Astro thread: night sky, moon, milky way etc.

File: m31_r.jpg (461KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 800x1200px

>M31 andromeda galaxy, the biggest and brightest deep sky thing.
taken with a f/5 1000mm reflector.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5580
Image Height	4089
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	72 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:10:10 01:36:09
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	1200

File: veil_sigma_1200_w.jpg (598KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 1200x800px

Some part of the Veil nebula in the Cygnus constellation (sorry if you already saw it, posting my best pics first :')

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4290
Image Height	2856
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:08:22 02:18:12
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800

File: ic434-3.jpg (129KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 667x1000px

You have probably already seen this object, the famous "horsehead" nebula / IC434

Its very close to the big and bright orion nebula (M42). Just next to the star Alnitak.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3670
Image Height	5496
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:12:03 02:14:51
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000

File: sombrero.jpg (465KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 1200x800px

The sombrero galaxy is a funny little object that looks like an ufo. This is a single frame, sorry for the noise. I still have to do a cleaner image of this thing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4290
Image Height	2856
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:05:11 02:48:00
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800

File: eagle_m16_web.jpg (418KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 800x1200px

the M16 nebula, the Eagle. Inside it you can find the famous "pillars of creation" made famous by a hubble telescope image.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2573
Image Height	3865
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:07:14 03:04:29
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	1200

File: IMG_5908.jpg (174KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 667x1000px

I dont have the right gear for very small objects, but this is the Ring nebula in Lyra constellation. Basically a star that blew up, and now we can see the leftover gas forming this ring structure.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1100D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1471
Image Height	2206
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:06:25 04:08:53
Exposure Time	29 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2790618
Care to go over your gear? Very interested in getting into Amateur Astrophotography.

File: another_m42.jpg (371KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 667x1000px

An old image, taken with my old scope and camera. But I still like it because its visually more pleasing than my newer, more detailled views of it.

Its M42, the orion nebula, the easiest deep sky object to capture. One of the only ones visible with the naked eye. Its a winter object but you can still see it now (look south-west)

Also, download Stellarium to see where all these things are in the night sky

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1100D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2848
Image Height	4272
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:02:10 02:09:37
Exposure Time	30 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: m42_nov9_1000-980x655.jpg (83KB, 980x655px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 980x655px

>>2790621
I use a Canon 6D and I have 2 telescopes:

-a 127/1500mm f/12 Cassegrain telescope (big magnification but doesn't gather a lot of light). I use it for solar observation, planets, and small/bright objects (like the space station or comets). Thats the first scope I bought.

-a 200/1000mm (f/5) Newtonian, for deep sky. Thats the one I use for most of the pictures I post here. Big and heavy scope and it needs a bit of maintenance (aligning the mirrors from time to time)

I put these scopes on an EQ5 tracking mount.
I use an "astronomik cls filter" most of the time. Its a small filter that I clip in front of my camera sensor, and it helps removing the light pollution from the street lights. It makes the sky blue again, and not this ugly yellow-like tint.

File: heart_1200_w.jpg (745KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 1200x801px

>>2790621
>>2790631

And I also use the Canon 400mm f/5.6 for the biggest nebulae. I bought it for bird photography but its perfectly fine for deep sky too.

I just put the 400mm on my telescope tracking mount and I can shoot the bigger nebulae like pic related (the heart nebula)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4803
Image Height	3207
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:12:15 01:43:35
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	801

File: m33_sigma1-3.jpg (342KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1200x799px

>>2790621

And for the process if you want to start astrography, I highly recommend this video from Forrest Tanaka. It explains the basics of stacking images to increase exposure time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0JSTF8SGi4

He explains how to shoot the andromeda galaxy without a tracking mount or a telescope.

Stacking is a very important step in asto imaging. Its basically shooting hundreds of images of the same object, and adding them together in a software like DeepSkyStacker. This process increases your signal-to-noise ratio and removes the noise. You will find a lot of tutorials on stacking on youtube, but feel free to ask if you want more info.

The next step is of course buy a tracking mount, or star tracker. (but even with this you will still need to stack your images :')

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4290
Image Height	2856
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:09:26 17:12:24
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	799

>>2790644
Wow. Thanks for the info. Big help. I'll actually copy all of this and put in in a text file and I'll watch this video now. Thanks again.

File: m3_cluster_sigma-w-980x654.jpg (65KB, 980x654px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 980x654px

>>2790654
Np, just ask if you have any questions. Astrophoto is quite hard, there is a lot to learn and you often spend 6 hours in the cold for a blurry image. But after a few nights outside you learn how to find objects, and take longer and longer exposures. And then the infernal process of spending all your money on gear begins. And believe me I bought a lot of stuff that I never use :')

So my general advice is:
-start with the lenses that you already own. Point it at the milky way, on a tripod, and try to expose for the longest possible, until the stars start trailing. Increase the ISO, 3200 or 6400 is fine. Try the stacking software to increase your detail and remove the noise.

-Once you're familiar with all this, you can invest in a star tracker (or try to build one) and a telescope. Dont buy anything unless you know what all the telescope specs mean. There are a lot of telescope types, and they are not meant for the same uses. Some are built for planetary imaging (high magnification, gather less light), some for deep sky (lower magnification, but a f/ratio of 5 or under)

-Use a planetarium software like stellarium to find interesting areas of the sky. Start with big and bright objects (M42, M31, the north american nebula, the rosette nebula, globular clusters etc) You can find websites with all night sky objects listed by magnitude (brightness) and size.

pic related is an example of a very easy target to start astophoto. Its a globular cluster (a big ball of stars) You can see it with short exposures, but the longer you expose, the more stars will appear in it. (M3 globular cluster)

>>2790654
Try Pentax Astrotracer

>>2790790
>Try Pentax Astrogimmick :DDD
I still have to see some results from it honestly...

On the last astrothread the only one who got it did way worse than anyone else for example, he shot Orion's nebula and:
1. it was all burned (yes, he managed to...)
2. 100*100 pixels
3. still blurry as fuck

Even people with just a camera, a crappy tele and a tripod did better.

>>2790939
Would you expect any better from a $40 tripod and a crappy kit lens?

>>2791064
Yep, as they were even posted in the same thread.

>>2791298
Because I posted them. I also implied not to assume it's the astrotracers peak performance when it is clearly bottom of the barrel performance. I have a job and a life besides my photography and astrophotography hobby and budget to improve my gear is slowly trickling down. I wonder if some of you entitled fucks even have your own life and own support trying to save up a budget for something barely better than the bottom tier stuff. Money does not grow on trees, if your parents buying your stuff you have zero right to brag about money. If you do have your own income then it's clearly very bad manners badmouthing others with clearly worse gear trying to do a hobby.
In both cases you are a loser. Fuck you.

Ps.: You seem eerily familiar like the sony/fuji shill on the board.

File: One explanation.jpg (36KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 300x300px

>>2791339
God, so we even got a buttmad commie here? lol

You're a retard who can't even read and did perform in his personal life (by your own admission) as bad as in his photography apparently, maybe because:
>I wonder if some of you entitled fucks even have your own life and own support trying to save up a budget for something barely better than the bottom tier stuff.
You're keeping on making bad decisions and wasting money in useless crap?
Well, surely you got more serious issues to address than just your bad photography if you have a job and you find yourself with less and less money every day instead of more, two of them surely are basic logic and reading comprehension, as proved here:
>If you do have your own income then it's clearly very bad manners badmouthing others with clearly worse gear trying to do a hobby.
as the whole point of the discussion revolves around the fact that it seems that you'd be better off without your astrogimmick than with it, given the results you were getting compared to the dudes with, as stated, just a camera, a crappy tele and a tripod: so, you're either too retarded to use your own gear or your astrocrap is crap. Or both.
Add your assumptions and hate fueled social envy to the mix and you already have the answer to why you fail so hard at life.
Also, remember to bring your butthurt for your pathetic life out of this photography board, which has nothing to do with it.

PS: You seem like the typical poorfag Tampax user: attracted by some gimmick buys into a crappier system overall, which generally costs the same or more than what other brands has to offer while bragging about his "clever" choice.

File: M20_sigma1web.jpg (318KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1200x799px

>>2791339
>>2791400

calm down and post your pics plz.
>m20 trifid nebula, 1000mm newtonian

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3531
Image Height	2351
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:07:15 02:56:24
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	799

File: ISS_1300.jpg (109KB, 1300x402px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1300x402px

international space station. Not a very pretty image but at least you can see the solar panels and laught at the "ISS doesn't exist-its all staged in a pool" conspiracy fags. (1500mm Masksutov-Cassegrain)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1100D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1163
Image Height	775
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:07:12 18:32:44
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1300
Image Height	402
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_7206-2w.jpg (53KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1200x800px

Venus, Jupiter and 4 of its moons from the conjunction this summer

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1100D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4035
Image Height	2690
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:07:01 01:00:59
Exposure Time	4 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: cluster_ex-2w.jpg (812KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 1000x666px

this is a star cluster (Messier46 / NGC 2437). The green ring is a planetary nebula (an exploding star). We dont know if this star is inside the cluster, or in front of it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3965
Image Height	2640
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:02:20 01:42:09
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	666

File: m51_sigma_stack-1200.jpg (389KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1200x799px

M51 Whirlpool galaxy
>Recently it was estimated to be 23 ± 4 million light-years from the Milky Way,

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4290
Image Height	2856
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:03:18 00:42:17
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	799

File: IMG_2754-2w.jpg (318KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1200x800px

the moon is quite boring imo, but sometimes you catch something cool. The white dot is some space debris (Ariane french rocket second stage, if I remember correctly) crossing in front of the moon.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1100D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:04:10 18:50:28
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: pleiades_w-980x654.jpg (87KB, 980x654px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 980x654px

pleiades

File: ngc281_web2-980x653.jpg (187KB, 980x653px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 980x653px

NGC 281, or "pacman nebula"

>>2791447
Still waiting for clear weather and a damn decent tripod. (It'll be a Dic&Mic)

>>2791454
I saw the return conjunction in january, a momentary clearing in the sky but didn't have the camera with me. I think the conjunction this summer will be even closer and brighter, maybe you'll be able to use a barlow on them.

>>2791703
>It'll be a Dic&Mic
How's it feel to be a shill victim?

>>2791711
It feels like being able to afford a tripod better than those filthy things from Aldi.

>>2791726
Mate Aldi has the finest German engineering money can buy

>>2791729
I'm telling that to my Maginon (tm) tripod but it just doesn't want to turn into a Manfrotto

File: export1-2_web1200.jpg (149KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1200x801px

I just took this one, and quite happy with it. It was very cloudy, so my exposure time is shorter than planned.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4642
Image Height	3100
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:03:14 02:06:26
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	801

>>2792174
its a ~35minutes exposure (30x75 sec)
1000mm f/5 newt

now I have to remove the frost on all my gear..

File: m51_singleframe_satellite.jpg (169KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1200x675px

>>2792174
single frame for comparison

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:14 02:18:07
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	675

>>2792181
>now I have to remove the frost on all my gear..
I quickly learned that astrophotography in less than 5°C is painful and takes it's toll on the gear.
Your mirror has warped noticeably giving that spherical aberration and coma at the borders and corners. A collimation might be needed after this.
I also learned that the Pentax GPS doesn't endure cold very well. While the body was functioning just fine at -8°C the GPS (or more precisely the compass) gave slightly off data making awful trailing. I'm also sure the sensor stabilization was a tad bit slower than needed so better weather is a must before I shoot again, apart from the tripod thing.

File: gals.jpg (279KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1200x801px

>>2792197
yeah, I know its no good for my poor mirror. Also, its soaking wet when I take it inside after my session. I do the collimation quite often, I'm getting better at it. Now I have to learn how to remove and clean the primary mirror. I've seen videos about it and it doesn't look too complicated, but I'm quite scared to be honest. I'll dot it when its absolutely necessary

pic is a bonus from tonight session, just a massive number of galaxies in one frame

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4925
Image Height	3289
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:03:14 02:39:30
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	801

>>2792205
I found a nice tutorial on cleaning the mirror. It's a little bigger in the video.
See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goNtYKB0ecg

How into astrophoto? I have 152/1200 achro refractor on exos2(basically eq5) ungiuded. Can i do anything with it or not really?

>>2792868
sure, you should be able to shoot some of the brightest objects. my scope is on an EQ5 and I dont have autoguiding (yet). thats a very basic setup but I can expose up to 2 minutes - it shouldn't be too different with your 1200mm. thats enough for a lot of things. And with stacking you can get cool images, even if the nebulosity is barely visible on your single frames.

>>2793174
i also dont have goto, so objects run from my vision like really fast

File: mun_w.jpg (402KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1200x800px

>>2793245
then you're pretty much limited to planetary.
sun, moon, jupiter and saturn.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 1100D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4272
Image Height	2848
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:03:05 14:46:50
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2793245
Sounds like you don't have a tracking mount. It is a must for astrophotography.
BTW you don't need a huge newtonian rig to get results, a simple tracking mount like iOptron or the Astrotrac tracker can be used with a 35mm to 400mm prime lens, maybe a 400-450 refractor with field flattener.
There are bigger objects in the sky, the milky way, the nebula system around Orion, Andromeda galaxy etc...
Most of these can be shot with a 50mm or 135mm prime.
Starscapes and landscapes with starry sky with or without startrails can be shot with 10-24mm lens. The wider you go, the more exposure you can get without a tracking mount, but a sturdy stable tripod and head is a must.

>>2793530
yeah i don't have tracking mount. i also don't have camera. im using 6" 1200mm refractor

File: pipp_20160317_001712_g3_ap10092.jpg (286KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1000x1000px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1928
Image Height	2000
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:03:17 02:29:18
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000

File: nebula2.jpg (797KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 1200x798px

Dont have much to contribute.. here is one with a Super Takumar 135mm @ f/5.6

File: stars_.jpg (532KB, 1200x802px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1200x802px

>>2794809

File: stars.jpg (686KB, 1200x802px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 1200x802px

>>2794809
another

>>2794809
>>2794812
>>2794813
Nice, very sharp lens. How long was the exposure?

>>2794809
>>2794812
>>2794813
I have an old M42 Pentacon/Meyer Optik 135/2.8, the simple 6 blade aperture version, but it has similar sharpness.
What camera did you use and on what tracking mount? I might have a reason to use it after all since it's a bit long on crop bodies for portraits.

>>2795060
>>2795075

The nebula was 8 seconds from memory, but ISO 64,000. A7s, and a sightron nano.tracker I bought in Japan.

Stacked images for lower noise.

It can handle much longer, but it was the first time I used it.

>>2795076
Looked at the tracker but I don't see any aid or a mount for a polar scope. Aligning it properly must be a bitch.

>>2795080
It's tiny and AA powered though, which is good for me.

For me I just chucked a tele lens on and pointed it in the same direction as the axis, and lined it up by lining up the point the stars move around into the center of the frame by checking with quick star trails.

>>2795087
So it's a tiny portable thing that's not very accurate but does it's intended job. Sounds like an Astrotracer for non-Pentax cameras.
See if you can put a proper mount on it's side for a polar scope, it will help with the alignment. It will make over a minute exposures possible on lower ISO.

>mostly clear skies at night for a week now, clear weather forecasts continue.
>Moon is getting to full
>slight coma around everything due to thin haze
>last night was crystal clear
>temperature plunges to near freezing

Goddamn weather is mocking me!

>>2797085
Can't always be lucky, El friendo.

>>2797944
Waiting on the Moon-Jupiter conjunction, it should peak in the next couple of days.
Someone with a good sharp reflector should make some cool shots, all I have with me is the shitty kit telezoom and the fast 35mm. No tripod. Should be home in, say two days... fuck.

File: horse.jpg (5MB, 5970x3949px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 5970x3949px

My best shot yet at the horsehead nebula, photography being done with the minimum required equipement. Sky in my region is, I'd say, average to below average.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5970
Image Height	3949
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:03:21 21:30:59
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	5970
Image Height	3949

File: Joop50mm.jpg (44KB, 411x302px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 411x302px

resolving the moons at 50mm.
Can still do better

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:04 11:29:22
Exposure Time	8 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2798356
It's a nice shot, needs more cleaning and work in photoshop. See luminosity separation with the ETTR method. The two are not related but I saw it in one of the ETTR processing explanation video.

>>2798356
thats some seriously bad vignetting? are you using a focal reducer? Maybe try flat frames or ditch the reducer next time.

just a friendly tip, you need to start dithering. You are starting to get some correlated noise from the stacking process. The more pics you stack the worse its going to get. I've had some early sessions completely wasted because noise being streaked across the screen like this. There really is nothing quite like getting reasonably good alignment, and good exposure and then having an entire nights worth of pics be completely worthless.

File: IMGP9085-3.jpg (31KB, 480x586px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x586px

I didn't realize photographing the moon would be this difficult. I spent a lot of time taking shots of what seemed like the sun in the middle of the night. I thought I'd never get a good one. I finally hit the right settings on my camera.

I was quite pleased when I saw the detail pop out as I lowered the highlights in LR. I'm not sure if I can push the camera to do better or if this is the Q-S1's limit.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX Q-S1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	207 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:25 00:52:48
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	480
Image Height	586
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2800750
There's this misconception that the moon requires night exposure, but it's simply not the case. It *is* reflecting the sun, after all.

I'm just starting to get into Astrophotography. I'm in the reading/watching/research phase, so I haven't bought anything yet, but in the last few days, I've become ravenous for a telescope. I do also want a new camera, but I have a Nikon D3100 which I'm finding is actually fairly good for AP.

I'm thinking about getting the Orion Atlas 10" 1000mm reflector and the Orion Atlas EQ GoTo mount - There's a combo deal right now for $2000 for that setup - What do you guys think? My ideal images are the deep sky ones that are sharp and clean.

At this time, I'm really just trying to teach myself polar alignment, collimation, autoguiders, camera stuff (ISO, focus), and learn some of the software (PixInsight, etc).

>>2800826
Astrotrac mount and a short (around 400mm focal length) refractor is the best starting setup, you can move up to a newtonian later.
Watch youtube videos on short refractor astrophotography and ETTR method.

File: DSC_015622.jpg (187KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1000x662px

im new to astro photography, ill share 2 pics from tonight

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	1002
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4928
Image Height	3264
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:26 01:00:43
Exposure Time	20 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Tungsten
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4928
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_01662.jpg (200KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1000x662px

2/2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5100
Camera Software	Ver.1.01
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	38254
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:25 22:09:55
Exposure Time	20 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Tungsten
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4928
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
ISO Speed Used	1600
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	INCANDESCENT
Focus Mode	MANUAL
Flash Setting	NORMAL
Flash Compensation	0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested	1600
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Lens Type	Nikon G Series
Lens Range	18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Noise Reduction	FPNR
Camera Actuations	1086

>>2801350
Crop out the car and road and it will be less shit. Landscape photography rules still apply when you do night photography including the sky and landscape.
The stars, milky way and clouds only emphasize and compliment an already composed landscape shot.

File: photo.jpg (31KB, 533x399px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 533x399px

>>2800826
The atlas is a very well established mount, and unless you seriously get into AP will likely be able to handle whatever you throw at it. That being said I don't think you appreciate just how much scope a 10" newtonian is. That thing is going to be absolutely fuckhuge and a pain to transport, collimate, and setup for first time AP use.

This is what you're going to be trying to lug out into your back yard or dark site every time you want to take photos. Its one thing to do that when the addiction has fully taken hold but when you're just starting out its a bit discouraging. AP is hard enough as it is, do whatever you can to make your life easier you will enjoy the hobby much more.

Go with the atlas but try and find a shorter APO refactor to start out with. 80-100mm seems to be the recommended starting point and something in that range is going to be considerably more forgiving in tracking and alignment errors that you will have.

>>2800826
also this is your last warning, turn back now. your bank account and significant other will be much happier.

>>2790644
Hey /p/,

Im gonna go camping tomorrow in the Southern California desert. All I want to do is take is take some wide dreamy shots of the milky way,

watching this video helped me a lot to understand the stacking process, Ive never tried any astro stuff before.
Since Im not doing any deep stuff my exposures shouldnt need to be as long correct? Here is my loadout:

Fuji X-T1
18-55 2.8
35 1.4 (50 equiv)
56 1.2 (85 equiv)
tripod

So for wide milky way stuff how many light exposures will I need to take? I only have one 16gb SD card so Im thinking 100images should be good? or is it overkill? I want space for daytime photos as well...

Im thinking of using the 35 1.4 for its wide enough angle and speed. I'll use the kit lens if I need to go wider. Its better to shoot wide fucking open with as quick shots as possible right? What should I set my ISO at? 800? 1600?

My editing software is just Lightroom5, Ill probably download that deepskystacker program he used in the video or just get an adobe membership so I can get photoshop already.

By the way, does anyone know if LR fixed their problems with rendering Fuji's .RAF RAW files?

>>2804121
SD cards are cheap as fuck, get another 16Gb and use it solely for astro frames.
Do frames for the sky, and make one long exposure for the foreground if you're going to make some astro landscape.
There is a formula on calculating how much exposure you can get without much trailing, look that up. Also look up ETTR method to bring the most out of your starscape frames. You can get some sweet resolution out of nebulae you don't see right away in the frames. Also get a wireless (or wired, which one is easier to get) remote to eliminate camera shake.

And yes, LR fixed .RAF demosaic to some extent, it is much more usable now. I don't really care about though since I use DNG.

>>2804127
>buy another card
I am legitamitely broke as fuck. I have enough money for my gas and food until I get paid electronically friday :(

>Do frames of sky and one long for foreground
Ok, but how many frames of the sky should I need? Ballpark estimate?
>ETTR method
I have no idea what that is I'll have to google
>Wireless trigger
the X-T1 has a feature where it can take up to 999 shots by itself in succession. Just turn on that mode I can walk away for the next 15 min or whatever

>star trailing
Well since I wont be using a zoom Im not too worried about this but I'll look into it to be sure

>Lightroom
Did they fix it for 5 or the 6 version, or both?

Thanks for replying

>>2804121
>By the way, does anyone know if LR fixed their problems with rendering Fuji's .RAF RAW files?
No, they didn't. I'm using an X-T1 and XPro2 currently, and lightroom still has "worms" like crazy, most notably in slightly out of focus areas. Especially if you try to sharpen the images at all.

>>2804132
>Ok, but how many frames of the sky should I need? Ballpark estimate?
If you're not using a star tracker, then one. The Earth will have rotated enough that the stars won't be in the same place for more than a few dozen seconds. Far less if you're using a 50mm equivalent lens.

>>2804132
This guy >>2804136
is bullshit, do as many frames as you like, the more you do the better your signal to noise ratio will be. At leas 20, 50 if you nail a good foreground. You will be replacing the trailed sky in the long exposure with the stacked sky in Photoshop.
As for processing RAW, just use photoninja or whatever your factory RAW converter is and export the frames straight into .tiff. Then you can process them in PS and LR and whatever else you want to use. As long as you keep the original RAWs you can experiment with different methods.
For exposure times, take a few shots from 5 seconds to 20 seconds if you're at 18mm to be sure what settings to use. Be prepared to get some mild trailing still, but anything around 5-8 pixels is tolerable on a well framed landscape shot.

The cheapest way to track will be to build a barndoor tracker (google is your friend)

>>2804148
Can you stack if you don't track? You'll certainly lose a lot of the field of view to cropping, if you're going to rotate the images after the fact to match the stars position in the sky.

>>2804134
reeeee

>>2804157
not him but since Im doing a big fat photo of the milky way and probably wont take more than 50 flight photos Im not too concerned with any cropping I may have to do.

>>2804157
Yes, of course, the movement while big enough to produce ugly trailing don't do that much cropping from stacking.

>>2804158
kindly fuck off

>>2804166
no u :)

>>2804158
What?

File: resize37.jpg (708KB, 1300x873px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 1300x873px

Bumping

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5 II s
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016-04-04T02:46:27-14:00
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Image Width	1300
Image Height	873
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

>>2807345
Nice bump, I like.

>>2807345
Dope

I've got a few k-mount lenses and an adaptor, can anyone tell me what settings (in general) to use them on?
135mm f/2.8
28mm f/3.5
50mm f/2

ISO setting? Aperture setting?
I figure I'll have to play around a bit to get the right time.
Thanks

>>2808238
Well ideally you want the widest aperture possible, but with older lenses sometimes you have to stop down a bit to sharpen them up and reduce CAs

>>2808245
So.. Wide open, highest manageable ISO. Which lense would you use?

>>2808247
For deep sky? 135. For normal wide night sky stuff, the 28.

>>2808247
Depends on what you want. "landscape astro" (eg, a landscape but with a bunch of pretty stars behind it) wants wide angle, like regular landscape. 28mm isn't gonna be very wide on crop though, and f/3.5 is slow enough that you'll need to shoot the sky, shoot the landscape, and then shoop them together, since star tracking will blur the ground. (I'm assuming you have star tracking. If you don't have it, you need to get it before you do anything else)

Deep sky you can try the 135. That's long enough for the really big things in the sky. Unfortunately Spring is the shittiest season of the year, and one reason for that is that stuff like the Orion nebula and the Andromeda galaxy are below the horizon in much of the northern hemisphere. 135 is nowhere near long enough for tiny things.

go out and try what you have with what you can. (it's a good time, new moon is on the 7th). but be prepared to spend (a lot) more money if you decide to get into it.

>>2808251
>>2808252
Thanks

>>2808252
>>2808253
Heart and Soul are around Cassiopeia, near one of the ends, should be an easy target. Also looking for star clusters is a good exercise. Use Stellarium to find a good and easy target.

>>2807406
>>2807602
Cheers fellas

good thread

What's the minimum f stop that you'd need to really get decent shots of the night sky, without any sort of telescope?

I have a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 that I've used on my D80 and I've never really been happy with the results.

>>2808495
It really depends on the lens and the object and the setup. If you have a tracking mount you can use any f-stop, honestly. By the sounds of your post, you don't, in which case you're limited to focal length divided by 400 for your shutter speed. The sigma you'd want to stop down slightly for sharpness/field flatness and vignetting, so try 10mm f/5.6 at 1600 and then 3200 for 50 seconds bulb. make sure you're focused on infinity.

>>2790602
I live in a city with a population of more than 20
therefore I cannot use a telescope
that said, I do have one

>>2808503
Look up ETTR method, be amazed.

File: _dsc3229-_dsc3255_enfused-IRIS-PS.jpg (639KB, 1419x950px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 1419x950px

comet 252/P and various globular clusters

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7333
Image Height	4908
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:04 15:34:00
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1419
Image Height	950

>>2808581
You can get rid of those disgusting purple light leaks if you cover the viewfinder, like you should when you shoot from a tripod using liveview.

>>2808711
Fun fact, that's what that little rubber thing is on camera straps. If you take off the eye cup, that rubber thing slides right over the viewfinder and blocks the light out.

>>2808722
Holy shit. does everyone know about this or is it just you.

File: final-sat-sm.jpg (50KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1000x667px

Anyone have /p/ro-tips on shooting satellites?

>>2808817
I didnt :D

Fcking wizard

>>2808817

Everyone knows about that.

>>2808823
Obviously the guy who didn't use it in his photo didn't know about it. You also weren't born knowing about it. Why would it be a bad thing to point things like that out to people in a thread where it's relevant?

Imagine if everyone who ever helped you had your attitude.

>>2808829

I think a chimp could have figured it out in about three seconds of fucking around with it.

It's also in the manual. ;)

>>2808819
Iridium flares usually happen near dawn and dusk. (because the satellite can't be in earth's shadow yet, if it's gonna reflect light at you) They happen pretty regularly, google it and you can find down-to-the-minute times.

put on a ~35mm-equivalent lens, point it at the part of the sky where you know it'll show up, wait till it appears, and click. They last like 10-15 seconds.

>>2808711
it's not a light leak, if it was the positioning would be different. and I know the D800 has curtains in the viewfinder.

File: geosat-anim-1.gif (3MB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x512px

>>2808819
you could try photographing geostationary satellites on the sky's equator. no need for tracking as they stay put in the sky. gif related, it's a bunch of geostationary satellites.

>>2809626
Thats actually pretty awesome

>>2809626
I'm so sad that you didn't process out the noise and light pollution in the photos. This would be a lot more awesome if you had. :(

Still fairly cool though.

I've been looking at deep sky photography recently and I was wondering if I could make my f/2.8 75-200 Canon tele work with a 2x extender for beginner level shots and what would be a good tracker to get that could support it?

>>2809779
Absolutely yes, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0JSTF8SGi4
If you want a tracker see iOptron, Astrotrack or some others, or you can DIY a barndoor tracker.

>>2809873
Do you think that I could photograph closer objects like the Orion nebula without the extender?

>>2810359
Yes, of course. I assume you are using the 70-200/2.8 L which is a pretty sharp lens so cropping in would be no problem. You can also use cheap older non-AF 2x extenders since you are using manual focus for astro.
There are plenty of objects to go for with 200mm so it shouldn't be a big problem. Get Stellarium to plan on objects and get to know the sky better.

>>2810372
Alright cheers for the tips mate

File: Astro3.jpg (857KB, 6016x4000px) Image search: [Google]

857KB, 6016x4000px

Brand new to dslr photography so excuse the complete ignorance, it's why I am here. But is it better to have the aperture fully open for night sky photography or should it be adjusted in a shot to shot basis?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:08 16:10:20
Exposure Time	20 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2811337
Depends how sharp you want it. Kit lenses are usually not-so-great wide open, and there will be more curved coma the wider the aperture.

>>2811337
post your raw

>>2811340

Sooo I would love to, But I am unsure how to shrink the file size without saving to jpeg or similar compression format.

>>2811369
Upload it elsewhere, dummy.

>>2811340
>>2811370

Hah, Okay, my bad. '-_- Uploaded to googledrive.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0PYU1Vl1BNVMVFQR3I5aFBKcFk&usp=sharing

File: resize38.jpg (926KB, 928x1000px) Image search: [Google]

926KB, 928x1000px

>>2807345
Bumping again

Conditions have been perfect for the past week, trying to take advantage of it as much as possible.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-5 II s
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016-04-09T12:47+10:00
Exposure Time	25 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Image Width	928
Image Height	1000
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2812317
Very nice!

File: gals-2b.jpg (487KB, 1186x792px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1186x792px

some galaxies with the canon 400mm
Bode's nebula

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4742
Image Height	3167
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:11 02:00:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1186
Image Height	792

File: IMG_4123.jpg (329KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 2048x1152px

Bump/ what do you think? What can I improve upon.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:10 20:31:45
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Set aperture from 3.0 to 4.5 depending on the circumstance. Also an ISO of 800-1600 depending on how much of the foreground you want to have in the photo. Use your camera zoom function to focus on the furthest, brightest star available to make the photo less blurry. Here's Some other general tips:

>Take photos facing away from sources of light pollution
>Use a custom white balance, it helps a lot
>Take photos during a new moon or when the moon is not out
>Take photos when it is cold, it makes the photo crisper
>Take multiple photos or long exposures when temps are steady, not increasing or decreasing

This photo was is a lot like my early photos. Keep taking them and you will improve quickly anon.

>>2812749 is for >>2811337

File: 21_49_41_AS_p50_g4_ap12_Drizzle15.png (523KB, 454x448px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 454x448px

Jupiter taken 2016/04/09 with a neximage 5, aperture 8".

Thinking of finally buying a telescope. Is a 600mm focal length going to be long enough, or will I be frustrated at a lack of reach? I'm looking at a 6" reflector (this one, to be specific, with a coma corrector added: https://www.optcorp.com/tpo-6-f4-imaging-newtonian-ota.html) I like it because its more aperture than, say an 80mm apo refractor, and not so large as to be unmanageable (I have to fit it in my trunk to take it places) And it's not heavy, and my budget will only stretch to a mount that'll handle ~30lbs, and I've read you want to stay well under the maximum capacity for photography.

Also, do I need to look at autoguiding? I'd kinda hoped to do without it both to save some money and avoid having to bring my laptop with me when I go out, but if you need it you need it. What about collimation? Is that difficult? Do I need one of those laser gizmos?

>>2791451
I can't believe fags exist who think the ISS is fake. You can see it with the naked eye for fucks sake.

>>2812749
wait, how does the outdoor temperature effect the photo?

>>2815093
Image sensors produce lower noise at lower temperatures, and more noise at higher temperatures. If you look at specialized astro CCD cameras, you'll see they often have heatsinks and fans on the back, often with small peltiers. Your DSLR isn't that well cooled, but it'll still produce noticeably less noise in a long exposure if its cold out.

>>2815107
I'm not that other poster, I was just curious.
I own a mirrorless camera so I guess it stays relatively cold?

>>2815113
Yeah, that applies whether you have an SLR, mirrorless, anything.

>>2815114
This is kind of unrelated, but I guess generally speaking I shouldn't try to "cool down" my camera unless it was with a fan or something, right? Condensation seems like an issue.

>>2815117
You don't need a fan for your camera, but it is a good idea to leave it sit in the cool night air for a while (like, 15 minutes) before you shoot astro.

>>2815076
What would you like to be able to capture? Planets or deepsky?

>>2815510
Snap, I forgot to even mention. Deep sky, mainly. I know that probably ain't enough length for planets. It'd be nice if I could pop in an eyepiece and *see* said planets, but even that's only a nice-to-have instead of a this-is-the-reason-I-got-this. I'm much more interested in galaxies, nebulae, etc, but I know most of em aint nearly as big as Andromeda is.

>>2815093
>>2815107 is correct.
Also if you want to take a long set of photos to make a time lapse, it is important to pick a spot where the temperature doesn't change too much. This can cause fog to originate on your lens. The fog can be so minute that you wont see it with your naked eye but it will affect your photos. Also using anti fog lens cleaner can prevent this from occurring.

>>2815633
Well you would want an OTA with a small focallenght, so f4 is good. I have f4 on my telescope though im using it mainly for planets, but its optimal for deep sky.

>>2815076
I use an old but sharp 400mm manual focus lens with a DSLR, it should be the better starting point, but if you want to fiddle with a newtonian setup with it's inevitable 1-2h setup time and corrections then go for it. If you can fit an autoguider in your budget then do so, but walk the ladder step by step. First do a few nights without it to get the hang of it then introduce the autoguider into the system. Be careful it can add errors too or amplify erratic motions further blurring your shots.
I can tell it will take you at least a year to get the hang of it and have enough experience to reliably set up your system, not to mention getting to know the sky.
It's a big-big step away from pointing your camera at things and shoot, lots of science and precision mechanics involved so be patient. It will not give you spectacular results right away but I can tell you it will quickly suck you in. And when you get the first image of a galaxy or a nebula you will be in heaven. Then you realize it sucks and try to take a better one, rinse and repeat for eternity.
Also don't forget doing regular collimation (assuming you will use a newtonian)

File: Astro2small.jpg (89KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1000x665px

Took this today, was a little cloudy but added character and contrast to the slight aurora.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	906
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6016
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:15 02:38:35
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	665
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2816097
Nice shot!

>>2816486

Thanks man! I am brand new to this and unfortunately I only have a kit lense for me d3200 right now. But I am hoping to get the samyang 14mm with a f2.8 aperture next. I took a couple last night, and got a great one of the big dipper too.

>>2790606
COMFY as FUCK anon. Where my weed at I'm about to take an astral voyage.

What is a good color film for general long exposures at night? I'm currently using a roll of Portra 800 and would like to experiment with more in the future.

File: 2303405[1].jpg (32KB, 320x265px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 320x265px

>>2816805
If there's any still out there, Fuji T64 is regarded by some as the best long exposure film, especially for city scapes and shit like that. It's a tungsten balanced slide film, and it doesn't suffer from reciprocity failure as bad as other films.

File: Selfie.jpg (291KB, 700x520px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 700x520px

My friend took this on the Bolivian salt flats.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4490
Image Height	3334
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:03 22:04:25
Exposure Time	20 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	2500
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	520
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2816812
Only place I could find it just quick searching was Lomography, though I saw the results and holy hell that'd be perfect considering my location. Thank you

>>2816812
Isn't it odd to use a slide film for a long exposure where overexposure is possible?

File: Astro4small.jpg (54KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1000x665px

I just got this Satellite shot this evening.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:17 01:53:28
Exposure Time	25 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2817551
Do you know how to focus manually?

>>2817600

Yeah I always shoot in manual focus.

If you have tips for focusing at night i'd appreciate it. Unfortunately I have issues focusing at night and I'm not sure my lense is up to the task whenever It looks like it's coming into focus I hit the end of my focus range. Using 18-55mm kit lense.

>>2817809
Use liveview, magnify on a bright star then twist focus ring until it's in complete focus. Also use a better lens, kit lens and kit telezooms are garbage when it comes to astrophotography or sharpness in general.

>>2817814
I'll give that a try but definitely haven't had any luck using the live view I usually just get a black screen.

I know kit lenses suck. Plan on getting the samyang 14mm

>>2817824
The Samyang 35mm is the good one. With UWA rectilinear you are better off with Nikons UWA zoom.

>>2817809
Easiest way I've found to achieve infinity focus is to wait until it's dark, walk far enough away from my vehicle that I'd have to be focused at infinity to get it in focus, then focus on the headlights/tail lights. Once it's in focus, I tape the focus ring with gaffer's tape (if you've never used it before, it's like electrical tape, but the glue is designed to not leave residue).

>>2817828
So the stars are nearly as far as your cars headlight? That's something new!

>>2817828

The kit lens doesn't have a focus to infinity setting, I have tried similar techniques using the moon as a focal point or an extremely distant street light but again. I seem to hit my focus range before it becomes sharp.

>>2817826
Most everyone recommends a wider lense for night sky, Any reason that a 35mm would benefit over the 14mm?

>>2817839
The 35mm has neutral distortion for stitching panoramas. Including nightscapes.

>>2817830
...really guy?

File: Astro4small-2.jpg (40KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1000x665px

Also doesn't help that I haven't had a truly clear sky since I bought my camera. Heres a picture of the dipper I took a couple days ago.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:17 11:31:06
Exposure Time	25 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2817850
Absolutely horrible, and not because of the hazy sky. Are you even shooting in RAW? Why is the jpeg compression so horribly low that it becomes a huge vomit of jaggies and artifacts?

File: DSC_0648.jpg (292KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1000x665px

>>2817853
Yeah, I am shooting in RAW, using lightroom to develop and export to jpeg. That one is probably way over developed because I was trying to eliminate some clouds.
(This is original with jpeg convert)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:17 11:41:28
Exposure Time	25 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2817866
Not worth the effort, you missed focus

>>2817868

Thanks for the advice. But I can't promise I wont try and fix sky pictures that are slightly out of focus. I also genuinely believe that's the best focus my lens could give me. :( Guess I'll just have to wait till I can drop a few hundred on a new one.

>>2817886
If you would have a Pentax body I would just say get a DA 35/2.4 because I got one for $80 a few months ago.
I don't know if Nikon has a similar 35mm prime but that would be the best starting point. These things are usually cheap, fast and sharp.

File: DSC_0761.jpg (207KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1000x665px

>>2817868
I eat my words. got much better focus tonight.

>>2817814
Totally worked zooming as far in as I could on live view. Thanks. This picture has had no development just converted straight to jpeg to show clarity. Appreciate the help.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:18 02:39:20
Exposure Time	25 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2818507
Cool, you've learnt how to focus. Now find yourself some interesting foregrounds and get to work producing images that people will actually want to look at.

As of right now your images are incredibly boring, if I wanted to see a plain sky with some stars I could just walk outside and get a much better experience.

Obviously I don't know where you live so I'm not sure what you've got at your disposal, but some cool foreground subjects for astro include mountains, rock formations, dead trees, windmills, barns, old buildings, water to reflect the stars, lighthouse, forest... the list is endless. Use your imagination and just keep practising

File: DSC_0079.jpg (737KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 1500x1000px

The foreground is more of the subject here, but I just love space and I'm fascinated by what all is out there, so bump to keep this alive.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	814
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	18 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:05 05:06:49
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2790625
Question on the ISO of 6400. I'm surprised to see so little noise. Did you subtract a dark frame?

I posted this in the other thread, but I'll post it again here too.

I know this is a bizarre question but,

Does anyone here actually get nervous about going to the pitch darkness to do astro?

I'm not talking about /x/ shit, I'm talking about getting lost in some state park, getting hit by a car, getting eaten by a bear, getting shot by a vagrant, breaking my leg carrying my tripod, whatever.

I've never done astro before even though I want to. This is mostly because of the above fears, but also because I would have no idea where to start other than finding dark areas with little light pollution based on those online maps. Where do you even go when you find a dark part of your state, just drive around until you find a vantage point where you can see the sky?

Live in Pittsburgh, so there are some decent areas around here but I am assuming they'll be heavily wooded.

>>2791463

I have a 3 x 5' poster of the whirlpool galaxy hung up in my bedroom taken by the hubble.

Every time I look at it I feel pretty sad because there's probably a mole of stars in that picture and it reminds me of how insignificant this all is.

It's also beautiful as hell.

>>2822759
>mole of stars
Nah.

Rough estimates put the number of stars in the universe at around 2x10^29, so you're probably only looking at a few million at most.

>>2822767

I would have guessed there were 10^29 galaxies, not stars.

Guess the galaxy is 'smaller' than I thought.

>>2822771
While there's an asston of stars no matter how you slice it, recall that the universe is stupidly large.

The average density of the universe is 10^-26 kg/m^3 -- and there are a shitton of stars up to a thousand times larger than our sun (it's a small-medium star)...

>>2822774

Trust me I know.

I did the math in /elite dangerous general/ one time because someone told me that space was 'filled with dust' which is why the viewport on all spaceships got dusty after 5 minutes of flying.

I forget the exact number I calculated, but I got some absolutely pathetic value like 1 hydrogen per cubic meter or something on average. Space is really almost completely empty.

>>2822776
One of the better jokes in HHTG:
http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Universe