Some photos

DaveC426913 said:
I don't have an astrophotog setup so I sketched what I saw:

pic_marssketch.jpg
Click to expand...
Well done.
If you have a scope try using your phone camera...some are getting great results...I used to get rather decent Moon shots just holding a small digital camera to the EP.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
This month's out cause of cloud plus I can't get up there for a while to set up ...which will take a while.
Do you have any of your photos?
Alex
Click to expand...
Only in print and stored away somewhere in garage. Also I have disconnected my cam.
Could maybe get some copies from printer but was just phase in my life and long forgotten.
Used to have a Linhof 4x5, which I sold. Never did get a digital camera.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Please post more.
Are you into deep sky objects.
Alex
Click to expand...

My Coronado is fairly small and lightweight and works well on my tracking mount for pics, however my telescope is a truss dobsonian and does not have a tracking system. Here's a pic of my telescope which I built back in 2004 and won an award for most innovative design. The upper and lower clamp system connecting the cage to the mirror box were hand carved from a block of bloodwood. Most of the rest is made from Baltic plywood.

PwIgnwQ.jpg
 
(Q) said:
Here's a pic of my telescope which I built back in 2004 and won an award for most innovative design. The upper and lower clamp system connecting the cage to the mirror box were hand carved from a block of bloodwood. Most of the rest is made from Baltic plywood.
Click to expand...
Very impressive.
May I ask the size of the primary and the focal length?...also did you make the primary?
I don't know if you are aware but you could take photos even with the scope stationary by using very short exposures and stacking multiple images..if you are in any way interested I could explain more.
Alex
 
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Very impressive.
May I ask the size of the primary and the focal length?...also did you make the primary?
I don't know if you are aware but you could take photos even with the scope stationary by using very short exposures and stacking multiple images..if you are in any way interested I could explain more.
Alex
Click to expand...

The focal length of the primary is 3.9, very fast mirror, and was made by Steve Swayze. https://www.swayzeoptical.com/

I tried making images without a tracking system using RegiStax, but they always turned out quite blurry even though the primary puts out crystal sparking clear viewing. Someday, I may get around to either purchasing a tracking system for it or maybe building one from scratch, but there are so many great images already out there, I kind of thought not to bother and instead just use the telescope for viewing.
 
(Q) said:
The focal length of the primary is 3.9, very fast mirror, and was made by Steve Swayze. https://www.swayzeoptical.com/
Click to expand...
Nice and certainly fast.
(Q) said:
I tried making images without a tracking system using RegiStax
Click to expand...
Registax will work for the Moon and planets but for Deep Sky you need "DeepskyStacker".
My advice is stay with visual as toward the pointy end astro photography becomes very hard work.
I do narrow band these days..generally 100 to 150 images in each of up to seven filters, each with say 25 dark frames, and in the future there will be 25 "flats" ...so seven groups to stack...then each stack is processed in "Startools" and those are each further proceeded and merged in Photoshop ...and my latest stuff is using data from two scopes...
If you have a small equatorial mount the results one can get from a DSLR with a camera lens is very satisfying.
Alex
 
This is an update on the image in post 84.
Basically I started again cutting any data that hinted not being really decent, drizzled at 3x combined data from two scopes via Registar managed to get the four little stars you want so pretty happy..colour ..I let it have it's way..I tweaked to get detail rather than colour and when merged backed off over saturation. I had about 12 images each processed in Star tools to merge in photo shop..when each i.age comes into Photoshop I process each of the images before I add colour ( this is where I will highly saturate an image..now a lot of the image will degrade but usually a piece that is although colourful high in detail..I then merge it with another image where it has saturated detail but of another part..I do that for all the images and merge them to finally get one out of the twelve...then I play with that final image in Photoshop.. contrast maybe use the dodge tool to brighten a region or the burn tool to darken which rings out detail even better and maybe adjust the colour. Unfortunately I am colourblind so my colours can be offensive to certain astrophotographers...but so far this is the best I can do.
I wanted more data with M42 using my new scope but I think it will be gone before I can do a thimg..this dark is cloudy.
The I tetesting thing is no exposure used was longer than 30 seconds..but there were narrow band and DSLR images and even mono from the eight inch.
So having cut out so much data the exposure for this image is only about two hours..maybe a little more..it's hard to keep track of what use sometimes..well it not I just didn't do it this time..which is unfortunate.
AlexIMG_20200303_200950.jpg
 
A magnificent image, revealing the swirls and whirls in the cosmic clouds. On the left of the main cloud is that a smaller cloud with a big star in the middle?
 
Write4U said:
A magnificent image, revealing the swirls and whirls in the cosmic clouds. On the left of the main cloud is that a smaller cloud with a big star in the middle?
Click to expand...
Here is the image maxed out which may help you answer your question..the image seems to come over much darker..but hopefully you can now see how that cloud joins in.
AlexIMG_20200303_212730_resize_83.jpg
 
Jan Ardena said:
I know this may sound stupid, but are those colours for real, or have you touched them up?
Click to expand...
No my interpretation is novel somewhat an artifact of pushing saturation and selecting that way..I just find I get more details but the colour can be basically wrong. However the "palette" used is arrived at by say assigning green for Ha or blue for oxygen..but I am only starting just getting to drive the processing to max..when this is applies to new data I plan being careful with colour..I can recolor stuff.
It's touched up to the max..it's not easy wringing out this from 30 second exposures..plus no dark frames or flats..that in the next level.
Alex
 
All these images I finally merge in Photoshop come is as black and white.
Say we have one taken with the Ha filter ..in photo shop you colour it green so the Ha regions show as green in your image...and you have seven groups, which you colour up ..the filters enable you to image only that light.
Alex
 
Taking pictures of the universe as it was thousands (millions?) of light years distance and in the past, is just mind boggling.
The grandeur humbles the mind.
 
Write4U said:
Taking pictures of the universe as it was thousands (millions?) of light years distance and in the past, is just mind boggling.
The grandeur humbles the mind.
Click to expand...
The Orion Nebula is only 1300 odd light years. Here 2 million light years for you..M31 approx two million years ago.
Alex.
AlexIMG_20200303_224016_resize_82.jpg
 
Astounding. Then to see the background just makes it almost incomprehensible. We see it, but it is beyond human comprehension. There is nothing to mentally associate it with.

Our sun might be one of those little dots, for all we know.
 
IMG_20200303_231703.jpg Each dot is a Sun the smeres of light are Suns.
Here is a small section of our galaxy with a galaxy to the right only..mmm I think about 170000 light years.
And event at 2 million light years nothing...Observable universe 90 billion light years diameter.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
No my interpretation is novel somewhat an artifact of pushing saturation and selecting that way..I just find I get more details but the colour can be basically wrong. However the "palette" used is arrived at by say assigning green for Ha or blue for oxygen..but I am only starting just getting to drive the processing to max..when this is applies to new data I plan being careful with colour..I can recolor stuff.
It's touched up to the max..it's not easy wringing out this from 30 second exposures..plus no dark frames or flats..that in the next level.
Alex
Click to expand...
It looks really pretty.
What does it look like without the touch-ups?
 
Jan Ardena said:
It looks really pretty.
What does it look like without the touch-ups?
Click to expand...
Much the same, most the processing is to wipe out background gradient, and most of all noise so you are trying to bring out the actual image and separate it from artificial stuff like noise and haze...
Alex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top