Giving up dso astrophotography

[Mr H in Yorkshire]

5 minutes ago, Elp said:

It is the achievement of doing it oneself. Like with any hobby.

But doing which bit, what is most important?

[WolfieGlos]

1 hour ago, Mr H in Yorkshire said:

Disclaimer: I am visual only, and I enjoy making stuff, that is my area of interest, might be tempted one day to EEA but never AP. 

Although there are so many people agonising over their difficulties in simply getting results these past many months, it seems to me that most posts are about processing - so much so that it also seems to me that processing is the major interest for very many observers. Given that, I don't know why simply buying the best data from worldwide, best site telescopes isn't way more popular. A metre-class scope in say Namibia is always going to outdo a 5" objective in soggy UK and still cost a packet with a decent camera/mount/computing. What am I missing?

Cost. If you buy data to process, it can get expensive.

Ive quickly looked at a few. I won’t name them, but one was circa £4500 per year for access to one of the permanent rigs (I think it was yours to use and nobody else’s). You have remote access and I believe as much use as you wish, download the various files and calibrations and off you go. But when you add that up over a few years, you could buy a very very high end setup yourself. Or holidays to Australia.

Another one was pay by the hour, and depending on the choice of setup (everything from a refractor to a plane wave type), it was between £100 - £200 per hour. So with the usual of 10 hours + per image…it doesn’t come cheap.

I can see some benefit to process images from the southern hemisphere for instance, but it’s a lot of money for it. But some shrewd searching online can find free data. I recently saw a post on CN when browsing, with free data for Omega Centauri from a bortle 1 site. Amazing data to process, but it’s “not mine” so it doesn’t have the same meaning as saying “I did that”. 

I suppose we all moan about the weather, but the £ you’ll spend on an imaging rig, will be money spent once and then used for as many images as you want. Yes, upfront cost is certainly prohibitive, so decide what you want and build it over time, and then use it to your hearts content. I’m nearly there, I just need to replace my DSLR with an Astro camera later this year I’ll not need anything else for a long time.

[Mr H in Yorkshire]

Yes, that is a lot of dosh, especially if the data is somehow locked to one user only. I imagined a 'club' where you all chipped in a nominal amount, purchsed and shared the data and then processed by your preferred means. Not posible?

[saac]

@AstroNebulee, totally get where you are coming from Lee. I've followed your DSO imaging and it's always been a pleasure to see what you produce, for what it is worth you have been a great advocate of what is possible with the little AZGTi mount. I have one myself and I'm always looking to find out what you have been doing whenever you posted images up.  I agree with you on not selling anything, your situation may change in a few years and you may well find you have better access to a garden or you may decide to do a bit of wild astro photography at some stage, so yes hold on to everything for as long as you can.  My big limiting factor at the moment is weather windows - I've pretty much resigned myself that if I can get 4 hours on target than that is probably the max in one sitting.  It can be frustrating but my attitude is be content with what astro imaging/observing you can do with your limitations. Some amazing folk here are working from balconies and heavily light polluted areas like London !!!  Ok so park the DSO imaging for the moment and enjoy what you can in a more comfortable way, good luck. 

Jim 

[Elp]

14 minutes ago, Mr H in Yorkshire said:

But doing which bit, what is most important?

Processing is vastly more important, but if you didn't acquire the data yourself it doesn't feel the same. It's like post processing someone else's daytime photography, definitely not the same feeling as having done it yourself from start to finish.

You could flip the idea and state why visually observe with sub optimal equipment and atmospheric seeing when a space telescope will be vastly superior, a space telescope will be better than amatuer AP too, but internet searching pre done images is not as fun.

Edited January 11 by Elp

[WolfieGlos]

6 minutes ago, Mr H in Yorkshire said:

Yes, that is a lot of dosh, especially if the data is somehow locked to one user only. I imagined a 'club' where you all chipped in a nominal amount, purchsed and shared the data and then processed by your preferred means. Not posible?

I guess it probably would be to be fair. It would certainly cut those costs dramatically

[saac]

12 minutes ago, Mr H in Yorkshire said:

But doing which bit, what is most important?

Different for different people there is no absolute here .  The tinkering with kit is in my blood, I love the system integration, making it all work.  I also love the aesthetic  in the form of the final image but always within the limits of equipment and conditions. I don't torture myself on a search for a perfect image - only a perfect image within my limits. Finally ,I love the science, hey it's Physics, how can one not but love the beautiful subject. I'm not a big fan of processing tbh so the idea of buying just data leaves me cold   

 

Jim 

[Elp]

To paraphrase Murdoch, "..I love it when a plan comes together."

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, Mr H in Yorkshire said:

Disclaimer: I am visual only, and I enjoy making stuff, that is my area of interest, might be tempted one day to EEA but never AP. 

Although there are so many people agonising over their difficulties in simply getting results these past many months, it seems to me that most posts are about processing - so much so that it also seems to me that processing is the major interest for very many observers. Given that, I don't know why simply buying the best data from worldwide, best site telescopes isn't way more popular. A metre-class scope in say Namibia is always going to outdo a 5" objective in soggy UK and still cost a packet with a decent camera/mount/computing. What am I missing?

Several answers:

1) Part of astrophotography is deciding what data to capture. What wavelengths, what field of view, what framing? If you just buy data you don't have much control of any of these important factors.

2) A metre class scope in Namibia is certainly going to out perform a metre class scope in the UK but it is not necessarily going to out-perform a 5 inch in the UK or anywhere else. With aperture comes focal length and a metre class telescope, even at F3 (which is optimistic) would have a 3 metre focal length. That will give a tiny field of view. Giant optics can do what they do very well. Tiny optics can also do what they do very well. In the real world, nobody is going to take the image below with a 3 metre focal length. It took 42 panels to shoot it with 135mm focal length.

Much of the fun of making this image came in the form of 'Can we do it?'  A hell of a lot of obstacles stand in its way.

That said, I don't know whether or not I would do deep sky AP if I lived in the UK.

Olly

 

 

[Elp]

 

10 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I don't know whether or not I would do deep sky AP if I lived in the UK

It certainly adds to the challenge...

[Mr H in Yorkshire]

1 hour ago, Elp said:

You could flip the idea and state why visually observe with sub optimal equipment and atmospheric seeing when a space telescope will be vastly superior

I don't buy that argument, the space telescopes are imaging instruments and there's not a lot of air to breathe either! We all marvel at the space telescope's results but there are no eyepieces up there.

[Mr H in Yorkshire]

27 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

A metre class scope in Namibia is certainly going to out perform a metre class scope in the UK but it is not necessarily going to out-perform a 5 inch in the UK or anywhere else. With aperture comes focal length and a metre class telescope, even at F3 (which is optimistic) would have a 3 metre focal length. That will give a tiny field of view. Giant optics can do what they do very well. Tiny optics can also do what they do very well. In the real world, nobody is going to take the image below with a 3 metre focal length. It took 42 panels to shoot it with 135mm focal length.

My ignorance. What about a 12" in somewhere nice - your neck of the woods for instance.

[Elp]

I think there's a biological response to doing visual, much like when you get deja vu or smell something which takes you back to another time and place. Seeing something with your own eyes elicits a response that we're more receptive to.

I always put it like so, a camera sees over time whereas visual you see at the time. The camera will always reveal more than you can see visually, it the main reason I do it as from my location even seeing something like m13 is the faintest of smudges. But the visual experiences are the ones which stay with you for some reason and generate a more emotive response.

[Mr H in Yorkshire]

1 minute ago, Elp said:

But the visual experiences are the ones which stay with you for some reason and generate a more emotive response.

I am sure that is right, I can still remember my first scope views from when I was about 10. Or to be honest, I recall something of the sights and know I was deeply impressed. A few years back my grown up son and I went to Dallowgill, a wonderful dark site in the Yorkshire dales. We had a 12" Dob and my 100mm binos. He still says it was one of the best days of his life and I can't disagree. We only gave up when everything was sopping wet with dew but that night we had planets, DSO's, extended star fields, meteors and a crescent moon at the end. Not having any images does not detract from that experience for me.

[saac]

34 minutes ago, Elp said:

 

It certainly adds to the challenge...

And part of the attraction/fun.  

Jim 

[Mr H in Yorkshire]

On 08/01/2024 at 21:15, AstroNebulee said:

Yes giving up dso astrophotography

I've wandered into this thread at the back end. Have you considered a a large aperture bino on a parallelogram arm?

[Elp]

Funnily enough, on my recent ventures to dark sites I haven't done visual through my scopes as I saw the time too precious not to be imaging... My loss, but I plan to do visual next time.

[saac]

15 minutes ago, Elp said:

I think there's a biological response to doing visual, much like when you get deja vu or smell something which takes you back to another time and place. Seeing something with your own eyes elicits a response that we're more receptive to.

I always put it like so, a camera sees over time whereas visual you see at the time. The camera will always reveal more than you can see visually, it the main reason I do it as from my location even seeing something like m13 is the faintest of smudges. But the visual experiences are the ones which stay with you for some reason and generate a more emotive response.

From the moment the camera was invented it was mated to a telescope. Photographing the cosmos and the stuff in it is as part of astronomy as nighttime is.   There is no divide, there is no one or other.

Jim 

Edited January 11 by saac

[ollypenrice]

14 minutes ago, Mr H in Yorkshire said:

My ignorance. What about a 12" in somewhere nice - your neck of the woods for instance.

We've used 14 inch, 8 inch, 5.5 inch, 4 inch, 3.5 inch and lenses of 200, 135 and 80mm here. They do what they do. We did find that a good 5.5 inch apo could resolve at the limit of the seeing, pretty much, and that more aperture did not really produce more resolution. If the aperture were used to produce more light grasp (at fast F ratios) then it would, in principle, be great - but you'd need to find optics as good as the TEC140 and, though possible, that would not be easy.

Olly

[ollypenrice]

16 minutes ago, Elp said:

 

I always put it like so, a camera sees over time whereas visual you see at the time. The camera will always reveal more than you can see visually, 

Six stars in the Trapezium? But yes, in terms of faint stuff, the camera is a hands down winner.

Olly

[Elp]

I did read on CN recently someone mentioned as the sensor size is fixed, and much smaller than the scopes aperture, aperture doesn't impact as much for imaging as when doing visual in terms of light gathering. Is there truth to this? I suppose pixel scale also comes into this.

I would have thought aperture makes a difference as you see it in camera lenses when you can adjust the aperture.

Edited January 11 by Elp

[ollypenrice]

3 minutes ago, saac said:

From the moment the camera was invented it was mated to a telescope. Photographing the cosmos and the stuff in it is as part of astronomy as nighttime is.   There is no divide, there is no one or other.

Jim 

The last great eyepiece professional and the first great astrophotography professional were one and the same person, the incomparable E.E.Barnard.

Olly

[Mr H in Yorkshire]

I can safely say I now know more about AP motivation and I salute the effort that gets the results.

[Mkv]

On 08/01/2024 at 21:15, AstroNebulee said:

... Even though its an AzGti on 1.75inch tripod it's still heavy and cumbersome enough on its own ... To power my set up I have to lean out my 1st floor kitchen window to lower the extension lead down the drag around to my rig...

Any chance you could instead use a lighter aluminium tripod? And use a very large power bank (or power station) to power your set-up. Then you could hook the powerbank onto the tripod hanger to provide additional stability and weight, and keep the power bank out of the way.

[saac]

22 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

The last great eyepiece professional and the first great astrophotography professional were one and the same person, the incomparable E.E.Barnard.

Olly

The sightly in focus photograph of the Moon taken by my 12 year old self through my trusty tasco 60 mm  was none too shabby in my mind

Jim