[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
astrophotography / night sky / milky way
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography

Thread replies: 181
Thread images: 59
File: m31_r.jpg (461 KB, 800x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
m31_r.jpg
461 KB, 800x1200
Everything about night sky photography.

Milky way, planets, nebulae, galaxies, comets, questions about gear / telescopes / filters. Post your stuff!

>M31 andromeda galaxy, 200/1000mm reflector, Canon 6D

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5580
Image Height4089
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpcm
Vertical Resolution72 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:10:10 01:36:09
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height1200
>>
File: m33_1200w.jpg (379 KB, 800x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
m33_1200w.jpg
379 KB, 800x1200
M33 (triangulum) galaxy.

same scope and camera as above

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3237
Image Height4848
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:11:07 01:19:03
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height1200
>>
File: veil_sigma_1200_w.jpg (598 KB, 1200x800) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
veil_sigma_1200_w.jpg
598 KB, 1200x800
Veil nebula in Cygnus constellation.

200/1000mm reflector telescope, Canon 1100D, astronomik cls filter

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4290
Image Height2856
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:08:22 02:18:12
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
>>
File: horse_ex-3w.jpg (305 KB, 666x1000) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
horse_ex-3w.jpg
305 KB, 666x1000
horsehead nebula / IC434 from last winter

the flame nebula bottom left is supposed to be more yellow. I had trouble with the colors after my stacking process

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1428
Image Height2145
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:03:23 19:10:48
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width666
Image Height1000
>>
File: ISS_1300.jpg (109 KB, 1300x402) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ISS_1300.jpg
109 KB, 1300x402
my shitty attempt at the international space station (ISS)

1500mm scope, manual tracking, Canon 1100D

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 1100D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1163
Image Height775
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:07:12 18:32:44
Exposure Time1/640 sec
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating3200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1300
Image Height402
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: eagle_m16_web.jpg (418 KB, 800x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
eagle_m16_web.jpg
418 KB, 800x1200
Eagle nebula (M16)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2573
Image Height3865
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:07:14 03:04:29
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height1200
>>
NGC281 (Pacman nebula)
>>
>>2710251
Its been my wallpaper for weeks already, really enjoy the tint of it
>>
>>2710294
thanks anon, glad you like it!
the veil nebula is one of my favourite night sky objects, spectacular shape and colors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMJT1RVPNGE
>>
File: p try 1.jpg (102 KB, 1000x622) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
p try 1.jpg
102 KB, 1000x622
you do this a lot better than I do.

M45, SMC Takumar 200/4 wide open on a K50, about an hour's worth of 60s exposures

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3257
Image Height2026
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
>>
>>2710320

Nice! capturing the gas clouds around the pleiades is quite difficult- I only tried once last winter (pic related). The gas clouds are very faint and next to very bright stars. I want tro try again with my new camera and filter, but the weather is very shitty these days :'(
>>
File: IMG_5908.jpg (174 KB, 667x1000) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_5908.jpg
174 KB, 667x1000
and this is the M57 "ring nebula" in Lyra.

I dont really have the right setup for this kind of object (they are very small) but its a pretty planetary nebula.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 1100D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1471
Image Height2206
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:06:25 04:08:53
Exposure Time29 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1600
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width667
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: o try 1.jpg (55 KB, 1000x572) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
o try 1.jpg
55 KB, 1000x572
>>2710341
that was the easier one actually. This is from the same night, but that pentacks GPS thing apparently just didn't wanna track as well when I pointed it at Orion. no amount of calibration would give me pinpoint stars at 60s, so I did 30s. I really oughta get a proper equatorial mount. Oh well, I got some color in it at least. better luck next time.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3821
Image Height2186
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
>>
>>2710349
yep I've got an equatorial mount (EQ5, a basic one) and my exposure time is typically between 60 and 90 seconds. I dont have an autoguiding system, so most of the time I prefer to take shorter exposures to have sharp stars. It also depends where I'm pointing at. And I have to spend a lot of time on my polar alignment, and do the aligning procedure several times to have a good enough tracking.

here's my latest M42, not my prettiest in terms of colors and sharpness, but theres a good amount of detail in it.
>>
File: another_m42.jpg (371 KB, 667x1000) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
another_m42.jpg
371 KB, 667x1000
>>2710351
and for comparison an older M42, with an APS-C camera (1100D) instead of the full frame 6D. Less detail but I really like the colors on this one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 1100D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2848
Image Height4272
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:02:10 02:09:37
Exposure Time30 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating6400
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width667
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>2710248
Modded? Unmodded? Filters?

I'm thinking about using filters with unmodded A7s
>>
>>2710353
So I don't come here often, but I am just starting to get into astrophotography and the formatting of the board throws me off.

Am I being led to believe that this is a single frame? I understand that most images are composites of 10s or even 100s of exposures, but where is this exif data coming from?
>>
>>2710351
Damn dude really nice images, this one is my favourite. I know nothing about this type of astrophotography, would you be able to post a single exposure straight from the camera to give us an idea of start to finish?
>>
>>2710357

Correct me if i'm wrong but with newer sensor cameras it is possible to get clear images of the brighter galaxies/nebula with little to no stacking when it's shot at a relatively low ISO and tracked?
>>
>>2710370
Yeah but at 6400ISO at 30 seconds? Unless he took that from some sort of magical stable boat in the middle of the Atlantic if that were a single frame there I feel like there would be way more noise.

It has to be stacked, but I just want to know where this site grabs its exif data from. I am assuming that data gets lost after processing but maybe I am wrong.
>>
File: M45.jpg (511 KB, 1200x799) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
M45.jpg
511 KB, 1200x799
t3i+tair-3 300/4.5
16 x 60 seconds

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:11:25 23:29:42
>>
File: M31.jpg (380 KB, 1200x799) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
M31.jpg
380 KB, 1200x799
t3i+tair-3 300/4.5
11 x 40 seconds

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:11:25 23:29:40
>>
>>2710370
not really, this is a single exposure from this >>2710416

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS REBEL T3i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:11:25 23:51:06
Exposure Time60 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating3200
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>2710421
How do you stack each exposure to get that final image? Is there a special program dedicated for this, or is it done in Photoshop?
>>
>>2710429
i use deep sky stacker
http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html
just search youtube for tutorials
>>
File: m42_frame_stack.jpg (211 KB, 911x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
m42_frame_stack.jpg
211 KB, 911x1200
>>2710369
thanks! here's a single raw (top) and under it the result after stacking 90 of these (+dark frames for noise reduction). I use Deepskystacker for the stacking and basic level/curves adjustments.

>>2710356
Unmodded 6D, no filters for this picture. I used the astronomik cls for some of my older images with the 1100D, but I had to buy a new one for the full frame camera, and didnt have the chance to test it yet. (shitty weather for weeks)

>>2710357
>>2710370
This is a single frame, no stacking for this one. M42 is very bright and you can get very nice details in relatively short exposures. And I dont live on magical stable boat, just a small swiss village with relatively dark skies :')

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:11:26 15:10:55
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width911
Image Height1200
>>
File: m42_2scopes.jpg (299 KB, 1200x1000) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
m42_2scopes.jpg
299 KB, 1200x1000
>>2710548
and heres the difference on a frame between a
-127/1500mm (f/12) cassegrain scope (left)
-200/1000mm (f/5) reflector scope (right)

left is almost what you can see through a good eyepiece when you look at M42 (except the colors)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 1100D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width667
Image Height1000
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:11:26 15:02:50
Exposure Time30 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating6400
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: mw.jpg (604 KB, 686x1600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
mw.jpg
604 KB, 686x1600
panorama with Sigma 35mm f1.4, I removed most of the small stars so that the dust clouds are more visible.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Comment"What a waste of D800" -Anonymous
ProjectionCylindrical (1)
FOV111 x 66
Ev-6.73
Image Width686
Image Height1600
>>
>>2710573
beautiful
>>
File: 1000px II.jpg (293 KB, 1000x667) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1000px II.jpg
293 KB, 1000x667
>>2710349
Ha, you could even leave the Pantex tracking out at this point, this amateur attempt without any special gear for astrophotography (picrelated) was made without tracking and with crappy light pollution last winter. No telescope, just old camara and tripod. Got another attempt that shows more gas but that's blurrier too ;_; Aslo, light pollution really kicks in there..

So here's my spacebat :3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
>>
File: sombrero.jpg (465 KB, 1200x800) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
sombrero.jpg
465 KB, 1200x800
just a single -noisy- frame, but it's a funny object

M104 "Sombrero galaxy"

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4290
Image Height2856
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution100 dpi
Vertical Resolution100 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:05:11 02:48:00
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1200
Image Height800
>>
Can you give me the run down on your settings? I don't have the correct gear for this by any means but I would like to try with what I've got.
>>
File: NGC2244_web.jpg (577 KB, 1000x666) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
NGC2244_web.jpg
577 KB, 1000x666
>>2710862
what's cool about astrophoto is that you have a big variety of objects, from very small to very big, and very faint to very bright. You can take milky way shots with your kit lens, try to expose longer and longer. And if you really like it, buy a telescope and start trying to take pictures of deep sky objects or planets.

I started with my Canon 1100D, my dad's old 200mm lens, and I tripod. Then I bought my first scope, a f/12 cassegrain. Its a light, inexpensive, small telescope. I bought a T2 ring to connect my camera to it. I took my first shots of the moon and saturn with this. But I was limited by the exposure time, because this scope had no tracking, and I wanted to shoot deep sky objects. I then bought a better mount with tracking (EQ5). I shot my first nebulae and galaxies witht this (M42, andromeda, M33 etc). But a f/12 is not very good for deep sky, so I upgraded to a f/5, heavier and bigger reflector telescope. (its still less expensive than a good telephoto lens! about 1200€ for the scope and mount). With this tracking mount and this scope I started taking longer exposures (60 to 90 second) and was able to see more details in my objects. The next step was to upgrade my camera (to full frame) and buy filters to remove the light pollution. Thats pretty much where I'm at now.

My current setup is: 200/1000mm Skywatcher telescope, Canon 6D, EQ5 mount, Astronomik CLS filter for light pollution. DeepSkyStacker software to stack my images.

sorry for poor english.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2145
Image Height1428
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:02:10 00:41:55
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height666
>>
>>2710869

and the camera settings for astrophoto are really simple. Basically it is:

-wide open
-longest possible exposure without having star trails (or overexposing).
-high ISO (3200 to 6400). Noise can be reduced with the stacking method (taking a lot of shots of the same object, and using software like DSS) taking dark frames can help the software to detect the noise from your camera and remove it.

If you dont have a telescope and dont plan to buy one, you can buy "tabletop" sky-trackers to track the motion of stars and achieve longer exposures.
>>
>>2710869
>>2710872
Hey thanks man, that really helps. I would like to get more into it. I'll have to check that software out. Can you recommend any starter telescopes?
>>
>>2710946
no problemo. And for a starter telescope, it really depends what you plan to do, and how much you're ready to invest.

Basically, if you want to do any kind of astrophotography (except the moon), you will need a tracking (equatorial) mount. And its expensive. You will spend at least €1000-1200 for your scope and mount. If you want to do only visual atronomy, it will be cheaper.

Then for the scope itself, there are 3 main types, again it depends on what you want to do:

-reflectors (=mirrors) telescopes: cheap, big apertures, light, good for deep sky, but need maintenance (aligning the mirrors from time to time) Its not difficult but can be scary the first times.
-refractors (=lenses): basically like a big telephoto. Expensive, heavy, but better image quality. Smaller diameters, no collimation and maintenance to do.
-hybrids, like Schmidt-Cassegrains: very compact telescopes, uses mirror and lens, high magnification/focal lengths but has lower light gathering ability. Very good for planets or bright objects, not for deep sky faint objects. Some will fit in your backpack for travel.

My advice to start astrophotography is something like a f/5 newtonian reflector, with an aperture of ~150mm. And the mount to go with it (EQ5 or above, if you want to put a heavier scope on it later)

Check websites like:
http://www.astroshop.eu/telescopes/10/a,Teleskope.Montierung.Montierungstyp=Equatorial/a,Teleskope.Optik.Typ=Reflector

You have filters on the left where you can choose your price/aperture range etc. Again, pay extra attention to your mount and the weight it can carry. Better mount = more accurate tracking and longer exposures.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4290
Image Height2856
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:03:18 00:42:17
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height799
>>
>>2711682
I forgot to mention Dobsonians. They are a great choice if you want to do visual astronomy (no photography!) and just want to like if you like astronomy. They are basically reflectors like pic related. No mount to buy, just put them on the ground and some of them have a pointing system / catalog of night sky objects.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2848
Image Height4288
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2013:11:06 12:41:38
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height1769
>>
I have a 200 mm (APS-C so >300 mm equiv) telephoto lens plus a sturdy tripod, a D5300, a camera remote, and shutter delay mode.

I am going on vacation into the boonies of vermont this december, and I wanted to try to do some amateur astro since there should be little light pollution.

Obviously I wont be able to shoot nebulas, but can I at least get a good shot of the milky way?

Will I need to do several accumulations and combine them together in lightroom?

Any tips for this?
>>
i gotta get into this shit, my D750 and its insane high ISO performance would be perfect
>>
>>2711741
a lens that long will only show a little chunk of the milky way, which will just look like a whole heck of a bunch of stars cropped in the frame. You'd want something very wide to show the Milky Way band.
>>
>>2711757

Maybe I'll use my 35 f1.8 and do a panorama like that anon did above.

>>2710573

How long did you need to expose for each section of this panorama?
>>
>>2711741
>>2711757
more important here is your exposure time. Without tracking, to find out how long you can expose, divide 500 by your focal length. At 300mm you can expose less than 2 seconds before your stars begin trailing.
To catch the milky way without tracking, better grab your lowest focal length (kit 35mm = 15 seconds, huge difference)

And for other tips about stacking your images, dont forget to take dark frames. You can add them in the software to reduce the noise. Just take 10 or 20 shots with the same settings, but with the lens cap on.
>>
File: heic1509a.jpg (705 KB, 1280x1024) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
heic1509a.jpg
705 KB, 1280x1024
GET ON MY LEVEL, FEGITS

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>2711783

>post a picture taken by the hubble
>shitpost

top kek, am i rite my fellow kids xDDDD
>>
Is it worth buying a light pollution filter even if I'll be shooting in 'complete darkness' areas of the united states where there should be little interference?
>>
>>2711879
Depends on which one.

Most LPR filters are now obsolete, most were desgined for low pressure sodium lights. Modern street lighting is cfl.

If you live in an area with little light pollution just use narrowband if need be (for sky glow).
>>
>>2711937

Something like the "Kenko 52mm Light Pollution Resistant Filter ASTRO LPR - Type2" They claim mercury line rejection as well as sodium lamps.

There are still a lot of those yellow sodium lamps around, so I could see it being useful.
>>
File: M42 Orion 1.jpg (148 KB, 1000x694) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
M42 Orion 1.jpg
148 KB, 1000x694
My first attempt, shitty Sigma lens and I forgot to take dark frames.
I am surprised it came out this good.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
>>
File: spess.jpg (811 KB, 1404x937) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
spess.jpg
811 KB, 1404x937
after seeing ruff's stuff I made my best attempt in my yard.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
>>2712974
I accidently positioned the nebula on the edge of the lenses vignette, but the colors are real on this one.

However, with andromeda i used split toning to add color because i lost most of it to light pollution.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
>>2712976
>>2712974
Both of these are just like 80 frames on a normal tripod, one was a 200mm and the other a 105mm
>>
>>2712974
You have more nebulosity showing up, even the hint of the running man is there.
Mine seems to have a wee bit more detail but much less nebulosity >>2712444
What was your exact setup and what settings did you use?
>>
>>2713001
5d3
old vivitar 70mm-200mm f3.8
i think like 2.5 second exposure.
I live in suburbs. so not city light pollution? I think the light pollution has a huge effect on the fine detail stuff.
All my exposures were exposed until the sky was pretty bright, ill post raw when i get home.
stacked like 100 images.
then tweaked the hell out of deepskystacker results.
took it into light room and fucked around some more.
>>
>>2713015
Mine is Pentax K-3, 400mm f/5.6 lens and 1s exposures at ISO 6400.
78 images, DSS choose 53 for stacking.
Also did the tweaking in Lightroom, the edge of the nebulosity quickly faded into the noise. I was so excited about the clear sky I forgot to take dark frames.

The shitty lens has 100° of focus throw so it was a pain in the ass to get the focus right, but eventually I could get it close.
I'm debating if I should get a Tair 3s or wait a few months and get a 70-200/2.8 or the 300mm f/4 DA*. I'm also considering getting the GPS for the astrotracer feature.
>>
>>2713025
I think you just need longer exposure time to really let that faint light "build" up in the frame. To achieve that you'll need a shorter focal length, tracking mount, or a faster lens
>>
>>2713044
Yes, that is why I'm considering the GPS, it makes the sensor stabilization act as a tracking mount.
But my lens is such a shit construction the slightest touch can move the focus, even when I am releasing it if it sticks just a little bit, it moves out of focus.
I think I'll just save up some money for the DA* and figure out a "breaking" mechanism for the focus ring. Electrical tape doesn't stick so far, the lens has that rubberized finish that turns into sticky tar.
>>
>>2713046
woah how much time does moving the sensor buy? that seems like a really neat feature
>>
>>2710417
What kind of tracker are you using?
>>
>>2710416
>>2710417
>>2710421
dude .. dem hotpixels .. did ever hear about dark-pictures?? wtf
>>
>>2713094
On 400mm depending on which part you are aiming at it can get you around 1 minute. Usually it is safe to half that, but still it is 30x more than I can get now.
>>
I've tried my hand at doing this with my Celeston, but I can barely get 15 seconds without running into oblong stars. My mount is a CG-5 GT. I've often thought about what I might be doing wrong. Do you guys line up your stars using the spotting scope or the main scope when setting up GOTO? I know there is also tracking setting for planetary and nebular, but I have that properly set. I use shutter release as well so I know I'm not bumping anything.
>>
>>2713252
Also, how do you guys get those neat defraction spikes?
>>
>>2713256
Those are caused by the secondary mirror supports, or in some rare cases the aperture blades on the lens.
Cassegrains and catadioptrics don't have them, but some people put stings to simulate the Newtonians diffraction spikes.
>>
>>2713262
Ah that explains it. Mine is a 6" schmidt.
>>
>>2713121
>did ever hear about dark-pictures??
i took same number/ISO/exposure of dark frames that i did lights. i don't think you are seeing hotpixels, those are faint stars. they just look like shit because i suck at processing and my tair3 lens has a lot of CA wide open.
>>
>>2713252
i have the same mount. GOTO accuracy shouldn't affect tracking, polar alignment is critical for tracking though. google CG5 ASPA routine, you could also try drift alignment. i can only get 15-20 seconds with a telescope and 40-60 seconds with a 300mm lens before i get star trailing. really need an auto guider to go longer with this mount.
>>
File: 375018.image0.jpg (24 KB, 535x198) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
375018.image0.jpg
24 KB, 535x198
>>2713252
>Do you guys line up your stars using the spotting scope or the main scope when setting up GOTO

First I roughly point at my star using a red dot finder.
Then I switch my camera to live view mode to center it exactly (I use 10x zoom and the diagonal grid to show the exact center of the frame)
The grid is black and hard to see against a black sky, but you can see it quite clearly when a line / cross is overlapping a star.
I also do my focusing when I'm in live view
>>
File: 51uW9SuT3CL.jpg (32 KB, 500x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
51uW9SuT3CL.jpg
32 KB, 500x500
>>2713301
Oh I use a Bahtinov mask to focus. I'm talking about tracking. I have to point my scope at 3 objects so it knows where everything else is. I was thinking maybe since I used the spotting scope I wasn't getting those three objects perfectly aligned. I think it a mount limitation like that other guy said. I am strongly considering getting a polar finder scope so I know my mount is pointed directly at the north star, and not just my scope.
>>
File: 41EO0XYMTKL.jpg (22 KB, 500x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
41EO0XYMTKL.jpg
22 KB, 500x500
>>2713303
>I have to point my scope at 3 objects so it knows where everything else is

Yes thats why I use the live view and the grid! To make sure the 3 stars are perfectly in the center of the frame.

But you're right, there will still be imperfections in tracking after that, and I guess autoguiding is the answer.. I havent bought an autoguider yet but I'm thinking about it. It just makes things more complicated (especially in the winter here, needing to bring a laptop outside etc)

I've seen some "autoguiding units" (pic related) that dont need a laptop, but Im not sure I can trust them. Anybody tested them? Some reviews say its basically useless if you dont have a very bright star to track.
>>
File: m84_stack-2.jpg (366 KB, 1000x667) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
m84_stack-2.jpg
366 KB, 1000x667
this is an old picture, and not very pretty. Its a single frame and quite noisy, but shows how space is just full of galaxies and stuff to look at. There is at least 8 galaxies in this image. Each of these galaxies have billions of stars in them.

If you are interested in this kind of stuff, just google "hubble deep field" and you will see what I'm talking about! This is in the Virgo constellation (M84 and neigbouring galaxies)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4025
Image Height2680
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:04:07 02:47:02
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height667
>>
File: m81_m82.jpg (67 KB, 1200x799) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
m81_m82.jpg
67 KB, 1200x799
>>2713605
and more galaxies, M81 and M82. They are in the big dipper constellation, so quite near the celestial pole. (it means you can see them most of the year)
>>
File: IMG_7206-2w.jpg (53 KB, 1200x800) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_7206-2w.jpg
53 KB, 1200x800
this was the venus/jupiter conjunction in june.
Its not often that you can see 2 of the brightest planets in a 1000mm field of view. You can see jupiter and 4 of its moons (top) and venus (bright planet, bottom)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 1100D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4035
Image Height2690
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:07:01 01:00:59
Exposure Time4 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating800
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: IMGP9781.jpg (246 KB, 798x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMGP9781.jpg
246 KB, 798x1200
>>2713612
Dawn conjunction in October (28th?)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
>>
File: IMGP9785.jpg (195 KB, 798x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMGP9785.jpg
195 KB, 798x1200
>>2713733
Same with some artsy touch of diffraction starburst.
Both with basic kit telezoom lens. I'm pleasantly surprised some of the moons of Jupiter are visible, it only shows you need a basic lens and a tripod to start with basic astrophotography.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
>>
>>2713098
cg5 asgt, no auto guider
>>
File: ic434-3.jpg (129 KB, 667x1000) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ic434-3.jpg
129 KB, 667x1000
My shot from tonight.

Cloudy, shitty aligment, kept only 1/3 of my frames. But at least I had the chance to try the full frame version of the cls filter. It works fine but adds really strong vignetting

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3670
Image Height5496
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:12:03 02:14:51
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width667
Image Height1000
>>
File: Sans titre-1.jpg (182 KB, 752x1000) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Sans titre-1.jpg
182 KB, 752x1000
a single frame, and the stack under it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:12:03 02:32:33
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width752
Image Height1000
>>
>>2713735

Is that several frames of accumulation, or just one?
What focal length tele are you using?

Could I do this with a 200 mm tele using my tripod, or do I need some fancy motorized equatorial mount?
>>
>>2714202
Just a single frame, DSS refused to work with such bright objects.
I used my kit telezoom at 200mm on a crappy tripod, I have no idea how much I closed the aperture, try f/8 or f/16.
>>
>>2714307

Cool thanks. I love being able to see the moons of jupiter in your pic. I'm going to try to take the exact same pic with my tele lens.
>>
>>2714776
You can't take the exact same photo, the conjuction happened in October and I was already 1-2 days late from the closest point.
You can still try and find Jupiter and even Saturn. If you get the exposure right you might be able to make out the hint of the rings.
>>
>>2710573
I must be fucking retarded. I saw your photo and thought "hey I did a similar photo too!" then I remembered it's the fucking milky way, of course it looks similar.
>>
I'm new to night shooting (and having an SLR in general) and I was wondering how I could even come close to taking these. I've got a Nikon d3200 (pleb, I know) and I'm using a 55-200mm lens. What aperture/exposure time/ advice in general can you guys give me to help me take better shots, because mine are crap, only thing I can get is just little slightly blurry dots.
>>
>>2715889
You will need a tripod first, the put the camera in manual. Set aperture to widest and use exposure time depending on your focal length so stars won't become streaks and stay somewhat point like.
For your maximum exposure time you can use the reciprocal rule, for APS-C use 400/(focal length). That means on 200mm you will get a maximum of 2s exposure for a single frame.
Set ISO so it does not amplify noise too much, usually 3200 or 6400 on a setup without tracking. When done taking your ~50-100 frames, put on the lenscap and take 10-20 dark frames with the exact setup you used for the light frames.
You can put these into Deep Sky Stacker. For more tutorials search for Forrest Tanaka on Youtube, one of his tutorials is for your basic DSLR setup.
>>
>>2715889
Oh, one more thing, it's a camera not a "pleb". don't believe anything from the Sony memesters, even if they are asking.
But you will realize this after taking your first nebula stack.
Also get Stellarium and familiarize with the night sky so you can aim much more effectively.
>>
>>2710344
It's one of my favorite objects. It's also really easy to find.
>>
>>2716245
I agree, and very easy to photograph- its so bright you can do single, short exposure and the colors will show on the picture.

Right now my scope is outside taking pics of the Rosette nebula. I will post the result later (I think I'll take 180 x 1minute if the skies stay clear) My test exposures look good so far!
>>
File: rosette_w_1000.jpg (275 KB, 1000x668) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
rosette_w_1000.jpg
275 KB, 1000x668
result from tonight.

Alignment quite shitty, stars were trailing on most of my frames.I tried to remove the heavy vignetting (caused by the filter) in post, but its quite hard, because it has a weird shape.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5496
Image Height3670
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:12:07 03:41:45
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height668
>>
>>2716726
and I just realised that deepskystacker stacked only 50 out of 180 frames.. Not sure why, they are not that shitty. Will try again with a different star detection setting..
>>
>>2716727
My friend has a SkyWatcher 140 parabolic on a simple motorized EQ2 without a polar scope and he has a huge problem with startrailing. Apparently the tracking mechanics is badly worn out causing the stars to move back and forth slightly. It could be quite stable without the wobbling which is not bad considering he has no separate polar scope.
Also I just ordered the GPS for my Pentax, with a bit of luck of clear sky I'll try again with the M42 on 30s exposure per frame. I might have to think of a name/trip next time.
>>
>>2716843
yeah if its moving back and forth it can be some damage in the motor gears. Also, these EQ mounts come with this sticky chinese glue they call grease. I've heard a lot of people just remove it, clean everything and put another one instead. But even with a good aligmnent these light mounts have their limitations - last night I spent 1 hour trying to refine my polar alignment, but my object was still slowly drifting out of the frame over the course of an hour.

And I'm seriously thinking about buying (or asking /diy/ anons how to build) a small dome for my scope. So I dont have to spend hours doing aligning stuff every time I go outside :')
>>
do you think if you put fishing line in a + configuration over the front of the lens it would give that cool star look that big telescopes give?
>>
>>2716958
If you can, try getting a tiny amount of special grease called "Isoflex", I think it is made by Dow Corning.
It is superfine, super slippery and sticks very well to the surface, does not start sticking in moderate cold (-5°C). It is expensive, but getting a few (2-3) ccm will last you for a while. You only have to apply it as a fine layer, not squeeging huge globs on.
>>
>>2717072
I'd use simple cloth strings. Monofilament fishing line can introduce additional lensing.
But it doesn't hurt to try it out.
>>
>>2710248
How do I get started with astrophotograhpy? I can't even get a good picture of a starry night correcty.

I currently have a E-PL2, going to buy an a6000 soon.
>>
>>2717199
m4/3 are shit for astro. When you get the a6000, see >>2716188
And again, watch the Forrest Tanaka tutorials, maybe Scott Manley's astrophotography episode.
>>
>>2716726
Nice
>>
>>2717206
Hullo
>>
Are anyone of you planning on taking pictures of comet Catalina? I watched it through my telescope yesterday.
>>
>>2717533
Yep, as soon as my tracker arrives and the sky clears up I'll give it a try
Stellarium tells me it will be best around 5am, somewhere around Venus.
>>
>>2717534
is it possible to get without a tracker and just a lens and camera with DSS?
>>
>>2717665
See this http://harrysastroshed.com/pixinsight/pixinsight%20video%20files/2013%20pix%20vids/cometstack2/cometstack2.mp4
>>
>>2717670
How fast does it move? can I use the same math for avoiding star trails? also what kind of focal length?
>>
>>2717677
Yes, but it can move between frames. Some of the comet photos show startrails while the comet itself is detailed. I wouldn't say it moves significantly close to the movement of the stars. Also google "barndoor tracker mount" if you are into a simple DIY solution, it can help your photos a lot.
>>
Took this a few weeks ago under fairly poor conditions.

Suburb near Philadelphia (Bortle 8-9)
Moon phase around 80%

D7200
180mm 2.8 AI
Orion Skytracker

~60 lights x 60s
20 darks
20 bias
20 flat

ISO 500
f/2.8

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2652
Image Height1848
Number of Bits Per Component32, 32, 32
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:11:24 01:23:57
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2652
Image Height1848
>>
So in one of Forrest Tanaka's tutorial videos on deep sky tracker he uses a 300 mm telephoto on a tripod to shoot 400x 1.6 sec photos of andromeda which wiki says has an apparent size of 190′ × 60′ and an apparent magnitude of 3.4.

M51 whirlpool (my favorite galaxy that I would like to shoot, assuming I can find it in the sky) has an apparent size of 11′.2 × 6′.9 with an apparent magnitude of 8.4.

I'll have to read up more on what these units are, but I'm assuming that M51 is going to be much smaller (an order of magnitude?) than andromeda. Would it even be possible to shoot M51 without a tracking mount / telescope using a setup similar to what Tanaka used?
>>
File: K2lcjI0[1].jpg (996 KB, 3369x2191) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
K2lcjI0[1].jpg
996 KB, 3369x2191
>>2718066

This image is somewhat accurate in showing the apparent sizes of deep space objects.

I believe M51 is around 1/10th the apparent size of M31. Hopefully it will help you visualize how small it is.

You will probably need a decent 500+ mm scope and accurate tracking to image it properly - no chance of imaging it untracked.

It's also not visible to the naked eye so you'd probably need to be in a dark sky area to avoid light pollution.
>>
>>2718066
>to shoot 400x 1.6 sec photos of andromeda
the absolute madman
>>
hey i wanna get into this, what would you say is the minimal focal length to get these ?

the longest lens i have at the moment is a 80mm.

i live in the country side and with the naked eye you can see all the stars and be a nice way to deal with sleepless nights
>>
>>2718218
I'd say a 135-200 is a good range to start with. Even the kit telezoom lenses 50-200 can give you results and a DIY barndoor tracking mount is relatively easy to make. Also there are ready made barndoor-like tracking mounts available from $200-500 or just get a cheap used motorised EQ mount with a polar scope.
If you don't have long lenses, you can try going wide and try to catch the milky way or do some startrail landscapes. You can also use old film tele primes as telescopes, there is a Cambridge professor who is using small refractor scopes for his astrophoto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PTOa0d1Rko
>>
>>2718094
Hale-Bobb was *much* bigger than what's pasted on that image.
>>
Reviving thread with a few videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUQLzLrbTgA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PTOa0d1Rko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZoCJBLAYEs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlRNS71jALg
>>
File: M42 Orion 2.jpg (136 KB, 1000x694) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
M42 Orion 2.jpg
136 KB, 1000x694
My new take on >>2712444
same raws, different processing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
>>
File: heart_1200_w.jpg (745 KB, 1200x801) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
heart_1200_w.jpg
745 KB, 1200x801
IC1805 heart nebula
Canon 6D, Canon 400mm f5.6 + astronomik cls filter
exposure time 1h36mn (48x2mn)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4803
Image Height3207
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution240 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:12:15 01:43:35
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height801
>>
>>2721999
Nice!
Looks a bit noisy though and the nebulosity is a little faint. Did you use ETTR method with the frames?
>>
File: frame.jpg (229 KB, 1200x675) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
frame.jpg
229 KB, 1200x675
>>2722412
thanks! I avoid exposing to the right, I've had bad experiences with DSS refusing to stack the frames if the histogram is too far to the right (it ruined a few nights :') Next time I'll definitely drop the ISO and expose much longer, it will help with the noise

posting a single frame for the lulz, its not the brightest nebula!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:12:15 17:53:42
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1200
Image Height675
>>
>>2722505
With ETTR you first import the raws into lightroom, set the exposure, contrast and whatnot, then export to tiff and import them into DSS.
>>
>>2722604
thanks anon, I will try this for my next image. (not tonight unfortunately, too many clouds :'(
>>
>>2722619
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rltg47Q64W0
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Kfr8RG3zM

has some tips on processing ETTR frames.
>>
File: IMG_0257.jpg (4 MB, 5472x3248) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_0257.jpg
4 MB, 5472x3248
taken with my canon g7x

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon PowerShot G7 X
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution180 dpi
Vertical Resolution180 dpi
Image Created2015:12:08 15:25:07
Exposure Time30 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
ISO Speed Rating250
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length8.80 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width5472
Image Height3248
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeNight Scene
>>
>>2722619
Oh, I forgot, always set color and luminance noise reduction to 0.
>>
Bumping with a stupid question. Can you stack star trails in DeepStarTracker, and if so how? I swear I saw it mentioned on /p/ somewhere but I can't seem to find it. Also tried youtube and google with no luck.
>>
>>2725434
DSS needs pinpoint stars to calculate. If you want to stack startrails then you need Photoshop or do it in-camera if it is supported.
>>
File: resize6.jpg (886 KB, 662x1000) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
resize6.jpg
886 KB, 662x1000
>>2725436
Alright thanks man, I thought maybe there would be some advantages that DSS had over PS if there was the ability to stack startrails.

Anyway pic related was taken the other night if anyone is interested, was planning to get some long ass trails going but incoming cloud cover ruined that.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePENTAX
Camera ModelPENTAX K-5 II s
Camera SoftwareK-5 II s Ver 1.06
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2015-12-20T14:07:52+10:00
Exposure Time30 sec
F-Numberf/3.5
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1250
Lens Aperturef/3.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length18.00 mm
Image Width662
Image Height1000
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeDistant View
>>
>>2725522
Don't worry mate, looks nice as it is.
Same happened when I was trying out my new Astrotracer, did a few test exposures, realized I didn't do the calibration properly. Did the calibrations, both GPS and precise and when I put the camera back on the tripod looking up I saw the stars are blurry. Goddamn fog moved in.
>>
Any good tutorials or telescope/equipment lists you guys got for shooting Nebulas and such?
>>
>>2726073
You need a good mount and a good focuser,
>>
ruff, do you have a place where we can check out your full collection of astrophotography? or maybe a folder?
>>
File: cel.jpg (52 KB, 800x533) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
cel.jpg
52 KB, 800x533
I want to get into astrophotography as a part time hobby, and have ordered the Celestron 6 SE to start with,
Along with the T-rings to mount my Canon 550D to it directly.
Is there anybody on here with a similar set up, any tips would be appreciated, I can't find much about it being used for photographgy.
>>
>>2726073
see >>2720769 and >>2722633
for the bigger nebula systems you only need a 50mm/2 or faster lens.
For deeper stuff, like Andromeda galaxy and M42 and other bigger nebulae you can use any 300-400mm telephoto lens but you will need a tracking mount. Also getting a small refractor scope is one of the cheapest and easiest way to get into deep sky astro. But that is covered in one of the videos above.
>>
>>2726458
That scope is not really good for astrophotography, mainly because it has a long focal length coupled with a small aperture, not very precise tracking system and the wrong kind of tracking system.
It will be good for doing planetary astro with any cheap webcam.
Read the post above for more.
>>
>>2726546
Hmm :/ well I have the T-ring ordered to attach the camera body, so may as well use it.
I should be able to get some good clean shots of the Lunar surface though, right?
That will do to to begin with, just to get the hang of things.
>>
>>2726454
I've got a small website here:
www.davidruffieux.com
I'm only doing this for less than 2 years, so there's not a lot of images. (and there are old shitty oil paintings too)

>>2726458
Start with the bright objects. A 1500mm on an APS-C will give you a high magnification and small field of view, so start with planetary nebulae (like M57 or M27), or solar system objects (jupiter, saturn, comets). Globular clusters are nice for starting astrophoto, they are bright and beautiful even on shorter exposures. The international space station is a nice challenge for this kind of gear. Hard to track but very rewarding.

Also, download stellarium to plan your sessions and find your targets
>>
>>2726557
>>2726556

what a globular cluster looks like (it was taken with a f/13 1500mm) these are easy targets, but if you expose longer and longer you will see more stars in them.
>>
>>2722752
this looks really good anon, i like it
>>
File: bm21000.jpg (546 KB, 1000x667) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
bm21000.jpg
546 KB, 1000x667
So, Im wondering,
me and my dad were getting into photography and I'm using a Sony Nex 7 paired up with a celeston telescope with full automated tracking
But I see he's looking to get a full frame camera for the hobby, and he's looking at a nikon d5200
but ive been going through your posts and I see that most of you are using a Canon D series

TL;DR decent camera for photography

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2015:09:27 23:50:29
Exposure Time2 sec
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating800
Brightness-9.5 EV
Exposure Bias1 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height667
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>2727807
astrophotography*
>>
>>2727807
Sony A7S, A7, Nikon D810a, D750, Canon 6Da, 6D
FF cameras in that order.
Pentax K-3II for ultraportable widefield.
>>
>>2727807
canon had lower noise and better astrophotography software to use but now i think both brands are fairly even.
d5100>d5200 for astrophotography
http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/437224-nikon-d5100-vs-d5200/
>>
>>2713025
Thanks for posting this, I hadn't previously heard of the Pentax 5 axis in-camera shake reduction system or this ingenius astrotracker application of it. Mind=blown
>>
>>2728083
It's 3 axis, x,y,rot stabilization, but it is very effective
>>
would astrotracer be worth the trade off between nikon and pentax?
>>
>>2728620
You will eventually go for a tracking mount and a big Newtonian tube, but for a beginner it is the easiest way to get into astrophotography.
>>
What's the deal with people and their newtonians around here?

Why not a Cassegrain style where you can get much more EFL for less weight / length?

If it's good enough for the Hubble, it should be good enough for me, right?
>>
>>2728993
Cassegrains are too dim for faint objects like nebulae and galaxies and too long for wider objects.
A common cassegrain has the same aperture as a 400mm refractor while having a much narrower angle. With DSOs the bigger your scope is thebetter, there is really no substitute for aperture. Beginner Newtonians have 150mm aperture and you can only increase it for more detail. With cassegrains you can do the same but you will end up with a medium size scope weighing hundreds of kilograms and costing massive money because of all the corrective glass. A Newtonian has a parabolic mirror and a small mirror reflecting to the ocular, very light, easy to set up and simple to manufacture.
>>
I've noticed a lot of the photo posts here are of deep space pictures capturing certain objects in the sky. What type of lens would be used for this?

If I want to take pictures of the sky in general what type of lens should be used?
>>
just took a bunch of shots of the full moon. how to/best place for image stacking
>>
>>2729381
Moon stacking? Try Photoshop auto stacking.
>>
>>2729161
Reply: I am a beginner who has never done stacking or photographed a deep sky object. I've started out by just shooting the moon and the milky way.

Here's an article about shooting "starscapes" and the milky way which has helped me understand this aspect of lens selection.

http://petapixel.com/2014/01/29/picking-great-lens-milky-way-photography/

Click through to the spreadsheet with a grid of lenses ranked for shooting starscapes (i.e. not Deep Sky Objects):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AomVJ2lbrwb1dDRGeHJOaVZfYnlFR2ZDTFNlSnk2emc&usp=sharing#gid=2

As a partial answer, it seems a large aperture is always a consideration along with a field of view consistent with what you'd like to shoot.

For lunar detail or a small DSO you want something narrow, while for the milky way you'd want something medium to wide. Most of what I've seen here use telephotos in the 100-500mm range. Chromatic aberration may also be a factor in lens selection.

I was shooting the moon with a Canon 70-200mm F4L at 200mm with a 1.4x converter on my 6D and it worked, but was hardly narrow enough requiring a lot of cropping, and was short on detail. Stacking would have helped. I recently picked up a cheap Opteka "650-2600mm" lens for this purpose, which is very narrow - too narrow for much of what you see posted here.

I was shooting the Milky Way with a Canon 35mm F2 IS USM lens (with IS off, of course) and it worked well. I recently got a Rokinon 24mm F1.4 which should be more than twice as effective for Milky Way photography despite being a cheaper lens, mainly because the maximum aperture is so much larger. The chromatic aberration is also better than the more expensive Canon lenses with similar numbers, strangely enough.

Again, I'm a beginner... maybe someone more experienced will reply, but your question was fairly general. I see people who stack and/or track getting amazing results on DSO's here with old but good lenses. Their technique is blowing my mind.
>>
>>2729161
The larger objects (the Orion nebula, the Pleiades, Andromeda, etc) you can shoot with something in the 300mm equivalent range. For smaller deep-sky objects that's not long enough, and you need a telescope. The moon has the courtesy to be lit by direct sunlight and to be full of interesting details on the surface, so as much focal length as you can rustle up, you can use. For starry landscapes pick whatever focal length you'd want for a regular landscape (probably 20-35mm equiv) and then get the fastest lens you possibly can. Samyang makes some good stuff for this.
>>
File: sept1.jpg (472 KB, 3744x5616) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
sept1.jpg
472 KB, 3744x5616
what do you think?

criticism welcum pls

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2015:09:12 23:41:46
Exposure Time15 sec
F-Numberf/1.4
Exposure ProgramUnknown
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/1.4
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>2730535
With a gradual filter I would bring the bottom quarter of the image into black.
>>
Mars and Spica, they have a nice color contrast.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6979
Image Height4608
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUnknown
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:12:28 02:06:05
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1425
Image Height950
>>
C/2013 US10 Catalina, comet of two tails.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width7007
Image Height4426
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUnknown
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:12:28 01:08:01
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1425
Image Height950
>>
>>2730810
Which tail is which?
>>
>>2730864
upper one is gas, pointing away from the Sun
>>
>>2730810
Could you post some details of the photo? Stacks, exposure time, gear used etc...
>>
>>2730810
Also look up comet stacking. You have to subtract the stars first because the comet moves in front of the starscapes. A regular procedure stacks for the stars and makes the comet blurry. If you look at the comet core you will see it is leaving a trail.
>>
>>2730535
Nice!!
Possibly rotate it very slightly counter-clockwise, so the pedestal points straight up. (That'll also raise the right side of the hill bringing it a little closer to symmetry.)
>>
Let's try this again.

Got a few shots of Catalina but my shitty tripod from Aldi couldn't handle my manly optics and full magnesium alloy body and introduced vibrations and movement into my frames.
Photo is the one frame that has the least amount of trails and I can just see the slight hint of the tails.
Seeing the green blob the first time I just couldn't be any happier, astrotracer opened up the sky for me.
Now I just need a massive tripod with geared head.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelPENTAX K-3
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.0.6
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)600 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2015:12:29 13:29:26
Exposure Time40 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length400.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeDistant View
>>
took this last night. stack of 2 30 sec exposures. zooming in all the cool big stuff had moved a bit. how to into astrophotography? I was using my dads 18-55 3.5-5.6. also have a 50mm 1.8 and a 70-200mm 4.0
should i try to stay under 15 sec exposures? best option for stacking/processing?
I have a k-3 with no astrotracker or anything
>>
>>2734000
cant find it on my pc but this is the shitty picture i took last night >>2733557
>>
File: 1444533933998.jpg (11 KB, 191x234) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1444533933998.jpg
11 KB, 191x234
Sorry for the gear post, but what's the most cost effective way of getting into Astrophotography? I've got a Canon 6D as well as an M3 and don't have any telephoto lenses.

I am however getting a 70-200mm f/2.8 for event photography so do I just get a 2x teleconverter for it? Or should I just get a telescope or longer prime lens?

This is just for fun so I don't really want to spend that much...
>>
Same guy as >>2734016. Widest AND longest lens I have is a 24-70mm f/2.8 VC. I can get some noice wide-field night sky shots with it too, right? I live in the city so I think I would need to get out, away from the light polution...
>>
File: OrionWillowAlt_S.jpg (224 KB, 960x581) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
OrionWillowAlt_S.jpg
224 KB, 960x581
tfw too poor for Lightroom


testing out the 50mm and 6D

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 6D
Camera SoftwareDigital Photo Professional
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2015:12:29 21:20:17
Exposure Time10 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1724
Image Height1045
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: Sirius Peaks.jpg (867 KB, 1200x773) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Sirius Peaks.jpg
867 KB, 1200x773
>>2734019
Here's the star Sirius
a wild Orion also appears in the corner

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 6D
Camera SoftwareDigital Photo Professional
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.1.6
Lens NameEF50mm f/1.4 USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2015:12:31 01:24:52
Exposure Time8 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating2000
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height773
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeCenter-Weighted
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeUnknown
Focus ModeManual
Drive ModeTimed
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Self-Timer Length2 sec
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceDaylight
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed300
Color Matrix129
>>
File: Joop.jpg (344 KB, 2000x1181) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Joop.jpg
344 KB, 2000x1181
>>2734020
forgot to say, that pic also has a 2 star clusters and planetary nebula in the far left, didn't notice until in post.

Here is Jupiter and the moon, not bad for 100mm.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 6D
Camera SoftwareDigital Photo Professional
Lens Size24.00 - 105.00 mm
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.1.6
Lens NameEF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2015:12:31 00:52:10
Exposure Time2 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/5.7
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length102.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height1181
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeCenter-Weighted
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeUnknown
Focus ModeManual
Drive ModeTimed
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Self-Timer Length2 sec
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceDaylight
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed288
Color Matrix129
>>
>>2734016
>>2734017
You need to buy a decent telescope which you can mount your DSLR on. You won't be getting any great results just by using some standard lens.

Astrophotography is not cheap at all; 3-5000 bucks are hardly enough money for a beginner setup.
>>
>>2734019
>tfw too poor for Lightroom
So are half the people who use Lightroom. Quit being a moralfag and pirate that shit
>>
>>2734016
If you are into DIY, a barndoor tracking mechanism is fairly easy to build. There is also the Astrotrac and the Vixen Polaire or iOptron tracker.
These are all for DSLR only, easy to set up and kind of portable, as in a backpack portable.
Your next step would be getting an EQ3 mount with a 150-200 size Newtonian scope and later an autoguider.
I'm using Pentax and will be trying out my GPS tracker but so far it was either foggy or too cold.
I'll maybe do a DIY barndoor tracker just for fun. A basic arduino kit makes a full digital control on the rotation with the included stepper motor.
>>
>>2734022
Not really, a simple DSLR, kit 200mm telezoom lens and the trackers mentioned above are more than enough to start with good results.
>>
>>2726458
>>2726556
The reason why the setup is not good for AP is because you will have an Alt-Az mount. You will be able to get around 30seconds of exposure, which is not bad for some brighter Deep sky objects.Everything above 30 will be trailed, because the image will slowly rotate at some point. You could get a wedge, in order to turn the mount into an equatorial one, but I have no experience with that. Also, the scope is pretty slow, f/10 is kinda bad for deep sky, but you will get very good results at planets and moons. As someone else mentioned above, you should use a webcam for planets, a DSLR is not good for that. Anyway, it's a good start, so keep your head up and experiment with your gear.
Good luck!
>>
Is there any chance of taking pictures of the milky way or something else worthwhile, when only having a Nikon D3200 with the kit lens with 18-115mm?
>>
>>2737463
yes
use the 18mm side of the lens.
you'll need a tripod and an external shutter release (i.e. remote)
>>
>>2737463
You can do all of this with your setup mate:

>>2710573
>>2722752
>>2725522
>>2730535
>>2734020

Check out the EXIF on some of these images, take note of the settings used, and also look at some basic milkyway/startrails/star photography tutorials on youtube,
>>
DeepSkyStacker seems to be crashing every time I try and use it -- does it have issues with Windows 10? Otherwise I'm stuck with single exposures of M42.
>>
>>2738414
It only crashes when I try to feed it astrotracer raws. I usually just convert them to tiff and use those.
>>
>>2738473
do tiff files have as much data in them as raw, or should I do my post in raw first on 50 different raw files before saving them all as tiff? That doesn't make sense. Why don't I just shoot jpg out of camera then.
>>
File: 20160101-IMG_1647.jpg (323 KB, 1200x800) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
20160101-IMG_1647.jpg
323 KB, 1200x800
>>2738535
all i've got until I get these star pics stacked

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
>>
>>2738535
Tiff is lossless format, has almost as much data as the RAW. The only difference is the interpolation is already done. Just import into Lightroom then export as tiff, full size. Depends on the cleanness of your shots if you need to apply a bit of noise reduction or not. Usually you don't need to.
>>
File: 1.jpg (279 KB, 1200x800) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1.jpg
279 KB, 1200x800
>>2738702
thanks, got it working. The other night when I went out I didn't know anything about blacks or offset frames, so all I have is some lights, from which this is my best go.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Thread replies: 181
Thread images: 59
Thread DB ID: 395886



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.