย you think the histogram on the uploaded image I've shown above is too far over even by exception, though the OP's was a jpg rather than the raw file.

Could be, may be the image is to bright, the peak could be pulled more left as long as no data is to the left
as we don't want to clip anything that may be there.

There is a huge difference between the camera jpg and RAW histogram.
If we look at both we can see why the exposure should be at least 20>25% on a Canon.

RAW histogram of Californian Nebula
You can see it is just clear of the left, linear data.

DPP1.jpg.61e7004021f661bb4bb15ad669756822.jpg

This image is what the camera jpg will look like, histogram on 20%.
A tone curve is applied in camera and by most software so we can see roughly what we are going to get.
Remember RAW images are dark, very dark for astro, also lack contrast and colour.

DPP2.jpg.d1a699652d9afdcd5f94230fc1a3510f.jpg

ย 

Edited by wxsatuser
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took a few more pics tonight, seeing wasn't great I don't think, seemed to be a lot of misty clouds about round here.

ย Anyway, I think my polar alignment was a bit off tonight as the stars appear to be a trailing slightly, although the focus appears a little better.

I've got loads of questions !

1. If I'm uploading a picture onto this site should I load the .jpg or the RAW file?

2. Some of the red stars appear a little artificial? is it just me or is there an issue with the photo/camera/setup

3. I noticed the camera lens was misting up a bit, how do you folks keep it clear, 12V hairdryers or is there a better way?

4. A lot of the stars appear to have shadows of themselves - is this just because of the tracking not being quite right?

5.... not gonna ask any more for now, I don't want to take liberties withย ย your kind help.

(I've attached one of the photos - from the constellation Cygnus (I uploaded it to Astrometry.net which was recommended previously, great tool for identifying objects -> I'd never heard of the Foxhead Cluster before !)

I bought the every photon counts book about a year ago but have never really looked at it, must dig it out from the bookcase, I'm sure there must be some good advice in there...

thanks again folks for your advice and helpย ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜ƒ

ย 

IMG_5981.JPG

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good focus there, great

1, if it's too illustrate then jpg is fine, people ask if they want/need to see a raw.ย 

2, could be what you mean is the defraction spikes that show on bright stars from the aperture blades on the lens, this is normal.

3, if its two hours outside I find the flower pot dew shield I made works, it's flocked but not heated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, darthvader said:

Took a few more pics tonight, seeing wasn't great I don't think, seemed to be a lot of misty clouds about round here.

ย Anyway, I think my polar alignment was a bit off tonight as the stars appear to be a trailing slightly, although the focus appears a little better.

Focus seems spot on :thumbsup:, there is some chromatic aberration and the lens has some coma, elongated stars in the corners

I've got loads of questions !

1. If I'm uploading a picture onto this site should I load the .jpg or the RAW file?ย 
ย ย ย ย ย  jpg or png has better colour, also resize to keep file size down, resize to something like 800 to 1024 on the long side.

2. Some of the red stars appear a little artificial? is it just me or is there an issue with the photo/camera/setup

Some are artificial, to the left your have an aircraft trail, a diagonal of red navigation lights

3. I noticed the camera lens was misting up a bit, how do you folks keep it clear, 12V hairdryers or is there a better way?

4. A lot of the stars appear to have shadows of themselves - is this just because of the tracking not being quite right?

think you have some slight movement, use a remote released, make sure there is no vibration

5.... not gonna ask any more for now, I don't want to take liberties withย ย your kind help.

no problem keep asking

(I've attached one of the photos - from the constellation Cygnus (I uploaded it to Astrometry.net which was recommended previously, great tool for identifying objects -> I'd never heard of the Foxhead Cluster before !)

I bought the every photon counts book about a year ago but have never really looked at it, must dig it out from the bookcase, I'm sure there must be some good advice in there...

thanks again folks for your advice and helpย ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜ƒ

ย 

ย 

ย 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, wxsatuser said:

ย 

thanks for all the info, much appreciated.

more questions !ย ๐Ÿ˜ƒ

What image software do you recommend to use for editing astro photos? GIMP ? (I do have an old copy of Photoshop Elements if that's any good?) I'm fairly IT savvy but useless at photography ๐Ÿ˜ƒย if that influences choice of software)

Can chromatic aberration / coma be corrected in the editing phase? not sure I even know whatย coma is ? ( I used a Canon zoom lens EF 75-300 which I bought a few years ago fairly cheaply, I guess higher quality lenses would have less chromatic aberration?)

ย 

2. Some of the red stars appear a little artificial? is it just me or is there an issue with the photo/camera/setup

Some are artificial, to the left your have an aircraft trail, a diagonal of red navigation lights

That did make me laugh, I thought they looked a bit odd ๐Ÿ˜, i thought if it was an aircraft there would be a line, but thinking about it, if the lights are flashing then that's not the case !)

ย 

ย 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GIMP or what you have is fine no need to Have to buy anything, depends whether you want to and how much you want to spend.ย 

There are several stargazine videos shared to get going with and many other videos that can be fairly well followed that use say Affinity photo or Photoshop.ย 

Chromatic aberration can be minimised in editing, coma get rid by cropping the edges.

ย 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

GIMP or what you have is fine no need to Have to buy anything, depends whether you want to and how much you want to spend.ย 

There are several stargazine videos shared to get going with and many other videos that can be fairly well followed that use say Affinity photo or Photoshop.ย 

Chromatic aberration can be minimised in editing, coma get rid by cropping the edges.

ย 

thankyou, I don't mind spending a few quid on some software if it's good (I object to these software monthly subscriptions mindย ๐Ÿ˜ฌย e.g. photoshop ! )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like and use StarTools also.ย 

I am a budget AP'er and a little lazy. If I can't figure out how to get a decent image within a few hours of experimenting the shine wears off.

Shelling out for PI at a cost of more than my scope makes no sense when ST gets me there at the cost of a cheap eyepiece and without days of study.

I tried a trial version of APP butย  the basic stacking process took 12 hours before I quit (at 32%) ,unfinished. To be fair I may have made some error in the parameter selections but there was nothing to tell me about it. Even when I stacked far fewer frames to arrive at the processing steps faster it didn't do a better job of stretching etc.

So DSS and ST is the way to go for me.

ย 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, dobblob said:

I like and use StarTools also.ย 

I am a budget AP'er and a little lazy. If I can't figure out how to get a decent image within a few hours of experimenting the shine wears off.

Shelling out for PI at a cost of more than my scope makes no sense when ST gets me there at the cost of a cheap eyepiece and without days of study.

I tried a trial version of APP butย  the basic stacking process took 12 hours before I quit (at 32%) ,unfinished. To be fair I may have made some error in the parameter selections but there was nothing to tell me about it. Even when I stacked far fewer frames to arrive at the processing steps faster it didn't do a better job of stretching etc.

So DSS and ST is the way to go for me.

ย 

I agree, I'm a bit impatient so that combo sounds good to me !

I just downloaded the trial version of Backyard EOS - its cool that you can control the camera from your laptop although my camera doesn't have wifi so I think I'd have to trail a VERYย long USB cable from the camera to inside the house (not keen on using my laptop outside, it cost a lot of money !)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
ร—
ร—
  • 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.