Photography of what we actually see in the eyepiece.

[col]

Don't get me wrong, I love seeing the great pictures  everyone takes with long exposure photography.

But is there anyone out there that takes pictures of what you actually see in the eyepiece.?

Nothing tweeked in a programme or sharpened in photoshop, just the real image as it was viewed live.

[DaveL59]

quite a few have posted up pics taken by phone or compact camera at the eyepiece. Can be tricky getting the phone camera well aligned but a bracket/holder helps a lot. If your phone can, then in manual/advanced controls set it to infinity focus and adjust the shutter speed and take a pic.

There's a section elsewhere in the forum about mobile phone/tablet imaging, could be a few pics and tips in there so worth a browse.

Imaging - Smartphone / Tablets - Stargazers Lounge

I've tried it a couple times but not so much to say I've gotten any good at it and my better phone is usually sat in the starsense cradle doing the guiding/directing these days.

Edited August 26, 2022 by DaveL59

[Lee_P]

This can actually be quite tricky given that cameras work differently to our eyes. I've found that the best "what you actually see through the eyepiece" pictures come from not photos, but rather sketches. See here for some examples of what I mean.

[col]

2 hours ago, DaveL59 said:

quite a few have posted up pics taken by phone or compact camera at the eyepiece. Can be tricky getting the phone camera well aligned but a bracket/holder helps a lot. If your phone can, then in manual/advanced controls set it to infinity focus and adjust the shutter speed and take a pic.

There's a section elsewhere in the forum about mobile phone/tablet imaging, could be a few pics and tips in there so worth a browse.

Imaging - Smartphone / Tablets - Stargazers Lounge

I've tried it a couple times but not so much to say I've gotten any good at it and my better phone is usually sat in the starsense cradle doing the guiding/directing these days.

Thanks Dave 

There's plenty to read about there. 

[col]

2 hours ago, Lee_P said:

This can actually be quite tricky given that cameras work differently to our eyes. I've found that the best "what you actually see through the eyepiece" pictures come from not photos, but rather sketches. See here for some examples of what I mean.

Thanks Lee

That's very interesting, could be worth a try. 

[niallk]

3 hours ago, Lee_P said:

This can actually be quite tricky given that cameras work differently to our eyes. I've found that the best "what you actually see through the eyepiece" pictures come from not photos, but rather sketches. See here for some examples of what I mean.

Defo agree - I typically Google sketches of objects I've observed- using scopes of similar aperture,  and look for a variety of sketches - kinda like maybe capturing different seeing & transparency.  It's fun to compare what you could see vs others, and what to try to catch the next time!

[col]

This sketching at the eye piece has grabbed my interest, what a good idea. 

Watercolour painting is something I enjoy trying to learn, and with most things it happens in phases. Then I'll have a phase on another hobby and it continues. 

I'll definitely not be bored with retirement when it comes I have that many interests. 

This sketching what we see through the eyepiece is another I think I'll add to the list. 

[Ratlet]

11 minutes ago, col said:

This sketching at the eye piece has grabbed my interest, what a good idea. 

Watercolour painting is something I enjoy trying to learn, and with most things it happens in phases. Then I'll have a phase on another hobby and it continues. 

I'll definitely not be bored with retirement when it comes I have that many interests. 

This sketching what we see through the eyepiece is another I think I'll add to the list. 

I'm waiting to get out to try sketching myself.  Seems the best way and it costs buttons which is an anomaly in astronomy.

[col]

3 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

I'm waiting to get out to try sketching myself.  Seems the best way and it costs buttons which is an anomaly in astronomy.

Yes it is a nice change not having to spend to give it a go isnt it 🙂

Although Id already overbought things for painting and sketching as you do, so have plenty to use for this new addition to the hobby, when i get round to it of course.

[Stu]

19 hours ago, col said:

Don't get me wrong, I love seeing the great pictures  everyone takes with long exposure photography.

But is there anyone out there that takes pictures of what you actually see in the eyepiece.?

Nothing tweeked in a programme or sharpened in photoshop, just the real image as it was viewed live.

It’s actually very hard to capture what you see through the eyepiece. Even heavily processed stuff doesn’t capture the pinpoint beauty of stars as seen through a good scope.

I am purely visual, but do capture certain things with my smartphone as has already been mentioned. This image of Jupiter is a single shot, processed a little on my phone. It shows some surface detail and a shadow transit, but visually the view was much sharper, with more detail in the bands and the shadow was a jet black and sharp oval.

If you want some sketching inspiration, a chap called Mike (mike73 on here) completed a project to sketch the Messier objects some years back. His sketches are here:

https://www.pbase.com/mike73/messier_sketches

SGL thread here:

Unfortunately Mike left the hobby but at least his work is still available to enjoy. I had the pleasure of owning his 16” Sumerian Canopus truss dobsonian for a while, very nice it was too.

[col]

Your picture of Jupiter is better than I see in my 8inch, I can only make out two of the bands at the moment with the brightness of the planet. But thats a great shot with your phone. what scope did you use?

Thanks for the links too, it gives me plenty to go at.

Im a visual only oserver too, but sometimes it would be nice to be able to get the odd picture like yours.

And with this in mind I have a Nexyz mount to play with. It fits easily on my refractors eyepieces, but is problematic on the dob. But ill keep trying now and then, you never know.

[Stu]

37 minutes ago, col said:

Your picture of Jupiter is better than I see in my 8inch, I can only make out two of the bands at the moment with the brightness of the planet. But thats a great shot with your phone. what scope did you use?

Thanks for the links too, it gives me plenty to go at.

Im a visual only oserver too, but sometimes it would be nice to be able to get the odd picture like yours.

And with this in mind I have a Nexyz mount to play with. It fits easily on my refractors eyepieces, but is problematic on the dob. But ill keep trying now and then, you never know.

Thanks. That was just handheld at the eyepiece of my 4” apo refractor. It was taken at opposition quite a few years ago, so in theory similar to now.

Cooling and collimation are key to getting good planetary views in a dob, as are the seeing conditions. You need to be observing about 3am to catch it at its highest and best at the moment but that is getting earlier all the time, it will be around 1am at opposition on 26th September.

What sort of magnification are you using? x180 is often good for Jupiter in decent seeing conditions. As said, the detail visible was substantially better than in the image, so keep at it and I’m sure you will see more.

[col]

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

Thanks. That was just handheld at the eyepiece of my 4” apo refractor. It was taken at opposition quite a few years ago, so in theory similar to now.

Cooling and collimation are key to getting good planetary views in a dob, as are the seeing conditions. You need to be observing about 3am to catch it at its highest and best at the moment but that is getting earlier all the time, it will be around 1am at opposition on 26th September.

What sort of magnification are you using? x180 is often good for Jupiter in decent seeing conditions. As said, the detail visible was substantially better than in the image, so keep at it and I’m sure you will see more.

Ah thats how i got my best pictures of the Moon, hand held at my Tal100r 's eyepiece. It might be worth me trying my Tal again , as the less light recieved by it might help dull the brightness of the planet and show a little more detail maybe?

I've just worked it out, and I think the highest I used was 133x ?

That will be my next challenge then, Ill try the Plossle 6.3 I have for 190x , see what difference it makes. I've avoided using the 6.3  as I have to  near enough rest my eyeball on the glass.

[Stu]

4 hours ago, col said:

Ah thats how i got my best pictures of the Moon, hand held at my Tal100r 's eyepiece. It might be worth me trying my Tal again , as the less light recieved by it might help dull the brightness of the planet and show a little more detail maybe?

I've just worked it out, and I think the highest I used was 133x ?

That will be my next challenge then, Ill try the Plossle 6.3 I have for 190x , see what difference it makes. I've avoided using the 6.3  as I have to  near enough rest my eyeball on the glass.

What phone do you have? I use an app called ProCam 8 on my iPhone what allows very good control of shutter speed, ISO and focus which really helps. I also use an app called PS Express which is good for editing on your phone.

Pushing up the mag is a good way of reducing the brightness and it also means the image covers more area on the sensor so I think you get better resolution when you crop down.

[jjohnson3803]

On 26/08/2022 at 13:28, col said:

But is there anyone out there that takes pictures of what you actually see in the eyepiece.?

Nothing tweeked in a programme or sharpened in photoshop, just the real image as it was viewed live.

I do that with my 15x70 binos.  I put my phone cam on one barrel and have a look through the other.  Not very sophisticated, but no need for a guidescope or flip mirror or whatever.

[vlaiv]

For planets - it is fairly easy to do.

One should use phone camera attached to eyepiece and do 20-30ms exposures (timing is important so that seeing disturbances average out and give same blurring humans see).

No stacking and sharpening should be performed. One should select image most representative of what was seen at the eyepiece.

I'd argue that taking a video is better way to represent what is seen at the eyepiece (again - use 20-30ms exposures, or 30-50fps when recording).

For faint objects, it is rather more difficult, and will involve some level of post processing and concentration while observing / recording.

Person recording must also observe object. After image is made - brightness, contrast and saturation should be adjusted to match what was seen at the eyepiece.

It is probably not good idea to adjust image immediately while observing (like with phone/tablet app) - as that will ruin night vision. Rather notes can be taken of what is seen - to help recreate sight from memory while processing image at computer to match what was seen.

 

[Stu]

On 26/08/2022 at 21:28, col said:

But is there anyone out there that takes pictures of what you actually see in the eyepiece.?

Col, any of the single shot smartphone lunar, solar and planetary images I take through my scope are much worse than the visual view. I only sharpen and process them to get them as good as possible. Even then they are nowhere near as sharp or contrasty as I see visually.

DSOs are different, processing does bring out colour you can’t see with the naked eye.

Take the attached solar image for example. Visually it was much sharper, there was granulation to see, as well as striations in the larger penumbral regions and small pores and other fine detail this just does not capture. It’s a record, that’s all really.

[SthBohemia]

On 27/08/2022 at 16:10, Stu said:

If you want some sketching inspiration, a chap called Mike (mike73 on here) completed a project to sketch the Messier objects some years back. His sketches are here:

https://www.pbase.com/mike73/messier_sketches

Damn brilliant! @Mike73!!! Will work my way through them 🙂 

[niallk]

22 hours ago, SthBohemia said:

Damn brilliant! @Mike73!!! Will work my way through them 🙂 

One of my top go-to resources too!!👍👍

[col]

On 31/08/2022 at 15:12, Stu said:

Col, any of the single shot smartphone lunar, solar and planetary images I take through my scope are much worse than the visual view. I only sharpen and process them to get them as good as possible. Even then they are nowhere near as sharp or contrasty as I see visually.

DSOs are different, processing does bring out colour you can’t see with the naked eye.

Take the attached solar image for example. Visually it was much sharper, there was granulation to see, as well as striations in the larger penumbral regions and small pores and other fine detail this just does not capture. It’s a record, that’s all really.

It’s showing how I didn’t really think the question through Stu :-). 
It seems it’s more problematic to do than I realised.

I do like the idea of sketching , but the techniques used to get a good suggestion of say a fuzzy shape isnt as easy to do as I thought, to give an accurate representation.

But then well placed stars would tie it together and makes it identifiable.

I think I’ll do some more research on sketching, it’s a very appealing thing to try.

 

[col]

On 27/08/2022 at 21:03, Stu said:

What phone do you have? I use an app called ProCam 8 on my iPhone what allows very good control of shutter speed, ISO and focus which really helps. I also use an app called PS Express which is good for editing on your phone.

Pushing up the mag is a good way of reducing the brightness and it also means the image covers more area on the sensor so I think you get better resolution when you crop down.

I thought I’d replied to this, must be an age thing.

my present phone is a Samsung Galaxy A51 which I haven’t used yet as I use my previous phone for Astro when I do try. That is a Samsung Galaxy A5.

[jjohnson3803]

On 01/09/2022 at 17:42, col said:

I think I’ll do some more research on sketching, it’s a very appealing thing to try.

I have zero artistic talent, but I've tried to sketch a few open clusters. It's fairly easy - bright stars are fat dots and faint stars are small dots.  I'd suggest starting with OCs.  FWIW.

[col]

On 04/09/2022 at 20:30, jjohnson3803 said:

I have zero artistic talent, but I've tried to sketch a few open clusters. It's fairly easy - bright stars are fat dots and faint stars are small dots.  I'd suggest starting with OCs.  FWIW.

I'm not sure what OC is? 

But it seems the best effects for clusters and nebulae ect is a smudger. It's a rolled up peice of paper with a point, and you use it to simply smudge the pencil mark or sanded pencil dust to shape. 

It's something I'm going to try, it's a great way to add to notes for the nights viewing. 

[col]

Iv also just realised I can attatch my dslr D3200 to the zoom eye peice I have, and drop it in my  startravel 102 for very easy attempts at taking some simple pictures. 

I'm not interested in putting them into stacking ext but just being able to take a basic, even soft edged pic just as a record is all I'm after trying. 

Because it will be easy to try I'll give it a go. If it works for what I want great, if it doesn't I'm not that bothered about getting more equipment and learning to use programmes ect, as I'm into visual and enjoy the simplicity that brings. 

Even holding the phone to the eyepeice can get frustrating and take the fun out of the session, so I won't get that drawn in to it. 

If I manage to get anything, I'll post on here. 

[jjohnson3803]

Open Cluster