'What is a good way to focus on the sun for the upcoming eclipse? Would a Hartmann mask work in front of a solar filter?';

'Money sink general';

'>>4272391
That's basically all of photography.';

'astrophotography is a load of horseshit

like if you got to use software to combine hundreds of exposures and align them and use copious amounts of editing to even get it worth looking a I cant call that photography and at that point its basically snapshitting.

And there really is no skill involved. Astrophotography is literally the epitome of gear whoring and a subset of photography where the only thing that really matters is how expensive your setup is and not how good your eye is for composition or art.';

'>>4272391
somewhat depends, cheaper for wide field

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_qqLA0WKJg
https://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/m8+m20.rnclark.c08.12.2015.19frames-t4rs50-d-0.5x-c1s.html';

'>>4272516
You severely underestimate what goes into taking images of space objects. You need a significant knowledge set of how the applications work in order to take images of these incredibly distant objects, and can achieve amazing results on a tight budget if you do some bargain bin hunting or are handy enough to MacGyver a setup. You've spoken like a true ignoramus to the manhours and skillsets needed to image objects far superior to your typical landscape, food bloggers and wedding photographers.';

'>>4272516
Somebody's jealous, kek';

'>>4272538
>You need a significant knowledge set of how the applications work in order to take images of these incredibly distant objects
stacking isnt that hard anon

>and can achieve amazing results on a tight budget if you do some bargain bin hunting or are handy enough to MacGyver a setup
Its not that expensive to get a long prime and a star tracker. the only real hard part about it is if you dont live in a dark area.';

'>>4272607
>stacking isnt that hard anon
You're a retard if you think it's as simple as taking some pictures and putting it in a program.';

'undefined';

'

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

'>>4272620
He's poor jealous and inexperienced. Probably thinks it's simple because ambush took a moon pic with a phone a while back';

'Getting into auto guiding. My total arcseconds keeps increasing over time. For example, it went from 1" to 2" in the course of 30 minutes. Does this indicate poor polar alignment? What's causing it?';

'>>4272777
Well, the moon is simple.
>>4272779
Are you on a solid surface? Your mount could be sinking. Also does it have periodic error correction?';

'>>4272797
>Are you on a solid surface? Your mount could be sinking. Also does it have periodic error correction?
I'm dumb. I noticed after my test session that my ST4 cable was getting hung up. I think it may have prevented the mount from tracking correctly. Will adjust and re-test tomorrow night. Was able to get it up and running in NINA though, so small gains on the night.';

'>>4272620
it literally is. if it wasnt you would be going on about it, but you can't because thats all there is. even for simple things like the milky way you dont even need a tracker. next you'll bring up something irrelevant and retarded like editing.';

'undefined';

'>>4272967
This graphic is retarded.';

'>>4272967
Shouldn't 2 and 3 be swapped?';

'>>4272967
pff you don't need all that, just get a Coolpix P1000

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

'>>4272980
Yes.';

'>>4272982
tiny sensor, poor optical quality, slow lens, need I go further?';

'>>4272333
Checked

>>4272516
>no skill involved
It's only imagery adjacent. Enough to be relevant to /p/. Skill is involved, but it's like planning around weather and other stuff. Bigger the scope, more cooldown necessary, is it skill? It's a huge hassle, and the equipment is very costly.

>composition or art
I agree, it's not real photography proper, since it's subjective and not predicative.

Photography is the preserved living predicated art (the only one). I know it's a rant, but the whole George Floyd thing will die down and no one will remember him, because there is no iconic photo, video is crap and can't be art. Apple is to blame for this situation. Apple could have said, "no, we won't include vidya on foams", after all, they refused to even put cameras on their watches, they sold just fine, and everyone copied them, now Samsung watches don't have cameras.';

'>>4272967
this graphic is retarded. you dont need this for the milky way, i've done it with just a tripod and a sigma 14mm f/1.8 just fine at cadillac mountain in maine. also i'm not sure why you would use a tracking mount for a nightscape as it has the opposite effect.';

'>>4273105
>no picture
>you don't exist';

'>>4273124
>defending his retarded image that's wrong
You googled something and got shitty info, lol. Deal with it. A reflector is not better suited for the moon and planets than a refractor, lol. And a smaller aperture is not better for deep sky. It's just wrong and you're just a faggot.';

'>>4273153
>you don't have a photo
>then you don't exist
I am replying to nobody. Whoever it is, he doesn't exist.';

'>>4272516
Before stacking a load of photos you need to learn the skills to take them, where to take them, how to take them and how to process them. When you're taking photos with superteles even temperature is a factor. There definitively is a set of skills to learn before taking a decent photo of whatever in the space.

That said, I personally tinkered with deep space photography but stick to wide field as there isn't any really creative challenge in deep space, only technical and you will never match photos taken out of the atmosphere by national space agencies.
But the skills you learn by doing astro may be useful in other field as well and it's still a great personal satisfaction doing deep space.

t. Night panoramas shooter';

'>>4273158
Let me get this straight: This is your photo:
>>4272967

The incorrect image you downloaded from google is your photo, and this gives you the power to deny it being bad information.';

'>>4273174
>claims to be a photographer
>posts no images
>does not exist
He does not exist. He is nonexisting. A nonexistence: nothing.';

'>>4273178
>repeats his childish desperation
It won't make your disinfographic go away but have fun with that, notphotog.';

'>>4273179
I didn't post it, you mouthbreathing street person.';

'>>4273187
>won't stop defending disinfo he didn't even post
Seems unlikely, friend.
>demands photos yet hasn't posted a single photo while talking to me
Surely you see the source of my amusement, loser.';

'Nobody here.';

'>>4273178
Why would he post a photo? A crappy 1mb jpg isn’t even worth looking at.';

'>>4273210
>resorting to samefagging
You haven't posted a single image since responding to me. My first post itt was >>4272969

You posted bad info (that you googled like a noob) which proves you're in over your head. Which snapshit is yours?';

'>>4273051
can't hear you I'm ZOOOOOOMING';

'>>4273334
To defeat the p950/p1000, just post terrestrial photography with only modestly more $$ involved.';

'Had better results on my initial stages into auto guiding last night. I installed the PHD2 developers platform instead of the stable release to get the benefit of multi star tracking. Even with a rough mount alignment—just facing north, not polar aligned—and three sets of single star alignment to create a pseudo three star alignment (very narrow window of sky scape) I was getting anywhere between 1 to 1.5 arcseconds without azimuth adjustments. Not back if I say so considering the hack job on alignment. Shot my longest exposures so far (3 minutes) with zero star trailing. Also started playing around with creating sequences; goodbye intervalometer.';

'>>4272382
Jesus said, it is better to enter the Kingdom with one eye than hell with both.';

'>>4273656
i have a solar filter a mirrorless camera, it isnt my eye i'm worried about, its finding something with contrast';

'41 posts and only 3 pictures. Wtf are you doing anons?

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

'>>4274011
Living under clouds

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

'Clouds been tough here too, with rain in the forecast for end of week. I've instead been trying to work on my post processing routine. I have no idea how some of these people who only have like 30 minutes of integration are getting crystal clear, high detail images that would take me hours of integration to achieve. They're either full of shit or I suck at post processing; a little of both I imagine.';

'>>4274092
maybe your skies suck hard ?';

'>>4274119
They're certainly not the best, but to cite and example of some lunacy, the person who shot this indicates it was only done with 15 minute total integration time. It's hard not to call bs.';

'>>4274132
what is your SQM? has it gone worse in the last years ?';

'>>4272980
>>4272990
no, not in slightest, for planets you want always a mak (most optimal) since it has a lot of focal length, large dsos need smol fl most optimal will be small apo refractor or Cs with hyperstar or RASA, at over 700mm most of the largest DSOs wont fit, you would have to use 2 pics and stitch them like hubble does (but it often takes tens)

>>4273105
>a tracking mount for a nightscape as it has the opposite effect

correct, but milky way is a slow moving target that most likely will give you trailing at 30sec exposures, you still can certainly stack with sequator';

'>>4274265
I just used 6 second exposures and it worked out fine, f/1.8, ISO 25600';

'>>4274132
Unless this was taken in the middle of the Sahara desert than there's no way that's a 15 minute set.

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

'>>4274374
Here's the kicker. They said they did it in bortle 8-9.';

'>>4274468
mine is in a bortle 6... 20x 3 min, so that that just confirms that it's bs';

'>>4274474
an hyperstar perhaps ?';

'>>4274374
flame nebula is NGC 2024, congrats';

'>>4274492
It's not about the kit. Getting >>4274132 in a bortle 8-9 in 15 minutes is just ass gravy of the highest order';

'Finally got a small window again this evening. Gonna try the crab nebula again. The one I got 2 years ago didn't turn out really nice.';

'>>4272516
>ike if you got to use software to combine hundreds of exposures and align them and use copious amounts of editing to even get it worth looking a I cant call that photography and at that point its basically snapshitting.
space is fake. so it fits. fake photographs of a fake thing';

'Much better this time.

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

'>>4274966
this looks worse than before and like you missed infinity focus as well';

'>>4274966
What's your process and gear? I feel like it could be optimized further.';

'>>4274992
I like the softer colors better. Old one has way too much rgb noise.
>>4274993
This was done with a C9,25 30x 5 minutes, but had to dump 15 frames for some reason. Guidechart was around 1 archsecond';

'Do eclipses count as astrophotography? How will yall photograph the April 8th one';

'>>4275022
My plan is a Nikon 500mm f/5.6 with a 1.4xTC. I doubt many people here even do astro as no one could answer >>4272382';

'>>4275041
Money and time investment are pretty big so I think there's only like 3 guys in this board who actually do astro. I am not one of them.


>Nikon 500mm f/5.6 with a 1.4xTC
Pretty legit. Where will you be watching from? I hear southern texas is a good bet.';

'>>4275051
From Chicago, booked a hotel in Indianapolis. Not sure how far i'll be able to go away from the city as i'll have a 11 month old when it comes around.';

'>>4275041
you may simply want to achieve infinity focus ?';

'>>4275004
Using a bahtinov mask at all for initial focus?';

'>>4275061
yes thats the plan. i'm guessing i cant use a bahtinov mask for focus as the sun isnt a small point light source, which is why i was asking about a hartmann mask, which seems to be used for things like focusing on the moon';

'>>4275066
I ran an autofocusser through NINA.';

'how bad did i do?

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

'

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

'>>4275905
>>4275907
Stars are round for the most part. Some vignetting on the outside that needs to be cropped out. No apparent aberatioms. Looks like orion taken by an ultra wide field lens, maybe a phone. Can't complain. It is what it is.';

'I'm not sure if I posted this. Frosty, slightly hazy night.

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

'>>4275932
>f/11';

'>>4275937
>Looney 11 rule
And?';

'>>4275938
>>Looney 11 rule
I had to google this an this is some retarded boomer era rule from before cameras did auto-exposure. And you're a retard for using it with a camera made in the past 30 years.';

'>>4275932
Most of that haze is from you raping the image. It's sharpened to cartoonish levels as well, calm your shit.';

'>>4275938
>>4275932
also further proving how retarded you are, you did it wrong. you're supposed to set your shutter speed to your cameras ISO value if you're actually following this rule';

'>>4272826
how do I wavelets?';

'El Nino is an astro killer. Haven't had a clear sky in a month.';

'>>4276962
its almost full moon anyways, jupiter and orion are still somewhat fun to see at this time though, seeing was not good tonight';

'>>4276969
I just got a 2x barlow for my now scope, turning a 360mm into a 720mm. Was hoping to get some close up shots of the full moon. I'll have to wait if it doesn't clear up. Only good thing is this weekend looks like the clouds might clear a bit. I've taken a few 360mm shots of orion. Would really like to see what 720mm can do on it. Also been waiting to do a multi-night project on orion to see how much more data I can get on it. Want to see if more exposure will give me more detail and less blur.';

'Took about 300 subs of the moon tonight. Tried stacking in PIPP but they always come out purple. Tried various debayering options but nothing outputs correctly. I read PIPP doesn't like CR2 files and converting them to tiff files files the issue. What program can I use to batch convert CR2 to tiff?';

'>>4275905
looks like you crushed the blacks a bit.

reprocess it.';

'>>4277833
Issue resolved. PIPP doesn't like native canon CR2. Had to covert to DNG, then TIFF, then stack. Very pleased considering this is my first moon shot, and I was using a very janky setup—360mm w/ 2x barlow and sketchy extension tube setup for focus. Image is before and after processing.';

'>>4277996
Made some minor adjustments to contrast, much happier with the image. A before and after processing.

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

'>>4278535
>sharpening +1000';

'How do I get my ZWO-ASI224-MC ti work under Linux? I fucking hate Windows with a passion.

Or do I have to just build a computer for my telescope that runs gay ass spyware from Microsoft?';

'>>4278920
Raspberry Pi + Indigo Sky firmware';

'Rain for the next week. Missing my window to for the rosette nebula. Only objects coming up are starting clusters; how boring.';

'

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

'>>4279587
Great multi-galaxy shot bud';

'A few of my photos. Try not to rage too much at my poor technique, cheap equipment, and lack of alignment. I picked the most difficult hobby.

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

'>>4279842

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

'>>4279844

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

'>>4279845

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

'>>4279846
These two were from the October '23 annular eclipse. Had to shoot most of it through clouds and the effects were pretty great.

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

'

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

'>>4279845
so what did you use. also any tips on focusing on the sun? just hope there are sun spots? a hartmann mask?';

'>>4280196
This was mine->>4280143
I used an ND100000 solar filter and let autofocus do it's thing. First attempt with the filter. I tried a few settings and that one seemed to work OK.';

'>>4280196
oh yeah... use live view and never a viewfinder. Never risk looking at the Sun through a viewfinder no matter what filter you have.';

'>>4280196
I don't use an hartmann mask for shooting the sun. I use canon live view on a laptop, and adjust focus between shots using the telescope's primary focuser. I can adjust focus using the camera's liveview as well but I'd rather keep my hands off the telescope and camera setup if possible.

I use a solar filter on an 8" telescope.

When I was shooting last year's annular eclipse the trip into the mountains jiggled the telescope enough that it needed to be aligned properly (collimate) to bring sunspots into focus, and I didn't have time before the eclipse started.';

'>>4280143
Attempt #2. Completely winging it here, but the detail on the surface came out a bit more. I know the Sun's surface has a lot of texture, but I'm not sure if I went too far in post. I focused on the sun spots to get them as clear as possible since they had the most detail and called it a day.

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

'>>4280402
>>4280143
These are kick ass. Solar activity is decent right now. Would you be down to share the unprocessed file?';

'>>4280402
why f16';

'>>4280515
I tried from f/8 to f/22 and that seems to be the sweet spot for exposure with the ND filter I'm using. I have a Tamron 100-400mm lens and all the wonks who reviewed it said it's a bit soft on the far ends of the aperture so that seems a nice middle area, too.

The sunspots are my main tool to gauge the shot, since I can check what the real telescopes are seeing at the moment and compare to what I'm getting.

Always open to suggestions. This is all new to me, since I've only taken moon pictures and horrible, tiny pictures of Saturn and Jupiter.';

'>>4280522
At f/16 you would be suffering from diffraction. Not sure why you just didnt increase shutter speed.';

'>>4280527
What would you suggest.';

'>>4280547
wide open. the only thing stopping down gets you with this lens is less vignetting which is pointless when shooting the sun. and as you can see below, going to f/16 is making things softer due to diffraction.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1178&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=5&LensComp=1178&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1';

'>>4280577
I will give it a try. Like I said, this is very new to me.';

'Myh fellow goyim, any tips on shooting the upcoming solar eclipse? What solar filter should ayh get? Myh lens accepts a 52 mm drop-in filter and ayh'm thinking that a 52 mm solar filter would be enouf.';

'WHY WONT THE CLOUDS GO AWAY I WANT TO USE MY NEW SCOPE';

'>>4280616
Solar filter film at front of lens. A 6x6" sheet is like $12 in Amazon. If you have extra thumbs in your hands framed versions are available for a price.. Solar filter film for photography lets more light thru than visual filter so mind that.
Drop in filter will not protect insides of your lens from melting.';

'>>4280616
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/09/rental-camera-gear-destroyed-by-the-solar-eclipse-of-2017/';

'>>4280666
>Solar filter film for photography lets more light thru than visual filter so mind that.
generally no. baeeder makes one which does, but the normal stuff from them and thousand oaks does not.';

'April 8';

'>>4280666
how ghetto would I be if I just put a welding mask in front of my telescope?';

'>>4280666
>Solar filter film at front of lens
Do ayh just tape it over the front or am ayh really better off with one of those "framed" filters with screws to mount it?
>Drop in filter will not protect insides of your lens from melting.
Ayh have not considered this point and ayh thank you right now for saving myh lens, Mister Triplets.';

'>>4280939
https://astro.catshill.com/solar-filter/';

'>>4280948
What's yorh opinion on Baader versus Thousand Oaks solar filter films?';

'>>4280904
apparently you'll be OK with a minimum of shade 12.
>captcha HMMM';

'>>4280939
You can make a frame which fits over your lens by yourself from like cardboard + tape or whatever material you can handle. Or you can buy one that fits. For a total solar eclipse it should be easy enough to remove (for duration of totality) without moving the camera but not easy to accidentally knock off by small bump or wind.';

'>>4280904
A #12 or #14 welding glass is safe for visual without telescope. I dunno if optical quality is good enough for any magnification. Welding glass would definitely not be safe between eye and ocular!
Solar filter film at front of telescope / camera objective is cheap and safe.';

'>>4275941
>>4275939
Just proving you have no idea what you are talking about';

'>>4281125
let me hold your hand like the retard you are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looney_11_rule
>is a method of estimating correct exposures without a light meter
>"For astronomical photos of the Moon's surface, set aperture to f/11 and shutter speed to the [reciprocal of the] ISO film speed [or ISO setting]."
you stupid fucking boomers are too dumb to even follow your own retarded rules';

'tried to take a pic of orion but I couldnt hold my phone steady and I feel like my scope is out of collimation. havent had a scope in over 20 years im still trying to learn how to a eq mount.

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

'>>4275907
Kino. I love the shade of blue in the middle.';

'>>4275932
despite all the negative press, I think the approach is original and it just "looks cool"
saved';

'>>4279587
ooww you wasted these photons
bahtinov now!

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

'Will finally have a clear night tonight, but all the DSO that are interesting break over the horizon at 4am. Might attempt to capture the filamentary nebula tonight.';

'meow

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

'can i please get a gear check for the eclipse? i'm basically trying to start astrophotography on a budget, using my equipment and experience with microphotography. solar seems like a good place to start because i'm not necessarily ready to invest in a star tracker at this moment
>slik pro 700dx tripod
>canon eos 2000d that i full-spectrum modded myself
>old jap-made soligor 400mm fixed lens from ebay
>this came with a 3x teleconverter i prolly won't use
>thousand oaks screw-in lens filter
>3d-printed hot shoe sun finder
>thousand oaks eclipse glasses
>$20 chinesium intervalometer
>$20 chinesium dew heater cuz it's gonna be cold here
all told, i'm about $400 in, including the tripod but excluding the camera body. the tripod is light and sturdy enough for general-purpose use. this should be totally fine for a "deluxe budget" setup, right? good equipment all around with some cheap lil extras thrown in. now if only the clouds would go away so i can practice';

'>>4282407
and by the grace of god almighty, just after i posted this, the clouds parted enough for me to practice a bit. it seems that the teleconverter glass may have had 2 dust motes and a small crack, but it gives a perfect focal length for the sun and locating/focusing wasn't significantly harder. though i'm used to focusing on a microscope, which doesn't jiggle nearly enough as trying to focus on something directly attached to the camera. here's a first, completely unprocessed attempt, single exposure. i'd be quite excited for moonrise tonight if we weren't cucked by a new moon just yesterday

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

'i picked up a Celestron AstroMaster 70 at a garage sale, the thing was very dirty, and holy crap, I didnt know they made them this cheap.
I took it all apart, cleaned all the lenses, and was able to get a quick view of Jupiter during a brief period of clear skies last night. new moon today, hopefully no clouds.
I want to use this telescope for the solar eclipse. looking to buy pic related, will this do?
also, any recommendations for the telescope? i plan on using it at the 200 yard range as well.';

'>>4282420
after some lazy-ass post-processing, got a lot to learn still';

'>>4282407
>>this came with a 3x teleconverter i prolly won't use
this sounds useless. one because its quality is probably shit. and two because you have a shitty 400mm lens anyways and a crop sensor.

>>$20 chinesium dew heater cuz it's gonna be cold here
where are you where it is going to be that cold? I'm going to Indiana and its supposed to be in the mid 50s.

>slik pro 700dx
dont extend the legs all the way. also you need a tripod head, given your budget a geared head is probably outside of it.

>>4282420
>>4282432
that fucking glow. anyways pic related, you have a field of view equivalent of a 600mm full frame lens. you probably dont want to use that teleconverter, even if it wasnt shitty.

i'm going with a Z7, Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF and a NiSi solar filter.

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

'>>4282450
thanks, i think. like i said, it's all about getting as much practice as possible and not gearfagging too much. some things were necessary, like having such basic equipment as a tripod and solar filter. i'm going to either burlington or rochester so it's most likely gonna be cold and humid. a cheap $20 usb heater is fine. imma get some experience before i commit to spending big money, but i'd probably be willing to invest about $5k into the hobby over time. there's lots of crossover with microphotography and my used nikon labophot has helped produce some amazing pictures, it's all about technique';

'>>4282456
keep in mind the next total solar eclipse in north america wont be for another 20+ years';

'>>4282460
yes, i'm aware, hence why i've been preparing everything from locations, camping gear, photo gear, and skills since about october. i'm ultimately more interested in imaging nebulae, but am already thinking about IIRC iceland 2026 and australia 2030. that being said, i really believe that better technique will almost always give better results than better equipment. picrel is my very 1st (shitty) microscope photo';

'>>4282465
and picrel is a much more recent one. the only difference is for the 1st, i borrowed my mother's eos t5, and the 2nd, i used my own t7. so slight equipment upgrade but same prosumer-tier camera';

'Wasted some sleep. Got up at 3am to image Sadr and its surrounding emission. Did a dumb thing and used NINA's histogram instead of my DSLRs and ended up overexposing the entire session. At least it was only a 2 hour session.';

'>>4282402
is that the flame nebula barely visible?';

'>>4282670
doubt.jpg';

'>>4282670
Yes';

'>>4272333
rate my first astro photo ever

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

'>>4283089
I'll be a bit critical, but don't worry. You were limited with the gear on-hand and tried your best, so don't worry on the critique so much and just remember you had fun shooting your object.

1) The stars aren't round. This is due to what I imagine a phone's limitations are, and potentially your exposure time. It can easily be improved with better gear.
2) There's clear vignetting due to ambient light from below. There's ways to fix this in post processing. You would take an exposure of the sky in complete dark, and then take another exposure with the lighting and then subtract the sky from your landscape. I would call it an intermediate technique, but something to look into if you like landscape shots.
3) It's a pretty normal night shot; nothing stands out. I will give you kudos for the attempt at a landscape shot. It was thoughtfully setup, but again, your gear really limited you. I think you can do better, and I hope you attempt to do better. It's a fun hobby. Despite it's high cost entry, you can actually get away at producing very good results sub $800.';

'>>4283313
how do you get round stars?';

'>>4283313
>. I will give you kudos for the attempt at a landscape shot
there is a fucking tree in the corner. this is hardly a nightscape.

>>4283392
they're caused by two issues, the stars moving through the sky, which you would need a tracker for, or to use a shorter exposure time. and abberations caused by your lens:
https://www.lonelyspeck.com/a-practical-guide-to-lens-aberrations-and-the-lonely-speck-aberration-test/';

'>>4282432
today was bright and sunny, so i took the time to practice again. this time, i used the "correct" method by taking 400 light frames with auto exposure bracketing and all manual settings. i also took 100 each of darks, flats, and bias frames. siril failed the OSC_Preprocessing script, which is for the best, as it forced me to learn how to manually preprocess. i tried to bring out the detail of the sunspots with unsharp masking, hope i didn't fry the image. i can also go back in gimp if so';

'>>4283551
this is my imaging setup as described here >>4282407

so it's nothing special. i'm just hoping it's possible to resolve greater sunspot detail and maybe even some surface texture with better technique and/or more exposures, but there's a definite limit to the resolution i can achieve';

'>>4283551
looks out of focus, or is it just that soft

>>4283558
i still need to practice some but its been cloudy on the weekends.

robus 5570
leofoto 75mm leveling base
acratech 1" riser
benro geared head
nikon z7
nikon 500mm f/5.6
nisi solar filter

probably going to see if i can write a python script for smart shooter to do exposure bracketing

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

'>>4283565
>nisi solar filter
I wonder how this thing compared to filter films when it comes to fading. Which leads to my second question: how long can a solar film be used before it fades to being unsafe? Are there data on this?';

'>>4283568
no idea but since the sun is generally constantly bright, if you start noticing exposure is significantly shorter than before you can probably assume that your filter is damaged.';

'>>4283565
it's most likely out of focus, desu. i didn't spend a huge amount of time focusing, and the camera jiggles like crazy when i touch the lens. just a skill i have to get better at, trying to focus something bright while it's constantly jiggling and i can barely see the live view. i'll prolly spin up a siril processing VM on my home server so i can just throw like 32 xeon threads at it, cuz stacking took like 15-20 min on my laptop and i wanna work with at least 2x or 3x the data volume going forward';

'meow';

'undefined';

'>>4282670
maybe :3';

'got a little blast from the past for you guys. one of my neighbors took this photo of what i believe is comet P/Shoemaker-Levy 9 about to crash into jupiter in the mid-90s';

'>>4283789
Diddnt sl9 hit jupiter on the dark side?';

'>>4283792
i'm not exactly sure, i just remember getting a print of this in the mid to late 90s. i reached out to the guy to let him know that i'm getting into astrophoto myself, maybe he can say exactly what it depicts. there aren't any notes on the print besides his initials in the corner. just thought it was kinda cool to share';

'>>4283793
I was just wondering cause I knew it impacted out of sight. looks cool as fuck though diddnt know it was visible after it broke into pieces.';

'>>4283580
ran in to a similar problem as you where focus is too sensitive. i'm going to need to see if i can tether it and manually focus that way. Also I really need to hook up a 1.4X teleconverter

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

'>>4283580
>>4283813
>focus is too sensitive
so I ended up ordering this. the camera will still shake but at least it should allow me to find tune focus a bit more
https://sunwayfoto-store.com/products/drh-60-65-70-77-88-focusing-handles?variant=41749578383518';

'>>4283819
thanks, i might as well order one for myself. it's definitely a different set of challenges from microphotography, namely the lack of fine focusing and (for night) long exposure times vs. having a depth of field that's microns thick and dealing with bubbles';

'

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

'>>4272333
I am still an astrophotography noob but here's something I tried a few months ago. I'd like to try deep space objects like Andromeda or Orion but I don't have a tracker, is it possible without or am I wasting my time';

'>>4284065
Not impossible at all. My first ever DSO was of Orion using a DSLR. 300mm kit lens and a standard tripod. You just have to use many short exposures to get a stack. If I recall, I took something like 1300x1" exposures and got a passable image. It's not efficient, but it gets the job done.';

'>>4284159
>stacking 1 second long exposures at 300mm
isnt that a bit long? that is a 6 pixel star trail at 24mp full frame';

'>>4284187
It was my first ever shot; didn't know squat about the hobby. You can do it, it's just not going to be an amazing image.

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

'>>4284290
guess that doesn't look as bad as i expected';

'>>4274270
The only lens with 1.8 worth using is Canon's 200mm f1.8';

'>>4274629
The problem is image scale, you need 4000mm';

'Amateur astronomy

https://imgur.com/gallery/2WpE1dB';

'Telescope Restoration https://imgur.com/gallery/WbyvXx3';

'Correctors, blanks https://imgur.com/gallery/h2c0xwH';

'Total Lunar 2019 https://imgur.com/gallery/tyu9zZ0';

'https://i.imgur.com/CSkTeLk.jpeg';

'I wish the phone pics would be as sharp as it looks in the eyepiece

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

'Would the S5 be good for astro?';

'I took this photo a while ago, stacked of course.

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

'>>4285447';

'>>4285448
These are all through a f/5 150mm reflector, barlowed to a focal length of 1500mm f/10

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

'>>4285356
Be sure to leave a cat hair on one of the internal lenses.';

'my barlow came in and I was able to see the bands on jupiter but couldnt get a good pic

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

'>>4285827

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

'meow';

'Venus and Mars are in conjunction tonight. Anyone gonna take some pics?';

'>>4285893
got my alarm set but I have a bunch of trees around me';

'>>4280577
I had another rare clear sky day when I was home. So, I shot wide open @ 1/500. Only problem was it's a bit breezy so I'm sure they lost me some detail.

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

'>>4287585
Also, the Moon from the other night.

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

'>>4272516
>And there really is no skill involved
Dunno man, if I hand a Leica to a rando and tell him to take a good pic I think his chance of success would be far greater than if I told him to pack up that telescope with camera attached and that ultra book to get me a clear astro image.
He would have to learn a lot about exposure, editing, optics, astronomy and so on to get any image whatsoever.';

'>>4287585
any reason these are so sharp compared to most other sun spot photos i see? is it just a bunch of exposures stacked and sharpened in post?';

'>>4287760
I just started taking solar pictures recently, but I've been taking moon pictures for years. A lot of what I learned applied over. Solid tripod, image stabilization turned off, live view zoomed in all the way and manual focus, and a 10 second shutter delay to eliminate camera shake.

On that shot, I was at f/6.3 (wide open), 400mm lens, 1/500 shutter speed, and ISO 100. At that magnification, you need as fast a shutter speed as possible, since the sun will visibly move across the screen.

And, of course, shooting in RAW and doing normal corrections in Lightroom.

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

'>>4287763
post the raw';

'>>4287766
Sure... we can upload 34mb files, right?';

'>>4287768
put it on catbox or something';

'>>4287768
>>4287770
catbox.moe or literally one of the thousand other file sharing sites';

'>>4272333
look at my astro!

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

'>>4287874
Wait until you get a real sensor, but not bad kid
Just not enough to post here with the big boys';

'>>4287875
nah I'm into offroading as another hobby. that's of a money sink enough. I just keep it to cheap ass photo gear for now :)

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

'should probably get a mount to help get my pics in focus

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

'Finally pulled the trigger on a bunch of gear and tonight i managed to take first light and i can't begin to describe how happy i am.

This is only 1:30 hours of data with narrowband because clouds rolled in early';

'>>4288121

Nice, what did you buy?';

'>>4288124
Basically the entire setup
>Askar 65PHQ
>ASI533MC Pro
>ASIAir
>ZWO 30mm guidescope
>ASI120MM
>used flat panel
>used as new SW Star Adventurer Gti

Also pixinsight.';

'>>4288126
Oh and also an Optolong L-Ultimate filter

I got the mount a couple months ago to try and image with a mirrorless and telephoto lens but i couldn't get anything decent, everything was blurry and completely drowned in light pollution.';

'>>4288126
65PHQ only has a focal length of ~400mm. What the hell target were you shooting?';

'>>4288140
this >>4288121 seems the rossete nebula, did he heavily crop the image ?';

'>>4288121
Fucking nice anon.';

'>>4288140
>>4288144

Absolutely seething lol just start saving some money so you can afford it.';

'>>4288144
No crop apart from a small one to remove stacking artifacts, the 533 just has a square sensor.

The APS-C sized camera (2600) costs more than twice the 533 and i figured out it wouldn't give me that much field of view since most targets can get framed well enough in the 533 however i will try mosaics for bigger targets for sure.';

'>>4285352
Shooting with anything over 2k doesn't get you any better resolution. At that point you're limited by seeing, not pixel size and unless you live in a desert you can hope for seeing conditions of 1" or maybe 0,7" at most, any pixel smaller than that will just get you an oversampled image. It's fine if you're shooting planets though.';

'Finally got a tracking mount but it's a total lemon. First time with astro and I was only able to get 3 minutes of exposure on M42

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

'>>4288961
That's pretty cool anon';

'I think I'm picking this up somewhat as a stupid side hobby when I'm out camping.
Couple weeks ago I found a 45x spotting scope at a thrift store for nothing and brought it with me my last camping trip. This was the result of me just holding it up to my phone.
Should I continue or nah? I kinda want to look into something now that can see jupiter and it's moons. But not spend too much on it';

'>>4288121
NICE bro wow';

'>>4285839
though it was kinda cloudy got my best view so far';

'The firmament sure is beautiful.';

'I can’t wait to retry a long wide-field film exposure this summer. The satellite trails will be glorious.

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

'I live right in the path of the total eclipse (near Carbondale Illinois)
I impulse bought a Sony alpha at the beginning of the pandemic, played a lot with it but I'm still a big beginner.

I have
>opteka 500mm f6.3 reflex lens
>420-800mm f8-16 telescope lens
>55-210 Sony kit lens (w Olympus 1.7 teleconverter)
>16-70 f4 Zeiss lens

I don't know if I should buy a sky watcher star tracker mount and just use one of my lenses. Or maybe try and find a used telescope and attach my camera to it.

I only have maybe a $4-500 max budget.
With the equipment I have what would you do?

The 420-800 telescope lens is really pretty bad. I remember the 500mm reflex being a nicer, I'm not sure how great it really is though. The 210 with the teleconverter is pretty sharp but only 357mm.
70mm seems too wide.

I just found out about the eclipse tonight, I need to pick equipment and start practicing soon';

'>>4288961
>>4289033
Got a better mount and was able to get 83 minutes the other night

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

'>>4290706
Much improved image quality. What made you believe your first mount was a dud? The blurriness of the image?';

'>>4290387
>I don't know if I should buy a sky watcher star tracker mount and just use one of my lenses
you'll have problems aligning the mount considering there arent any stars out. also you arent taking a long exposure so the mount will only keep the sun in frame for you. if you dont mind having to fiddle with it every couple minutes, a geared head will also work and probably be more useful after the eclipse. the benro gd3wh is nice for what it costs and is within your budget.

you'll also need a solar filter, if you're not looking to spend a lot you can get film from baeeder or thousand oaks film for probably $30 or so.

> I remember the 500mm reflex being a nicer
for lens decision it depends on if you have a full frame or aps-c sensor. from everything i've read there should be more solar activity this year than in 2017 so on full frame a 500mm should get it all in.';

'>>4290706
Man this one is great.

t. Official judge of the board';

'>>4290755
Even after proper polar alignment with the correct gps coordinates input, I'd select Sirius or M42 and it would slew to the ground or anywhere but the target. It wouldn't slew manually most of the time, but even if it did it wouldn't be able to track properly since it thought it was somewhere else';

'Is it worth getting Vixen Polarie U for casual astro photography?';

'what is this bullshit how can a 20s exposure look like this earth really do be moving fast as fuck huh astrobros, I had more luck with 8s but my camera ran out of battery before I could figure out how to get the stars in focus we'll try again in a few hours';

'>>4292541
Update: I think I am fucking myself by shooting wide open. Still can't nail focus. Will attempt shooting at f/5.6 tomorrow.';

'>>4292576
Actually I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about that's just gonna create some nasty trails. Maybe I should lean into it and do like a 10 minute exposure.';

'M45 taken with my phone';

'Did I spot an alien?

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

'Jupiter and it's 4 moons taken with my phone

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

'>>4292576
Shooting wide open isnt going to make a difference. You'll be at hyperfocal distance when focusing on the stars. It looks like your exposure is too long. Post something with EXIF. When I was shooting with a Z7 and a Sigma 14mm I had to limit myself to 3 seconds I think to prevent trails, and use stacking.';

'>>4290706
Very nice, very very nice!

However you can see you're just about overexposing the core, if you have the chance you can try HDR, Orion's nebula is the only target that really benefits a lot from high dinamic range';

'

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

'>>4293662
lower your exposure, youll lose the moons but you might see the bands.';

'>>4293899
My goal was to see the moons tho, but I'll maybe get a chance to see if I can do that this weekend.
It's not hopeful due to so few pixels being used.
I need more magnification But that's just More light loss and less sharpness and more chromatic aberration';

'stuck with the moon, I cant find any nebulae or galaxies.

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

'>>4292873
M45 with a bit more cowbell still with a phone

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

'>>4293922
You can try jupiter, but it's super late in the year so you have like 20 minutes after it gets proper dark before it gets too low';

'>>4295279
i think even then you may still get atmospheric dispersion';

'>>4295279
Ive gotten a look at jupiter >>4289688 but it is getting kinda low. When im not looking at the moon Ive been looking for star clusters since theyre easier to spot. pleiades, beehive, hercules, pinwheel, starfish, m3 and m5 so far.

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

'>>4295553
Your moon is a fair bit better than mine but your stars seem about the same or a little worse with the weird oily compressed noise stuff
Are you shooting in raw and then post processing? You kinda should be I think
What scope are you using?

Damn I need to branch out to other star clusters but from my deck all I can aim at is west which is just m45 and some much less bright stuff and of course jupiter
I should get a ptz mount';

'>>4295932
My scope is an orion 134mm and I use a pixel 6 pro in night mode. It takes 6 second exposures and since I dont have a tracking mount im guessing thats whats giving it star trails and artifacts. I dont know how to edit Ive only started a few weeks ago.

You should check for the beehive cluster its in cancer it should pass almost directly over. Its one of my favorite clusters since it appears big in a low power eyepiece unlike m3 and m5. Its been cloudy and the moon is out so I havent tried for any DSOs recently.

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

'DSLR is better for astro than MILC because of focusing?';

'>>4292274
nwm
I ordered Fornax';

'>>4295950
Why would a DSLR be better for astro focusing?';

'>>4295958
optical view finder';

'>>4295984
It seems like evf punch in would be far more useful than optical';

'>>4295985
Yes and no
Optical wins when your stand is shit and you have a high magnification, but evf Is better if your hardware is good';

'for astro focusing you always need to achieve infinity focus rite ? use jewpeter or sirius to aid urself';

'>>4296155
Yea lol you can actually use the moon if it's available but your focus shouldn't be a needlepoint so you can always just set it and mark it or make a note of where';

'>>4295935
no clouds last night';

'>>4296599
I observed the Moon on Monday and the angle of the Sun created a cool effect inside the crater Clavius.
The whole crater was in darkness except for the rims of the smaller craters Clavius C and D which looked like a crescent moon and the astrological symbol for Aries.
It was hard to get a good picture/video of it but it was really cool to look at visually.
It was a good observing session. I saw Rima Hadley for the first time which is a 80km long and 1.2km wide channel the meanders in the valley south west of Mount Hadley.
David Scott and James Irwin visited it with the lunar rover during the Apollo 15 mission.';

'>>4296656
how much more can we go than this? how much more to be able to see a landing site or something';

'>>4296656
Think I need a more powerful eyepiece, currently im limited to the 10mm and 2x barlow the scope came with. I cant get that close without digital zoom.';

'>>4287585
based. this is probably close to the maximum resolution i can achieve. got caught up with camping preparations for the eclipse, need to do some more practice sessions. i did focus on some text and found the sweet spot for my lens (f/11), and corrected my shutter speed to be lower exposed. also need to set up a VM for processing data on my home server

>>4287760
skill issue, focusing accurately is pretty hard

>>4287763
what's your opinion on these settings?

f/11 (sharpest) at 1/800s
f/8 (less sharp) at 1/400s

ISO 100 for either
640mm effective focal length';

'>>4273173
>you will never match photos taken out of the atmosphere by national space agencies.
Meh, that's not really the point though. Pictures from the Hubble or James Webb will always be better from a technical standpoint (maybe even a creative standpoint too in some cases) and there will always be someone who has a more expensive setup than you in this hobby. The only creative thing here is in the editing stage where pictures can vary pretty wildly.
>>4272516
>and use copious amounts of editing to even get it worth looking a
That's because most of the time peoples photos are boring right out of the gate (this extends to regular photography as well). It's also true nature of ap in general. The only photos that get props are those severely over edited and they do look stunning I'll admit. That's the creative part.';

'Yo I need some help
I don't have anything bigger than a 200 for the eclipse so I will attempt to shoot something like picrel, a landscape-y shot with the eclipse.
How badly can I fuck my mirrorless sensor if I try to shoot without a sun filter? Should I just use a weak ND instead?
I'm thinking I'll be using a 70 at the most, as I read that longer focal lengths run a higher risk of burning the sensor. Thoughts?

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

'>>4297095
>skill issue, focusing accurately is pretty hard
CDAF makes this easy. its just grossly over processed images from people who refuse to post RAWs';

'>>4298125
>o I will attempt to shoot something like picrel
you realize that is a horrible composite. The sun and moon isnt that large. also why the fuck is the diamond ring on the bottom of the moon?';

'>>4298135
Gotta be honest I just grabbed the first pic in google that resembled what I had in mind.
Photo is shit but you get the point.';

'>>4298125
You will ruin your sensor doing this wrong on purpose. You know obviously read you need the correct protections, so get them.';

'>>4298125
>How badly can I fuck my mirrorless sensor if I try to shoot without a sun filter?';

'>>4298142
that would be a shutter';

'Put together a solar filter and tested it out today. I think im ready for the eclipse.

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