Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Fine_Art on November 16, 2014, 01:38:05 pm
-
This article will save a lot of people time and money by pointing out the challenges that you need specialized gear to overcome. Without an idea of the precision required, people can buy totally inadequate gear.
Question for Michael - Would you say the telescope tripod is significantly stiffer than a typical photography tripod? Do you think it is worth using one for long lens terrestrial photography? I am referring to just the tripod, not the polar mount.
This area is still far too complex for the average photographer. The setup I would want is a wifi controller like the Skyfi
(http://www.southernstars.com/products/skyfi/images/SkyFi-USB-Small.jpg)
that links the output from your camera to your PC, your software autoguides, then sends a signal back to the controller which moves the mount. Until they stat making something like that, cheap, it is worth waiting IMO. Here in Alberta a lot of the best sky conditions are in the winter. You want to be warm in the car or cabin, not standing out there in -20.
-
So I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but it is an honest question I've had for a long time. It may seem a little pointed though :( But I do appreciate Michael's opinion and others on this forum since there are so many different perspectives usually well articulated.
What really is the point of this kind of astrophotography? To me it seems entirely an exercise in technique. It is the sky, it really doesn't change much. So the only artistic input you have is in cropping some portion of the sky. Given that there are publicly available all sky surveys in multiple wavelengths at higher resolutions than you'll ever obtain from this gear it would seem the more expedient way to approach this is to direct the artistic intent of framing a portion of the sky to working with the superior publicly available material. Why reinvent the wheel - and a wobblier one at that?
Now I completely understand the appeal of exercises solely in technique, so if that is it then color me satisfied! But I wonder if I'm missing something beyond that.
Thoughts, opinions?
-
It sound like you really don't like doing photography. How may topics that people photograph are always basically the same? A mountain? waterfront? cityscape? Hell, if you have seen one bear, eagle, wolf, person you have seen them all!
The point of a recording type endeavor, be it photography, history, painting, etc., for a lot of people is to remember and share a part of their experience in life.
All you will really have at the end is a bundle of information in your neural chemical storage.
-
The problem with SkyFi is that with a Vixen mount it needs an Apple Airport Express, which means I can't run on battery power. Also, I use The Sky-X software which isn't compatible with SkyFi. Other than that it's fine. ;)
The tripods that are used for telescope mounts are not really tripods...they are usually mated with a particular equatorial or alt/az mount.
Michael
-
"Thoughts, opinions?"
Astophotography is a "practice", like yoga or playing a musical instrument. It's end is itself.
It's also a tremendous technical challenge to do well, and depending on technique, framing, processing and the like results can look quite different. Yes, the subject is the same, but Aunt Sally's snapshot of Half Dome isn't the same as Ansel Adams'.
Michael
[/quote]
-
Aloha,
Why I don't do astrophotography;
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/
-
Why I don't paint.
http://www.rembrandtpainting.net/complete_catalogue/complete_catalogue.htm (http://www.rembrandtpainting.net/complete_catalogue/complete_catalogue.htm)
-
Thoughts, opinions?
Indeed, that's a reasonable point when speaking about the capture of the sky alone, but:
1. The successful images of the night sky IMHO do often have a earthly foreground and the combination is unique. I agree it looses meaning if the foreground and sky are captured in different locations,
2. The sky differs from location to location and season/time by, at least, its imperfection resulting from light pollution, lack of atmospheric transparency,... and that can translate into different versions of the sky (colors, luminosity,...), not to mention the location of the stars relative to the ground,
3. Just like some people prefer to capture images with a Leica M240 over a D810, the shooting experience that you have when trying to capture the night sky is different. We cannot deny that the act of taking the picture is an important part of photography, can we?
A blue sky is a blue sky, but most would agree that there are infinite variations of blue and that the ground beneath the sky plays an important role in the final image. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
....................What really is the point of this kind of astrophotography? .........................Thoughts, opinions?
I don't mean this in a disrespectful way. If you have to ask this question, you won't understand the answer.
-
Most enjoyable read Michael!
I enjoy the challenge of Astrophotography. Every image I take is different from any previous image of the same subjects. Some of the parameters that will change - focus, atmospheric seeing & transparency, guiding accuracy, exposure times, camera temperature and processing ...
The aim for me is to improve on the last effort.
I notice the largest image variance with narrow band imaging when you may have collected data over weeks to make an image. Data may extend to more than seven channels - LRGB plus narrow band - Ha, SII and OIII etc. There are countless ways to combine this information. Some even use the 'Hubble Palette'. Or you can dream up your own varying the opacity of the channels.
Note that narrowband imaging can be used during full moon or from light polluted cities.
Cheers
Dave
-
Recommend Jennifer Wu
http://www.jenniferwu.com (http://www.jenniferwu.com)
Here: http://www.amazon.com/Photography-Night-Sky-Field-Shooting/dp/1594858381 (http://www.amazon.com/Photography-Night-Sky-Field-Shooting/dp/1594858381)
-
So, when will LuLa-1 lift off?
Geostationary trips to shoot Orion etc. without that bloody annoying atmosphere.
Single cabin with window: CAD 345,000
A shared cabin without window: CAD 285,000 ( A window place will be provided and is included for a total of 30 minutes during the flight. Additional minutes can be booked in advance for CAD 1,865 per minute.)
A downpayment of 150K per booking is required 3 years before take off.
LuLa-1 Commander Kevin Raber: " My passion for photography can be traced back to my pre-teen days... when I played with space ship models my Dad built for me.... Trust me, I know what I do... What's that button here for?"
;)
-
Most enjoyable read Michael!
I enjoy the challenge of Astrophotography. Every image I take is different from any previous image of the same subjects. Some of the parameters that will change - focus, atmospheric seeing & transparency, guiding accuracy, exposure times, camera temperature and processing ...
The aim for me is to improve on the last effort.
I notice the largest image variance with narrow band imaging when you may have collected data over weeks to make an image. Data may extend to more than seven channels - LRGB plus narrow band - Ha, SII and OIII etc. There are countless ways to combine this information. Some even use the 'Hubble Palette'. Or you can dream up your own varying the opacity of the channels.
Note that narrowband imaging can be used during full moon or from light polluted cities.
Cheers
Dave
Dave... I am looking at a mono CCD camera right now, using narrowband filters. I'm moving back to Toronto from the country next week, and this is the obvious solution to light pollution. The dark skies here are pretty good, but from mid-town Toronto one is lucky to be able to see Vega on a clear night. Narrowband DSOs are the ticket.
The Pentax is turning out to be the first steps. Next it's an new OTA and cooled mono camera. It never stops.
My plan is to make the whole system remotable, so that after setup on my balcony I can work from my desk.
Working outside in -10C temperatures sucks.
Michael
-
Dave... I am looking at a mono CCD camera right now, using narrowband filters. I'm moving back to Toronto from the country next week, and this is the obvious solution to light pollution. The dark skies here are pretty good, but from mid-town Toronto one is lucky to be able to see Vega on a clear night. Narrowband DSOs are the ticket.
The Pentax is turning out to be the first steps. Next it's an new OTA and cooled mono camera. It never stops.
My plan is to make the whole system remotable, so that after setup on my balcony I can work from my desk.
Working outside in -10C temperatures sucks.
Michael
Enjoyable article Michael. Astroimaging is one of the most difficult and taxing forms of imaging but is also very pleasing when it all works well. Narrowband is a whole different beast and because of the small amounts of light being gathered per exposure is very demanding on the mount as I am sure you are aware. When I do narrowband imaging I am typically taking 20-30 minute exposures to get the S/N up. A whole other world of color balance and interpretation.
A utility that may help in determining correct color balance, if you so desire and it will work with the data, it calculates the color based on looking up the photometry data available for the star field and determines the color balance based on those values. Sometimes it is useful to see colors and sometimes to it is good to do one's own interpretations. The utility is free, located here:
http://bf-astro.com/excalibrator/excalibrator.htm
It requires you to plate solve but there are ways of doing that online, and it requires the ability to separate the color planes, which Nebulosity can also do.
Another stacking program which I find quite good is CCDStack, it has some sophisticated alignment routines and data rejection for outliers. And of course there is Pixinsight which has an exceedingly high learning curve but I have found really can remove color gradients very well. It is discussed in the other raw converters forum here.
A quick way of determining exact location and what other major objects may be in your field of view is to post the the image to Flickr, and then add it to the group, astrometry and they will do a blind plate solve, scroll down below the image and you can see the results: https://flic.kr/p/ad2aud You can also click on the see in world wide telescope to see it plotted on a sky chart.
Enjoy and looking forward to more of your astro adventures.
Alan
-
Another resource: http://www.cloudynights.com/page/index.html
Cloudy Nights Forum has beginner and advanced astrophotography subfora.
Nice North American Nebula!
Re: why? 1. ultra-wide-field astro-landscapes give the feeling of seeing the heavens in a particular setting 2. for sky-only shots, there can be many motivations: learning about the objects; teaching others about the objects; learning the technique and mathematical basis for getting optimal images of faint fuzzies; hang with other astronomy buffs; pride of craft.
I only do ultra-wide-field astrolandscapes at present, but it is fun to do, and a good excuse to be outside at night. My best dark skies are about 2 hours away.
-
Dave... I am looking at a mono CCD camera right now, using narrowband filters. I'm moving back to Toronto from the country next week, and this is the obvious solution to light pollution. The dark skies here are pretty good, but from mid-town Toronto one is lucky to be able to see Vega on a clear night. Narrowband DSOs are the ticket.
The Pentax is turning out to be the first steps. Next it's an new OTA and cooled mono camera. It never stops.
My plan is to make the whole system remotable, so that after setup on my balcony I can work from my desk.
Working outside in -10C temperatures sucks.
Michael
I think a Takahashi FSQ106ED attached to a big SBIG KAF-16803 would be ideal for your balcony :) Once you get your skill levels up you could bring it all down under and checkout the Southern skies!
Cheers
Dave
-
What really is the point of this kind of astrophotography?
It's another good excuse to spend time outside, especially in winter when nature is pretty quiet in certain places.
-
Thanks to everyone for their polite responses. What you are all saying jives with my assumptions.
To be clear, in no way was "What is the point" meant as "I think there is no point". I listed the things that I thought were not likely to be the point but which are often an important component of other kinds of photography to highlight the differences (as I see them) from the more technique oriented emphasis of deep sky astrophotography. I don't think that list of things is what constitutes photography on its own. And I do think technique can stand on its own in photography just as it does in most any other art form. And that of course "technique on its own" doesn't entirely exist, as demonstrated by so many excercise books of various masters.
Astophotography is a "practice", like yoga or playing a musical instrument. It's end is itself.
Thanks Michael, that's a great way of putting what I was trying to clarify. And I don't feel that detracts from it or makes it "less" in any particular way. Personally for me since photography is an outlet "on the side" from a very technical day job I am usually trying to avoid my natural inclination towards emphasizing technique. I completely understand the desire to do the opposite - one person's ying is another's yang.
It's also a tremendous technical challenge to do well, and depending on technique, framing, processing and the like results can look quite different. Yes, the subject is the same, but Aunt Sally's snapshot of Half Dome isn't the same as Ansel Adams'.
Fair point, but I guess the distinction I see here is that most (but not all) narrow FoV astrophotography is unchanging and the creative controls related to capture are very limited. Yes, there is a lot of variation in post processing - but as to the "RAW file" we already have publically available technically superior "RAW files" of the entire sky to work from. There are no different perspectives, there is no different lighting or weather like with a terrestrial subject. Composition is completely limited to framing. Variation in capture of a given framing is limited to spectral response. And as to spectral response you've essentially got blackbody emission overlayed with just a few important spectral lines. Since the entire sky has been captured at high resolution multiple times, including with spectral filters, it means that backyard deep sky astrophotography is typically recreating just a snip of a larger RAW data set already available. This is true in a way that is not at all the same as most terrestrial subjects where even without changing perspective there is changing lighting and weather. But I do appreciate it is somewhat analgous to the one millionth photo of Half Dome from Glacier Point and that just because we have lots of photos from Glacier Point shouldn't stop anyone from enjoying the process of shooting and printing their own capture of the same.
Cheers, and thanks so much for taking the time to respond!
-
Aloha,
Why I don't do astrophotography;
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/
A point well taken, but by extension of your analogy very few of us would be taking photographs, since there are always better photographers than ourselves and many of them have a wider availability of scenes to photograph as well as better equipment. However, many of us do take photographs as a means of personal expression and to document our own experience. Furthermore, many of us welcome a challenge to improve our photographic skills.
Regards,
Bill
-
Sarcasm on
Why do anything? There is probably some out there who has already done it. Lets all become useless consumers of everything. Pass the dole.
/sarcasm off
Life is very much about trying to do things.
-
Two fellows meet at a party.
The first says to the other..."Do you play golf?"
"No," says the second man. "Tried it once, didn't like it?"
"Do you play chess?"
"No. Tried it once, didn't like it?"
"Do you do photography?"
"No. Tried it once, didn't like it?"
At this point a child walks over and says something to the second man, who is clearly the little boys father.
The first man comments afterward..."Your only child I presume."
-
Who...whoo....whoooo.....who.cooks.for.youuuuuuuaaaaaaallll (the memory aid for the cry of the barred owl, of which there are plenty in some of the areas where I do star-gazing/ astrophotography. Also, coyote yowls. Also, "hey, look at M# (their favorite Messier object, a galaxy or star cluster)" by neighboring observer with a telescope. I am partial to M45, and I even drive one. (Subaru, which is the Japanese name for the star cluster called the Pleiades in the West).
-
Marvellous response from Michael.
The everpresent sense of fun and mischief make his (and Kevin's) presence at and on LuLa great fun as well as serious photography.
Sean
-
I really liked the "yoga" comparison. Unless you start a very specific project (such as measuring variable stars, hunting for asteroids, measuring the light curves of exoplanets...) astrophotography is indeed somewhat pointless, and I love it that way. The pleasure is in the process as much as it is in the final result. Take it any other way and you'll be disappointed.
Anyone going into this for "results" will be sorely disappointed. There's a channel on youtube where talented pro photographers take cheap trash camera and try to take good pictures. I am a bit ashamed to say that in 99% of the cases, they take better shots with a $99 camera than I do with a $5000 one. But there is no such thing in astrophotography: better skies, more aperture and bigger CCDs always win.
The current most "rational" option if one wants "results" and one doesn't live in an ideal place is to rent time on pre-configured telescopes (for example http://www.itelescope.net/) - but where's the process? Or more correctly, that's a different type of process, more "excel" than "yoga".
Thank you for that very nice article Michael!
Ah, and one word about the stacking vs single shot issue: ideally, longer shots deliver more bang for the buck than the equivalent stacked exposure. However, in practice, it depends on many factors. The most important one for casual amateurs is the background brightness of the sky where one lives. The goal of each exposure is to maximize signal to noise ratio. If you live in a very dark sky area your sky brightness might be at magnitude 24 and you'll need to expose for a long time (depending on your aperture) to reach it. If you live in a suburban area with a sky brightness of mag 19, you'll hit the limit very quickly. Any exposure beyond that limit will drown weak signals in a sea of noise and drastically lower your dynamic range. Where I live, Belgium, one of the most light polluted zones of the world, I hit the limit after about 90 seconds. Above that, I start losing signal. And if I exposed for five unfiltered minutes, I would just get an uneven brownish/yellow image.
-
Well, I learned something a few nights ago, our photo club had an amateur astronomer and local adjunct faculty member give an excellent talk about the sun, and on observation safety. A usable solar filter for visual use or photography can cost under $40.00 USD. Baader Planetarium distributes specialized OD 5.0 (16.7 stop) double-sided coated film in 20 x 29 cm sheets for about $35.00, with instructions on how to make the filter with some poster board, double sided tape, paper glue. OD 5 filter is safe for your eyes and sensor (don't get the OD 3.8 filter sheet if you want to use it for visual as well as photographic observation, it isn't enough filtration to be safe for eyes..
-
Nancy you will be able to see sun spots but you will not see flares or any of that kind of detail. For that you will need a very expensive H-alpha filtered scope. But still fun anyways for a regular camera.
Thousand Oaks optical make screw threaded solar filters for cameras. The danger of film type filters is that if they get a pin-hole it needs to be patched. Here is the last partial solar eclipse taken with a Fuji X-T1 and 55-200mm with a Thousand Oaks solar filter
https://flic.kr/p/oT7WMe
Alan
-
The solution for doing astrophotography in a light polluted area (such as a city) is to use a monochrome CCD camera and narrowband filters.
I'll be writing about this in the new year.
Michael
-
Heck, if the Baader film gets damaged, you throw it away and splurge for another 35 buck Baader film. ;D No, it isn't going to be perfect. For 35 bucks, I will settle for "safe" and "shows the outline of the sun and any large spots" . The lecturer explained the difference between white light, Hydrogen line, and Calcium line observing/ photos. My baseline observation is "very large/long box or tube with foil pinhole at one end, window overlooking "screen" (white paper) at the other end", in other words, the good old camera obscura. Not even a real lens. Cost, free; anyone can make it, I made these when I was a kid. Not to mention the "look at the ground under a leafy tree for sun crescents" method.
Gosh, that's a large sunspot on your series, and it shows up beautifully.
-
Narrow band filters are a solution.
But starting with skies like this (http://www.datarescue.com/life/kepler/hellonearth.jpg)
You can still get results like this (http://www.datarescue.com/life/kepler/20091017/rosette.jpg)
without filters, simply by stacking and managing individual exposures so they have the optimun signal to noise ratio...
Just saying...
Canon 5D / FFC 550 2.7 / 50 stacked exposures of 2 mins at 200 ISO