>>4408437
Aren't all photos of the sky the same?
I dont understand

>>4408437
Will the brand new Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 G E-Mount Lens be any good for astro photography?

File: ISS and sun h alpha (mid).jpg (1.55 MB, 2000x2000)

1.55 MB JPG

id love getting to hα, but unfortunately even the cheapest gear is still quite expensive

>>4410115
You are unironically mentally deficient

Just waiting to pick up a Sky-Watcher EQ6-R PRO. Gonna stick with Z8 until I get more experience and then probably step up with dedicated gear.

For now using Z8, a 16mm and a 180-600mm.

Anyone have tried similar?

600d yay or nay?

File: IMG_4076_v2q.jpg (977 KB, 3600x2400)

977 KB JPG

I don't think I'll ever have the bennies to do proper deep-space astro, so I'll keep myself nice and content doing nightscape. RF mount doesn't really have a golden astro lens, so I make do with what I've got.
Playing with trails is always fun.
>>4410129
Seems to be a good contender. Coma is almost non-existent, and sharpness across the full frame seems sufficent. Depends on the price ofc, but optically it looks pretty good.
>>4412348
I know the feel
>>4412980
Post pics when you get it.
>4414309
For what? APS-C is pretty even across the board for astro; sensors that perform better at moderate ISO have an edge. However, your lens matters way way more with astro. For a cheap body, sure, but if you're hoping to slap the kit lens on and get good photos you'll be disappointed. Nightscapes favor wide FoVs (<20mm FL), and with a cope sensor you'll need an EF-S wide angle to achieve such a FL.
I would rec the EFS 10-18 IS STM because it's cheap as fuck, but the aperture is slow so this really is a budget option.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R50
Camera Software	digiKam-8.5.0
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.3.0
Lens Name	RF24mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3600
Image Height	2400
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2025:03:01 01:38:46
Exposure Time	300.4 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Image Width	3600
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	High
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	4.230 m
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

Tarrifs pushing everything up 20%. I'm bummed.

File: 5764_sc.jpg (425 KB, 2560x1440)

425 KB JPG

We just had a lunar eclipse. I'd have thought this place would be flooded with pics.
This is resized down from original, so exif is lost.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4415515
Sir, this is a gear board.

>>4415515
>>4415527
Celestron C-8 with a reducer/corrector (so 1284 mm f/6.3 effective), Nikon D780, ISO-800, 1.3 sec.

>>4415515
>flooded
I think you vastly overestimate the number of people on /p/. There is probably, unironically like 40 people on the entire board, what percentage of that 40 do you think does astro?

File: DSC_0019_ES.jpg (4.12 MB, 2000x3000)

4.12 MB JPG

>>4415552
>I think you vastly overestimate the number of people on /p/.
I guess. :(
THe Winter Hexagon from my light-polluted skies.
Nikon D5200, 10mm 7/7.1 30 sec ISO 1600, WB full sun, resized and slightly enhanced gamma.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5200
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.24
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	15668
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	15 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2025:03:16 09:44:19
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	10.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Flash Compensation	0.0 EV
Focus Mode	MANUAL
ISO Speed Requested	1600
ISO Speed Used	1600
Lens Range	10.0 - 20.0 mm; f/4.5 - f/5.6
Lens Type	Unknown
Noise Reduction	OFF
Image Quality	FINE
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Camera Actuations	36603
White Balance	SUNNY

>>4415556
Ow, wow - GIMP saved all the exif!
I did not know it would do that.

File: leo tirplet3.jpg (2.41 MB, 2352x1524)

2.41 MB JPG

2 hours on leo triplet. 360mm FL, no calibration frames, bortle 7 light pollution, 95% full moon, quad band light pollution filter. Need much more data, but at this focal length I don't know if it's worth it. But, it's the only thing in my visible FOV this time of year without driving to darker skies.

>>4415630
How did you get such good tracking?

>>4415630
idk why but this made me realize how cool astro is. What is a bare minimum astro setup? Or do you know of any good resources on bare minimum setups?

>>4415677
The most expensive component of astrophotography you want to purchase is the mount. I have the AM5N. This isn't good guiding either; I wasn't properly polar aligned—in fact, I didn't even try, I just pointed it roughly north—and was guiding between 0.6-2.0 RMS. My exposure time was 3 minutes, so I'm within a certain margin of error regarding star trailing.
>>4415679
I would say $2k new, or around $1k-1.5k used is your entry level budget. An SA GTI will go a long way in terms of a mount; they're around $600-700 bucks. Your scope will go up in price the more glass it has. A doublet is a good entry level and you can find them starting around $500 with FPL53 glass; maybe cheaper with some brands like Askar. If you keep your sub exposures under a minute, you can get away with just tracking. If you want longer exposures, you'll want to guide, which means a guide scope and guide camera coming out to around $250 for both. If you have DSLR, then you're set. But since DSLR don't have cut IR filters you won't get true colors in some bands like Ha, SII. If you want a dedicated cam, the best bang for the buck will be an ASI585MC or off-brand equivalent (might save you a few bucks) for $600.

>>4415679
>>4415718
Let me expand on 'bare minimum'. When I first started, I used a Canon Rebel T7 with it's accompanied 300mm lens, purchased refurb for $300. Even without a mount, if you're shooting 10-30 seconds subs, you don't need tracking or guiding. It will still work, but you'll just be at a disadvantage with the amount of frames you need to shoot. Astrophotography is unfortunately a pay-to-win hobby, but if you know your stuff you can narrow the gap with knowledge and technique.

>>4415718
I don't know what any of that shit you just said was. I have several cameras, I do regular photography all the time and I have a tripod.

The point being that I want to use as little specialized equipment as possible. They don't need to be top-tier photos. I just want to see if I enjoy it enough to want to spend more money on specialized gear.

Also what kinds of things do you want, big sensors? small sensors? Low iso, high iso? Do you shoot stopped down or wide open? I literally don't know anything. I just know if your exposure is too long you get light trails

>>4415723
Lot of factors in play. Just getting started, I'd recommend this. Use the gear you have. Download Stellarium and enter your sensor/lens information into it. It will let you know what targets you can shoot. Many nebula are large and you can get by with wide angle lenses. Unfortunately, we're un galaxy season so there aren't many nebula targets until late at night for the next few months. Untracked, you'll be shooting sub-exposures under 30 seconds. Safe bet, iso between 800-1600 depending on the light pollution and target you're trying to capture. If you get out to something like a bortle 3-4, you're going to be in good condition. Google a light pollution map to see where you can go for some darker skies. In my case (a bortle 7) it takes about ~25 hours to get 1 hour of data in a bortle 3. Your light pollution really matters if you don't want to spend countless nights imaging.

>>4415726
>Download Stellarium and enter your sensor/lens information into it. It will let you know what targets you can shoot. Many nebula are large and you can get by with wide angle lenses
Okay I'll check it out, thanks! What is some good stacking software? Do I need to stack images, what about dark and light frames and all that stuff?

>>4415727
Deepskystacker is the easiest solution. Sacking is a must; it accumulates data aggregates into a single image. The more data you have, the better your image. Calibration frames are very necessary if you aren't using dedicated astro cams. Darks, Bias and Flats are cumbersome but needed to get the best out of your image.

>>4415679
>What is a bare minimum astro setup?
Depends what you mean by 'astrophotgraphy'.
For $500, you can get a fully automated robotic system that does it all for you. It has its purposes and produces frankly astonishing images, but it's so hands-off that it's not really fair to claim the one who lugs it in and chooses the target is actually an 'astrophotographer.'
https://www.zwoastro.com/product/seestar-s50/
There are facebook groups dedicated to this thing, and you can see the images regular schmos produce. My brother-in-law who couldn't tell you what an f/stop is keeps posting stuff to facebook that just frustrate the hell out of me for what I've got invested and can't reproduce.

>>4415746
That sounds very unfun. That'd be like going to the store and buying a fish and saying your hobby is fishing.

>>4415749
I agree. But he has fun looking up the objects 'he images', so at least he's learning stuff. I'll give him that.

File: IMG_4067_v1Q.jpg (788 KB, 3840x2560)

788 KB JPG

>>4415746
>>4415749
I feel like there's a point where if a computer is doing it all for you, it's not really the same. Oh look, AI "art".
A simple tracker that can remove the need to follow the /400 rule is more or less where I would draw the line, but I guess others would argue that's also cheating.

I dunno. I think if your only objective is stunning photos, you're better off just visting an observatory and adapting your camera, or hell, just AI generating them.
The actual hobby of astro, be it photography or just observation, is more than the sum of its parts just like any real hobby is.
I don't go hiking purely for the view at the summit, etc.

I cooked pic rel a bit in post, but getting out of the city and going somewhere dark is fun.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R50
Camera Software	digiKam-8.5.0
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.3.0
Lens Name	RF24mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2560
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2025:03:01 01:29:22
Exposure Time	6 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2560
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	High
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	6.250 m
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	288
Color Matrix	129

>>4415771
my interest is really not in astrology at all. I just am interested in a form of photography that allows me to get out and have an excuse to do little camping trips, give me something to do once I get there since I have no one to come with me.

>I guess others would argue that's also cheating.
There is always a line in every form of photography. Will you use auto focus, subject tracking, focus stacking, or bracketing? Are you willing to go into photoshop and apply gradients and add light sources? Everyone has their limits for everything.

File: Rosette Nebula 12.30.24 ((...).jpg (3.23 MB, 2890x1593)

3.23 MB JPG

>>4415823

>>4415823
>>4415824
No exif?

File: IMG_38671.jpg (2.48 MB, 4032x3024)

2.48 MB JPG

>>4412348
It's not too bad, I spent about 2k for my solar setup.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 14 Pro Max
Camera Software	17.5.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	48 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:03 18:35:57
Exposure Time	1/864 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	64
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Brightness	7.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.86 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG20250324184720.jpg (1.95 MB, 4000x3000)

1.95 MB JPG

not a deep-sky photography, maybe one day i'll get some cheap telescope

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	realme
Camera Model	realme 5 Pro
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	Unknown
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Image Orientation	Unknown
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2025:03:24 18:47:20
Exposure Time	16 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	1300
Lens Aperture	f/1.5
Exposure Bias	-2 EV
Metering Mode	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.73 mm
Comment	oppo_256
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	0
Image Height	0
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual

>>4417512
You can go either route. Great nightscape photography needs wide-angle lenses with bright apertures and preferably fuck-all coma. Good lenses like this typically cost a bit as well.
But using your kit lens at the wide-end and just having fun is perfectly acceptable. If the sky itself lacks any sort of discernible subject, you can include some foreground to make things more interesting. Exposing correctly for the sky and a foreground takes some practice, but ends up being rather satisfying. Playing with star trails can also be a fun experiment and allow you to use longer focal lengths for extra style points.

Speaking of, I can see trails in your photo so I suggest you go look up the /400 rule (or /500 rule which is more forgiving) so you avoid trails. It makes things look more natural.
Any APS-C DSLR and a kit lens will give you way more image quality than your phone though.

File: Rosette Nebula 12.30.24 ((...).jpg (4.37 MB, 5717x3140)

4.37 MB JPG

Old data, new processing techniques.

>>4417529
thanks for the tips, i thought the trail is because of the shaky tripod
>DSLR
yeah, i have nikon d90 but the shutter stuck

File: _DSC1785-Edit.jpg (385 KB, 2048x1638)

385 KB JPG

This came out pretty good even though it was a bit cloudy

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 14.2 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2025:03:14 13:30:59
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	-4.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4417647
kek same ig its time to go mirrorless

File: IMG_0490_edited_01.jpg (3.89 MB, 3462x5198)

3.89 MB JPG

shot yesterday and processed in darktable. I'm still very new to this, but it's fun.

File: IMG_2616.jpg (66 KB, 1280x853)

66 KB JPG

Just ordered this. Could this work for deep space pics like >>4417614 if I had a mount?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1280
Image Height	853
Scene Capture Type	Standard

I'm sorry but what the FUCK is wrong with every lens.
Every single lens I've tried to do nightscapes with has so much coma everything in the outer 20% is unusable. Am I supposed to just crop in?
Like, I have an ultrawide 10-18mm and for every focal length, you may as well treat it as another 10mm higher in terms of usable FoV.
My 24mm prime is better but not immune.
Fuck me, even my 100mm produces angel wings.

>>4420509
>f8-11 equivalent
Literally mft tier

>>4420603
It’s a 300-900 equiv you tard

File: 12.jpg (4.36 MB, 5691x2968)

4.36 MB JPG

>>4415823
>>4415824
>>4417614
Think this is my favorite iteration yet

>>4420687
beautiful.

File: crabby.jpg (680 KB, 1552x1164)

680 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4420509
None of the above anons, sensible answer is yes but you will need a driven mount with those focal lengths. Doesn't have to be horribly expensive to start with though, if the bug bites, you might end up going that route. Long focal lengths are a pain for hunting a target without a goto, but possible with a bit of patience and a copy of stellarium running nearby.
I use a second hand canon aps-c dslr with an ancient 200mm lens (almost as old as I am) on a driven mount and can produce some nice deep sky stuff like the rosette nebula. I started off using an Omegon clockwork tracker, which worked reasonably well at short focal lengths but struggled once the lens weight increased.
Zoom lenses are supposed to be inferior to primes for astro image quality but some time spent on astrobin should show that reasonable results are perfectly possible.

File: HaLRGB edit 2 png smaller 2.jpg (4.36 MB, 2100x1606)

4.36 MB JPG

>>4408437
Took this one a few weeks ago.
HaLRGB image of the M81 and M82 galaxies

50 x 180s Ha
110 x 60s L
50 x 60s R
50 x 60s G
50 x 60s B
6h50m total

Main equipment
Skywatcher quattro 150p newtonian
ZWO ASI1600mm-cool camera
Skywatcher heq5 mount
Baader 3.5nm Ha filter
Optolong LRGB filter set

File: M101-4.jpg (1.63 MB, 1616x1461)

1.63 MB JPG

New data.

M101
Bortle 3
6 hours integration
Askar 103 apo 700mm with field flattener
ASI2600 MC Pro
AM5N

This was shot in broadband. I want another night in narrowband to add addtional Ha and OIII data to it.

File: IMG_20250429_154108_954~2.jpg (1.36 MB, 3566x3366)

1.36 MB JPG

Oh shit, an astrophoto thread! Good to see you, guys.
Here, my best-proccessed photo, M31, EOS R6, SW EQ5 And a Quattro 150p (600mm) at Bortle 4. I've recently upgraded to a 300p and a custom-made mount to support it - the thing is a beast, but collimation is a pain.

File: IMG_20250429_154116_777.jpg (1.18 MB, 3008x3008)

1.18 MB JPG

M57 with the quattro 300/1200, 1 hr of exposure and a bit of bad focus. Once some clear skies are here, I'll go and get a nebula with a filter and twice the exposure.

>>4415679
You can do basic astro with justa tripod and a DSLR with no tracking. Just take exposures of around 600/f seconds and collect enough data for 20-30 mins of exposure, then stack them in something like DeepSkyStacker. That's how I got in.
If you want deep space objects, a mount is a must. Mounts are of two types - basic ones for visual, so-called Az-Alt, and more complex ones for photos, equatorial. Some crazy folks try to take photos with hand-operated EQ mounts, and it's possible. The most basic mounts which are designed to carry a DSLR on top are pretty cheap at maybe 400-500 bucks, but they are unable to take all but the lightest scopes.
Recently mounts have undergone a revolution with the wide adoption of strain wave reductors instead of old worm gears, allowing high load capacity in a light and simple to use package. Most high-capacity mounts are harmonic ones now.
The bare minimum kit for actual proper astrophotography is a go-to mount, a scope and a DSLR. You can get a mount for 1000-1200 bucks like the ZWO AM3, get a simple refractor or the godly kit that's SW Quattro 150p for another $450, and then you're done. If you want to be fancier, you can swap from a DSLR and to a dedicated camera and a control computer (ASIAir/equivalent or mini pc with NINA) for another 800 bucks. Your final upgrade is a guidescope with a guide camera for ~$300.
Once aperture fever sets in, consider yourself lost. You'll waste thousands of dollars on high-capacity mounts, expensive large telsecopes, dew heaters, filters and filter wheels, monochrome cameras and the horror that is quality refractors. And you won't have any fun either since the weather is shit. The more you spend, the more miserable you'll get, so don't even start.

>>4420687
fucking beautiful mate

>>4415679
>>4423325
How to choose a scope:
If you know a bit of physics, then you'll understand how important aperture size is. The wider your scope, the more details it can resolve and the more light it can collect. The more light it can collect, the less time you need per session to get to a low noise level in the final pic. There's a fundamental boundary on the resolution due to atmospheric fluctuations (seeing) smearing all dots of light into circles; long-exposure astrophotography gains nothing past apertures of 10-12".
Refractors are easy to use and barely need adjustment, but are fucking expensive. You'll never get apertures higher than 7-8 inches at reasonable prices.
Reflectors (Newtonians) are cheap and large, but require collimation before every session. It's nothing complicated, but still a bit of annoying busywork. They are also really heavy at large apertures, which means that you need a heavy-duty mount, and those cost thousands of dollars. For that you get a shit ton of light at small focal lengths and decent exposure times at high focal lengths; also newts are some of the few fast optical systems on the market.
Mixed glass-mirror systems like SCTs, Maks and more exotic schemes are usually slow, but very far-zooming, perfect for small DSOs or planetary. Remember that long focal distances demand very fine tracking, so you need a stable mount and good guiding. They also say that SCTs are pretty painful during collimation.

>>4423328
The goal during astrophotography is to get the best signal-to-noise ratio in your pic and to correct all deficiencies in your optical train. To do that, you need to take calibration frames in addition to your light (data-containing) frames.
There are two main sources of noise: thermal and read noise. Thermal noise are random electrons appearing in pixels without light, and their amount grows exponentially with temperature. To combat this, you get cooled cameras which drive it to near zero and take "dark" frames which are long exposure frames with the sensor closed to outside light (with the lens cap, for example). They are averaged and subtracted from the final frame.
Read noise is applied in fixed amounts to every recorded frame. To remove it, you take several short-exposure dark frames (so no thermal noise can build up) and also subtract them.
The final type of calibration frames are flats. They are needed to show vignetting and dust and are basically pictures of a uniformly-lit white panel - cloudy day sky, morning sky, light from a large flashlight through a white t-shirt from a distance. Once again they are subtracted from the final pic.
How to take light frames? To minimize read noise, you need as few of them as possible; to minimize smearing due to wind and improper tracking, you need them as short as possible. Since thermal noise and photon collection follows the Poisson distribution, the signal-noise ratio grows as a sqrt of exposure time - 30 mins of exposure have twice the noise of 2 hours and four times the noise of 8 hours. Lastly, very long exposures may lead to overexposure in some pixels, so you want to avoid this as well.

File: m101.jpg (1.58 MB, 1918x1128)

1.58 MB JPG

>>4423338
What camera settings to use? Depends on the camera, but the main goal is the smallest read noise possible. DSLR read noise can be found on photons-to-photos, choose the lowest ISO with a read noise of ~1e. Dedicated cameras have gain and a low-noise gain setting stated in the manual - just use that. Also, don't forget to put your offset at 50-100 channels to prevent dark clipping.

File: coma.jpg (15 KB, 650x349)

15 KB JPG

>>4423234
Looks to me that you have a lot of coma and the radiant point is outside of your imaging plane which indicate that you have bad collimation. The radiant point should be in the middle of your imaging plane.
I could be wrong though.
Cool image nevertheless. M57 is one of my favorites.

>>4412348
Extremely fake.

>>4423543
Seems so. The night was a mess anyways, I barely got the guiding to work and didn't have a proper Bahtinov mask to check the focus. My laser collimator is not that great and I shake the scope when getting it out of storage, so collimation suffers, but I'll try to barlow the laser the next time I get good weather.

File: M101-7.jpg (3.91 MB, 6052x4098)

3.91 MB JPG

>>4422638
Reworked with some new processes/techniques that I find yielded a more digestible final image. Also, opted not to crop. There's so many smaller galaxies to see in the image it seems like a waste to do so.

File: M42.jpg (4.96 MB, 4402x3174)

4.96 MB JPG

Old and awful data I took when I first started doing astro. Still able to process something tolerable out of it from everything I've learned so far. This season I'd like to get a proper shot of M42 in an HDR composition along with more of it's IFN.

File: M45.jpg (4.01 MB, 3702x3202)

4.01 MB JPG

>>4424941
Same for M45

File: file.jpg (284 KB, 2048x1152)

284 KB JPG

I'll probably be on a mountain hiking trip next week. Other than my 21mm f1.4 for classic milky way photography, this time I'll be able to bring my cute Sigma 90mm f2.8 (full frame).
I know it doesn't have 135mm reach, nor is f1.8 or f1.2, but is there a cool object or a cool area I could try to /p/ with it? With stacking, lots of stacking, obviously. Something big like Andromeda comes to mind, but I won't have enough reach nor enough brightness.
Unfortunately I won't have any startracking device, it's not multi-days-hiking-compliant.

>>4426774
Need a little more detail than that. What's the sensor size, resolution and pixel scale on that full frame?

File: file.png (128 KB, 2224x590)

128 KB PNG

>>4426888
Oh, right. I guess it could make a difference, but I always thought that would be negligible unless it's hooked to a telescope or something more "professional". I'll be using an a7cII, it uses the same sensor as the A7IV.

File: DSC04202.jpg (4.08 MB, 6000x4000)

4.08 MB JPG

I need to get a strong tripod

>>4426929
If your tripod has a hook, you can use your backpack/camera bag to weigh it down quite successfully.
That's what I do with my shaky K&F aluminium and it ends up being rather sturdy

Resources

https://stellarium-web.org
https://www.astrospheric.com
https://telescopius.com
https://astronomy.tools
https://www.lightpollutionmap.info
http://atlas.obs-hp.fr/hyperleda/

File: moon.jpg (489 KB, 1854x921)

489 KB JPG

Just playing around in PI. Right is taken without much processing other than color. Left applies deconvolution and slight correction in luminance.

File: o24jYWZv6ldq_16536x0_ieTZ0INm.jpg (4.93 MB, 2981x2971)

4.93 MB JPG

Skull Nebula (actually Rosette Nebula on its side). Almost 12 hours stacked, from my suburban backyard.

File: NightSky.jpg (1.46 MB, 3968x2976)

1.46 MB JPG

>>4429032
i had no idea you could capture that from home I learned something new and cool today, really great looking pieces of space in here keep going guys you create dreams !

I'll add a phone pic I took a long time ago at goblin valley. (I wish I knew my phone could take raw pics at that time)

>>4429032
What optics are you using? What bortle?

>>4429206
Askar 65PHQ, Bortle 6.

>>4429157
Almost 12 hours of images combined, through two different narrowband filters that kill most of the urban light pollution.

>>4429215
very nice

>>4429032
Nice, you caught the Herbig-Haro Object 889 as well, good job!

>>4429398
My scope's 416mm focal length is a little short for that size object. I should dust off my old 8" SCT and try for a closeup of that region one day.

>>4415718
are there any good books/resources on teh subject of hobby astrophotography?

File: kbX7JdW.jpg (882 KB, 3551x2338)

882 KB JPG

bump

File: Donato_Creti_-_Astronomic(...).jpg (77 KB, 473x700)

77 KB JPG

>>4434712

>>4434878
mini rabit hole because was curious
> The series of Astronomical observations was commissioned in 1711 by the Bolognese count Luigi Marsili. He had the artist Donato Creti paint all the planets in as many small pictures and made a gift of these to the Pope to convince him of the importance for the Holy Church of an astronomical observatory. The gift made it possible to achieve his goal, because with the support of Clement XI the first public astronomical observatory was opened in Bologna a short time later. The eight small canvases show the planetary system as it was then known: the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and a Comet. The planet Uranus, only discovered in 1781, is missing.
Really fascinating background for that and others in the series. Equally fascinating that they knew Jupiter had those gas formations on its surface even 50 years prior
> In 1610, Galileo Galilei turned his rudimentary telescope on Jupiter, and realized that it had 4 large moons orbiting it: Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. This was an important discovery, because it demonstrated that Earth was not the center of the Universe as proponents of the geocentric view believed.
>In the 1660s, Giovanni Cassini used his telescope to discover spots and bands across the surface of Jupiter, and was able to estimate the planet's rotational period. He is thought to be the first to observe the planet's Great Red Spot, a giant storm that is still raging. Imagine a single storm that rages for over 450 years and is larger than the Earth.
https://www.museivaticani.va/content/museivaticani/en/collezioni/musei/la-pinacoteca/sala-xv---secolo-xviii/donato-creti--osservazioni-astronomiche.html
https://www.universetoday.com/articles/discovery-of-jupiter
ty for sharing

File: tracking mountpng.png (679 KB, 1277x763)

679 KB PNG

I've been doing rookie level nightscape astrophotography, and would like to buy a tracking mount to unlock deeper sky photography and cleaner nightscapes.
I have no god damned clue what makes a good tracking mount and what I actually need to make it do the thing.
I can see a 4xAA-powered tracking mount with a handful of accessories going on Amazon with decently positive reviews going for sub-$500 AUD. Looks like it's controled with a phone-app / a simple dial and most things are pre-programmed. If anyone can confirm something like this would work, I will go ahead and buy it.

But, I'm pretty sure I'm missing something, or oversimplifying something, or just being a faggot like normal. I thought tracking mounts needed to be hooked up to a computer to do the calculations? It looks like I can stick this mount to my normal tripod which is alright.
If there are any alternatives or knowledge anons could share I would be very appreciative.

File: file.png (330 KB, 600x450)

330 KB PNG

>>4435556
Yes you can simply use a simple star tracker, put your camera on it, set things up (polar alignment, see the little laser on my pic), and let your camera take the photos while the tracker does its thing. No need to hook up to a computer or whatever for advanced live view/tracking/whatever. You just set things up, let your camera shot, and then simply process your photo later on your computer back at home.
I intend to buy a Move Shoot Move Nomad someday. It's the most compact star tracker available, which would fit my hiking needs. Though something like the SkyWatcher in your pic would be more powerful/stable for deep sky astrophoto, but pricier, heavier, and uses more volume.
I'm still no sure if I'll jump in though, at most I just know I'll do milky way shots, and just having a tripod, taking 15 or 20 photos, and stacking them will do a more than enough god job for 0 bucks.
I'd like to shoo big objects like Andromeda, then a tracker ill be necessary, but I can't justify the money. I'll just take a photo everyone already took, and better than I would anyway.

>>4435562
This honestly sounds too easy. It's cheaper than my cheapest lens purchase, and would actually let me slap my 400mm on and do something other than milkway/nightscapes. If it's as simple as just setting it up and pressing the right button, I'm sold.
I get that a dedicated astro camera or big fuckoff telescope would be necessary for the really impressive shit, but lets be honest, a 10" cassegrain is like 10x the price.

>>4435719
>and would actually let me slap my 400mm on and do something other than milkway/nightscapes
Well, I wouldn't recommend the MSM Nomad for such a focal length. You'll need more precise/robust/pricier system for that. It might work, and some people did from what I remember, but certainly not for 5min exposures or so. I think it's recommended to not go over 150mm with this little guy, though you can push it further, but you increase the risks of getting a fuck up at some point.

File: 096A4791.jpg (1.97 MB, 5760x3840)

1.97 MB JPG

Milky way to south

Any tips?

File: 096A4792.jpg (1.21 MB, 3840x5760)

1.21 MB JPG

>>4438529
Same thing, closer to natural

File: 096A4799.jpg (1.54 MB, 3840x5760)

1.54 MB JPG

>>4438530
Milky way to north

File: myth.png (3 KB, 154x73)

3 KB PNG

>>4438529
Basic suggestions, really.
You need to be taking dark frames to clean up those hot pixels (the red and purple shit). Not difficult to look up how to do it.
You have some heavy coma in the periphery and the corners of your frame. Some lenses cope better than others with this, but I'm guessing you're shooting wide open on a 50mm to 24mm prime lens. Stop down to f/2.8 and you'll probably fix most of it. Because you're be narrowing your aperture to address this, you will either need to boost your ISO (which will make things look marginally worse across the frame), or get used to a technique called stacking. Also not super hard to do if you just look it up.

Your composition is very bland. You just have some random shit in the right side of the frame and then a generic piece of the sky as your subject. Nothing wrong if you're just doing it because stars and sheeit are cool, but as a photograph it's just plain boring. Nightscape astrophotography (what you're kind of doing) is more whole when you incoporate an interesting foreground. Doing this also requires you to stack frames because getting the sky and foreground properly exposed in one shot is borderline impossible, not to mention getting it in focus at f/2-4.

Buy a wide or ultrawide prime lens for as little money as you can be assed spending (because this shot is rather tight for milkyway shots), and get familiar with stacking frames. That alone will up things tenfold.

File: 096A4784.jpg (222 KB, 1024x683)

222 KB JPG

>>4438546
I was just able to see it. I hadn't looked at the full resolution pictures very closely yet.

Do you know how many seconds to expose before streaks without stacking? I don't have a sky tracking mount, and there was light wind, more than a breeze.

I'l think about a wider lens; this was the brightest part and even here, it's mostly not the milky way.

File: 096A4807.jpg (1.54 MB, 5760x3840)

1.54 MB JPG

>>4438642
Here's one with more of the recommended style, along with some of my ideas for improvement

File: 096A4813.jpg (1.75 MB, 5760x3840)

1.75 MB JPG

>>4438932
And one with slightly less of you, I might try again tomorrow, see what the weather conditions are and stuff

I haven't come up with or looked up a stacking algorithm yet

>>4438642
Yeah fair enough. The rule for avoiding streaks is 400 / (effective) focal length. I up this to 500/ personally as I've detected trails in some shots in the past.
>50mm lens, APS-C crop (1.6x (canon)) = 80mm (FoV). 400/80 = 5 seconds.
>24mm lens, APS-C crop (1.6x) = 38.4mm (FoV). 400/38.4 = 10.41 seconds.
As I said, I normally do 500/ not 400/ or you can just do 400/ and go back 1/3rd or 2/3rds of a stop of shutter speed. I don't have a mount either yet.
If the narrower lens is working for you then don't worry about gear.
>>4438932
This is already marginally more interesting because you've got a slice of landscape in-frame.

>>4408437
how take this photo?

File: 096A4829.jpg (1.45 MB, 5760x3840)

1.45 MB JPG

>>4439074
I think you have to design and build the world's biggest telescopes

I think I'm going to settle here for now on milky way pictures. I think I'm seeing galactic north towards the top right, galactic south towards the bottom middle, and the nearest spiral arm extending towards top left.

>>4439269
Interesting thought since your oddly placed laser light reminded me; you can also play with light trails to add some interesting bits to your foreground if you so desire. Not my cup of tea, but I've seen some creative results before.

>>4439074
You don't. Purple doesn't exist in space. It's AI generated nonsense.

File: 096A4852.jpg (1.83 MB, 3840x5760)

1.83 MB JPG

>>4439296
I tried your light trails idea, but I'm not quite sure how much it is enhancing this milky way picture

File: 096A4849.jpg (1.73 MB, 3840x5760)

1.73 MB JPG

>>4439707
And here's a big dipper as well; it was fun to do some of these

Any other tips?

File: 1724353277058948.jpg (219 KB, 1000x667)

219 KB JPG

Gonna be rainy for the next two weeks

>>4439707
>>4439709
You've probably arrived at the part of astro that isn't always obvious to beginners: stacking.
So, light trails aren't everyone's favourite, I get it, but it's good you're trying shit out at least. The reason I bring up stacking is because the sky is out of focus while your foreground is in focus; ideally we want both in focus.
Now, stacking achieves all sorts of shit and I'd rather you go look up a proper guide than having me half-ass one, but it's basically the cheat codes to better astro photos. That's regardless of if you're doing nightscapes, deep space, foreground fuckery... it's good for everything. It's more effort, but it improves pretty much any end-result.

Simple stacking is doable in things like Photoshop/GnooIMP with as little as say four photos. Dedicated software makes the process easier. If you've ever seen any impressive photos of nebulae or deep sky objects, there's a high chance it's a stacked shot.

>>4439554
Retard

>>4448314
Prove him wrong then

First time doing this, bortle 2, DSLR with a 70mm pointed straight up, 12 secs.

File: so many.jpg (3.4 MB, 6036x4020)

3.4 MB JPG

>>4451518
forgot pic

>>4410115
Insight into the brown mind

>>4458338
Sadly, low IQ is impervious to skin color.

File: moon.jpg (912 KB, 3840x2160)

912 KB JPG

25 subs

>>4459814
nice

>>4438939
>The rule for avoiding streaks is 400 / (effective) focal length. I up this to 500/ personally as I've detected trails in some shots in the past.
Upping it like that gives you longer shutter speeds, meaning more trails...

>400/80 = 5.00
>500/80 = 6.25

>>4451524
Such a great photo

>>4420687
is that exposed sun?

>>4424132
beautiful

>>4448957
he claimed it's AI, the burden of proof is on him

novice question here. looking to do wide-field astro but I have the worlds shittiest $20 tripod (quantaray qsx2001). should i just wait and invest in a better tripod or can i get away with using a shit tripod if i weigh it down or smth?

using a canon ti5 and samyang 16mm f/2, no star tracker because i'm broke.

>>4465780
t5i*

>>4434712
Best one in this otherwise sterile overly processed STEM brained garbage thread.

I really like this anon. Very celestial and mysterious. Nicely composed. It is the juxtaposition of blue, mountains and woods makes it so fucking kino. This is art.

Hello. I figured this was the best place to ask. I'm thinking of getting my first telescope. A SkyWatcher 300P. Will I regret it?

>>4465780
Weigh it down and use a remote shutter. It will work fine

>>4466493
For visual observation or astrophotography?

>>4467384
Visual and I'm mainly interested in the planets i.e. getting the sharpest observations of Mars' surface and Jupiter's moons.

>>4467468
I assume you mean the Flextube 300P rather than Quattro 300P. Dobsonians can be tricky for photography but for visual it should work great. Be sure to read some reviews of it before biting the bullet.

>>4467561
Yeah I've been reading around. Apparently refractors are better for planetary? But much more expensive for the same aperture so I'm losing out on detail which I want more of. Still kind of getting to grips with all the terminology.

>>4467563
when it comes to planetary. a refractor would technically be best due to no central obstruction decreasing contrast. realistically getting a large and well corrected refractor is very very VERY expensive and not viable.

For planetary imaging for armatures a newtonian reflector is best. Dont let people tell you to get an SCT they SUCK.

A large newtonian with a nominally sized secondary mirror is ideal. The bigger the mirror the more it is able to resolve details

File: bbso_halph_fd_20230217_072630.png (1.07 MB, 1500x1500)

1.07 MB PNG

hello im new, i think this fits in this thread,how the hell did this happen?

>>4468458
>9/11'd the sun
A fitting tribue

>>4468464
kek

point being this is a legitimate site, until this picture...

and airplanes dont fly at 36000km where most probably the GOES sat are at which took this pic.
i questioned the site with no response, maybe i should query them again........
and this angle of the plane, quite alarming! how the, where the fuck?

Anyone used a smart telescope? Like Seestar S50?
I'm a total newfaggot and I just want to tak some pretty space photos

>>4424132
I love this one.

File: Kanzelhoehe-Observatory-l(...).png (264 KB, 691x271)

264 KB PNG

>>4468585
>and airplanes dont fly at 36000km where most probably the GOES sat are at which took this pic.
What makes you think that? It even says "Kanzelhoehe" in the image which is a ground based solar observatory in Austria.

>>4468585
https://www.kso.ac.at/downloads/airplanes_en.php

>>4429032
Absolutely stunning. Great colours and the skull is really visual. I can only imagine what a great feeling it must be to have made it yourself.
I only did a little of startracing (aiming to the north star), but many of the images in this thread are really nice.

Congrats guys. Keep up the good work.

>>4468664
anyone?

>>4470095
>>4459814
>>4462111
I'm the anon that posted these two and they were made last year with a seestar s50. Didn't know shit about astrophotography before. It's absolutely worth it for the price, with some learning and post processing you can get some amazing results, especially if you can get a decent wedge and start shooting in eq mode. FYI I sold mine to get a refractor.

>>4470095
iirc its full of aislop fakery

File: DSC06262.jpg (40 KB, 1093x730)

40 KB JPG

Why can't I get this fucking thing to focus sharply reeeeee

Ok, so after some research I've determined that refractors and Maksutovs are the best for purely planetary views. Let's say I just want the most detail and zoom when looking at the planets, and astrophotography and DSOs are merely a bonus, and I have a budget of £2,000. Would a Sky-Watcher EvoStar 150 be a good starting point for me?

>>4470703
A refractor would be a poor choice given your budget. You're not going to get a focal length long enough to get clear view of the planets except for really chintzy no-name stuff which is probably going to have poor optical quality. Also likely to have a horrific f-ratio/aperture so that rules out astrophotography and DSOs even as a bonus.

A catadioptric telescope (e.g. Maksutov/Schmidt-Cassegrain) is fine but is probably overkill for cost/complexity for what you're looking for.

The best telescope would be an 8" Newtonian telescope on a Dobson mount (usually listed for sale as a "Dobsonian telescope" as a bundle together). They tend to be very affordable because people have figured out really efficient ways to make precision parabolic mirrors, they're not cheap because of lower quality. You get a massive focal length and massive aperture for cheap. Only intimidating part is collimation, but you can buy cheapo laser tools to help with that + youtube vids. Can't do much astrophotography but the huge aperture ("light bucket") allows you to see faint objects so a lot of deep sky stuff will be easy to see.

would like into astrophotography
thing is, im a /fgt/-fag and 99% b&w shooter
can i get by with a leica visoflex and bellows for astro?
also is astro in b&w even worth it?

File: stacked2.jpg (498 KB, 996x1495)

498 KB JPG

Early, stumbling steps. On the "plus"" side the weather is helping my not buy a bunch of stuff, this was basically the first clear, moon-less night here since mid August.

>>4472131
Not bad not bad.
Stacking software is a godsend.
If the silhouette foreground wasn't intentional, try getting a properly exposed shot of it and blending it yourself as well.
>>4471375
Film astro is asking to burn through rolls until you start getting a better feel for it. If you had a digital camera to work out exposure and settings first, it would help, but going purely /fgt/ mode is going to be a long process of learning and sadness. Monochrome astrophotography is a thing, or at least it used to be a thing. It's more IR than B+W these days since going purely mono is discarding a lot of the fun interesting colours you get from DSOs or nebulae or whatnot. I think getting a $100 DSLR off of ebay would be smarter than going through four rolls of film while learning.

>>4472134
>Stacking software is a godsend.
Especially when I noticed the "Freeze ground" checkbox, which thankfully but not terribly intuitively also froze the stars instead of smearing them out into trails as the program did without it.

>If the silhouette foreground wasn't intentional
It was. I should probably try the "usual" approach there some day (or at least find some more interesting shapes for the silhouette...), but for now I'm happy with a bit of darkness there.

File: starpano-final-final-min.jpg (4.49 MB, 6029x4522)

4.49 MB JPG

just getting into landscape astrophotography, this is my second attempt at milky way.
things im already aware of: random hot pixels i wasn't assed to clean up and over-sharpening on the foreground. still learning so please give me some slack

gear: stock canon t5i, rokinon 16mm f2, nyx tracker
foreground: 4 panel pano, 200iso, 2s exposures, f2.8
stars: 2 panel pano, 800iso, 8 x 75s subs (10 mins total exposure), 6 dark frames, f2.8
processing: sequator, hugin, siril, gimp

what can i improve for next time? planning on getting an L bracket so i can take panos easier. also considering sending my camera to be astro-modified.

>>4472138
>>If the silhouette foreground wasn't intentional
>It was. I should probably try the "usual" approach there some day ... but for now I'm happy with a bit of darkness there.
Yeah nah mate fair enough. Interesting silhouettes can be really well done and be better than trying to properly expose a foreground. Do whatever works for you my man.
>>4472185
>Going to interesting spots, using a star tracker, panos, using stacking software correctly
Not much else you can do now. You've pretty much nailed the execution. Only thing I'd do that in specific shot is crop out the railing and have a bigger sky:foreground ratio.
>Astro modifiying
Reasonable if that's almost all you do. Sometimes it's cheaper to just buy a pre-modified one off ebay versus gutting a camera you send. There's also places that'll basically do a swap for your camera + some overhead to give you a different IR modded camera. Remember go get an appropriate frequency filter - can't remember what makes most sense for what but it's an easy goog.

>>4470836
Ok, I think I'll go with the 300P GoTo for my first scope. Should yield nice views of the planets with that aperture but it will be a challenge for me for sure. I wanted to do that image stacking stuff where you get really clean photos of the planets, but like you say astrophotography will be hard with it. If I were able to process pictures of the Martian dichotomy and the Galileans or even the golden hue of Titan I would be 100% satisfied.

guy who just came back from a bortle 1 star party a few weeks ago:

all of you are wasting time because what you consider "taking" the images aren't any less taking the images than just straight up AI generation.

i'm dead ass on this; if you want to enjoy the sky, seriously just go somewhere you can SEE the sky. taking these photos is a completely pointless endeavor, and your techniques (tracking and stacking, various HLRG data interpretations, etc etc) are literally already "faking" it, you just don't want to admit it.

just cheat. just ask AI to make you a pretty picture of whatever galaxy, or actually learn how to use photoshop and just fudge single frame shots.

i'm not joking about this; you are seriously wasting your time and effort for something that is going to be obsolete very soon. just get a telescope and look thru it with your own eyes (hell even strong binoculars in actual good skies), or start faking shots. because you are already faking shots, and every piece of gear you buy, every piece of software you use, is just a cope that you aren't.

go look at a bortle 1 sky and you will realize i am correct.

>>4473435
>guys you're all bad and you already fake it you're ngmi
>reddit spacing
>boosting your SNR outside of the camera DOESNT COUNT
>you're not allowed to do your hobby or appreciate the sky unless you camp out at a dark site for six specific days in the year
Shut the fuck up. You obviously weren't bullied enough at school.

>>4473437
yep, seethe and cope.
>SNR
lmao bro it's all digital information. just fake it. you're ALREADY FAKING IT.

>>4473438
Photography is a recording of light. It's not faking it to try and increase the measure of light while keeping the noise down; technology has its limits so we find ways around it. No this is not the same as faking it you flailing sperg. If something is there I want it recorded, and if something isn't there I don't want some algo to inject shit in to make it look interesting. I want to record the reality around me by default.

File: film astrophotography.jpg (315 KB, 1206x636)

315 KB JPG

>>4473435
You can do film astrophotography if you want "real" photos.

File: Palomar-Sky-Survey-2-F295.jpg (4.45 MB, 8735x8725)

4.45 MB JPG

>>4473464
>film
>not shooting with 355x355 mm glass plates
ISHYGDDT

>>4473464
yip, astrolomography luks cul mangg!!

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/348915-astrophotography-on-film-an-interview-with-jason-de-freitas

File: 1216x973x2.jpg (560 KB, 2432x1946)

560 KB JPG

>>4473707
>https://www.lomography.com/magazine/348915-astrophotography-on-film-an-interview-with-jason-de-freitas
This one was pretty cool.

>>4469865
oh shit! i thought all such images were from space, that makes total sense, never cared to question that name

>>4469916
very nice anon

>>4474544
Really nice.

File: andromeda ektachrome.png (1.93 MB, 1154x1040)

1.93 MB PNG

Kodak Ektachrome. Unguided single exposure at ~30 minutes. No edits.

Andromeda most prominent. You can also make out the Pacman nebula. Caroline's Rose is also visible but very faint and small.

>>4475173
>Unguided single exposure at ~30 minutes
wut

>>4475177
The stars move so long exposures leave trails. You can use an equatorial mount to track the sky, which most people run with a digital guide camera to "lock" it's tracking onto fixed stars.

Unguided means doing it without tracking software or digital equipment, you have to manually align the mount with Polaris. Because it has no correction system for errors it means slight errors throw off tracking and blur it. Typically unguided exposures are limited under a few minutes for this reason.

>>4475203
Yeah nah I understand the concept of astro nightscapes and tracking etc.
By unguided I guess I just assumed you left it static and I was like wtf how would you get sharp stars with a static shot @ 30 minutes.
I'm guessing you used a finderscope or something of the sort and just manually moved it over the course of the half hour?

File: polar alignment.jpg (108 KB, 745x499)

108 KB JPG

>>4475272
Basically if the earth is a spinning top, you're using the polar alignment scope (that runs through the center of the mount's head, perpendicular to the axis of rotation) to create a parallel spinning top that spins at an equal rate but reverse direction (which has the effect of freezing the night sky while the earth rotates underneath you from the perspective of a camera sitting on top).

It has a motor in it that matches the rate of rotation for you, but the hard part is trying to perfectly align this spinning top you're setting up with the earth's own axis of spin. The extent that you get this wrong is the extent that the two rotations (yours and earths) will no longer be in sync and your photos will blur/streak in proportion to how long your exposure is.

Everyone solves this through either short exposures + stacking, or through setting up an autoguiding system where a camera will lock onto stars and compensate for any alignment/rate errors. I was just surprised/happy I got a fairly clean image for that long of an exposure using a dummy system that won't compensate for my errors.

>>4475173
I'm surprised over the lack of satellites.

File: via(1500).jpg (1.2 MB, 1500x1000)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4475340
bcuz its presumably a iso100 30min exposure, not a 25sec iso3200 like me 4 example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1o1PNCjtwE

>>4475346
Makes sense

File: IMG-20251009-WA0001.jpg (1.14 MB, 1709x2560)

1.14 MB JPG

A6700
Sigma 16mm 1.4
16pics staked with sequator
Iso 1600
F1.4
Ss 10sec
Lrc edit ai preset sky blue drama or something

>>4476281
Any higher res pics?

>>4476298
Not on phone. I m working overseas and all the raw files are back home on my harddrive

File: m31_october.jpg (1.38 MB, 3134x1888)

1.38 MB JPG

first time trying deep astro
135mm lens
untracked, normal tripod, recentered every ~10 min
1s and 2s exposures (messed up a bit)
37 min 39 s total time

>>4476713
Damn, that's good.

>>4476713
nibba you telling me you took over 2k pics for that ? get a tracker already!

>>4476763
someday i will, at least I'm thinking about it
right now i'm unemployed, so no new expensive gear for me

>>4408437
insane stuff, congrats! any chance of getting a 4k wallpaper version?

Is A6 Lemmon going to be visible again in january/feb?

>>4476713
good job! What's your next target?