Astrophotography

[Phobos]

Looking for advice?
Willing to share your expertise with other PF members?
Brave enough to share & discuss your own astrophotos?
Then this is the thread for you.
Enjoy!

In all our cosmological discussions, let's not forget to actually go stargazing once in a while! :biggrin:

Thanks to member check for this suggestion!

[check]

Well since I suggested the thread…
Here’s a crop from my very first astro-pic. It’s not super sharp or of great magnification, but I was pretty happy with my first attempt.

This is a photo of the Moon, southern portion. It shows Crater Calvius near the centre, and Crater Tycho near the top.

Enjoy.

[Phobos]

Thanks check. What equipment/settings did you use?

[turbo]

Here is a picture of the Orion Nebula (always a favorite) that I took through my 6" Astro-Physics refractor about 15 years ago. I used an OM-1 camera body at prime focus (mirror locked up) loaded with Konica ASA 3200 (grainy, but fast) and a 20-minute exposure.

To digitize the picture, I imaged the 5x7 print with a digital camera. Then I applied unsharp masking in Photoshop to bring our the detail in the nebula. If I ever move back out to the country (dark skies) I will build a roll-off roof observatory and buy a CCD camera for my scope. Those cameras are expensive, but the costs of film, development, and printing for conventional photography mount up really fast!

Due to the size constraints (50K) imposed by the BBS, I had to crop the images and reduce their resolutions substantially, but you get the idea...

[check]

I used a very simple set-up. An Orbiter 3200 reflector telescope, 76mm mirror 700mm focal length, 20mm eyepiece.

The photograph was taken using the afocal projection technique (camera placed in front of eyepiece). The camera was attached to the telescope with a special clamp. I used a digital camera, 4.0 megapixles, normal settings, fast shutter.



Turbo-1, that's a pretty cool photo. :cool:

[turbo]

Turbo-1, that's a pretty cool photo. :cool:I'm glad you like it. I've never tried using my digital camera with a telescope - it was hard enough to learn to get acceptable results with film! I will have to make an adapter and try your afocal technique sometime.

Did you guide your moon shot?

[check]

Did you guide your moon shot?

Nope. Since it was a regular shutter speed exposure and because the moon is so bright there was no need to guide it.

Be aware though, if you're using the afocal technique with manual focus on your digicam, it's somewhat difficult to get good focus if you're looking at the LCD display. So unless your camera has live video-out where you can connect it to a TV (so you can get a clearer picture of what you’re trying to take a picture of) and adjust your focus that way, or unless your camera's viewfinder displays what’s going through the aperture, it might be tricky to manually focus...and sometimes the auto focus is unreliable.

Edit:

One more thing about digital cameras and astrophotography... Typically digicams either automatically set the shutter speed according to lighting conditions or give you a very limited amount of options. My camera only allows a maximum exposure time of 2 seconds. :grumpy:

[check]

I figure I'd post this. It's a mosaic I made of the moon one night. Took a bunch of photos (I thought I had covered the whole moon, but as you can see I missed some spots).
In this mosaic the moon is about 80cm across. There’s a 15 cm ruler next to it for a sense of scale. Not huge, but it goes to show you one of the many neat things that you can do if u have a printer, a telescope and a digital camera.

[turbo]

Here is a little picture of the Lagoon Nebula. I did the same thing with it as the Orion Nebula picture - imaged a 5x7 print with my Olympus, then unsharp-masked it in Photoshop to bring out fine detail in the nebulosity.

[sol2]

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0409/catsEye_hst_c1.jpg




Rings in the Haloes of Planetary Nebulae
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401056



One has to know, in what context the challenge is being made and answered. Those "rings" to me, look like tree rings? :smile:

http://web.mit.edu/8.03/www/walter-ring-sm.jpg

This is a picture of me, by me. Have you ever seen anything like it? Any idea of what causes the colored rings? If you do, send me a note and you may earn some extra course credit. If you want to find out, make sure not to miss my lecture on December 7! \\/\/////@lter Lewin

http://web.mit.edu/8.03/www/

If one is studingthe physics and approach of what is taking place inthe cosmos with such views to its quantum nature, it is hard not to be drawn to these beautiful events. It is even more difficult, to refrain from offering a explanation , if it is offered as a challenge. You just should known what context this is being offered, it was not offered for the general public. But someone did make it so.

So why would anyone not rise to occasion?

[turbo]

http://web.mit.edu/8.03/www/

If one is studingthe physics and approach of what is taking place inthe cosmos with such views to its quantum nature, it is hard not to be drawn to these beautiful events. It is even more difficult, to refrain from offering a explanation , if it is offered as a challenge. You just should known what context this is being offered, it was not offered for the general public. But someone did make it so.

So why would anyone not rise to occasion?You have taken a very nice underexposed picture of your reflection (probably on a shiny icy surface) surrounded by an ice halo. Solar ice halos can be very beautiful in these higher latitudes, and even the fainter lunar halos can be stunning if your eyes are properly adapted to darkness. I don't need the extra credit (unless you could boost my 1972 grade in my initial-[and gut wrenching!] - philosophy course in Meta-ethics), but could you get me a discount on my prescription medications? You're not Canadian by any chance, eh?
:wink:

[tony873004]

I took a picture of Jupiter's moons without a telescope. This is from my 300 mm zoom lens on my Canon Digital Rebel:
http://orbitsimulator.com/orbiter/jupiter.jpg

[turbo]

I took a picture of Jupiter's moons without a telescope. This is from my 300 mm zoom lens on my Canon Digital Rebel:
http://orbitsimulator.com/orbiter/jupiter.jpgCOOL!!!! How did you manage that?

[tony873004]

COOL!!!! How did you manage that?
Tripod shot. Tameron 70-300 lens on a Canon Digital Rebel. Manual mode, 2 second exposure. I forget the ISO. Probably the stock lens (?-70 mm) will get a photo of the moons too. I have to wait till Jupiter returns to the evening sky.

[Twistedseer]

Is this just for astrophotography?


Twistedseer

[tony873004]

3 pics from tonight's eclipse
http://orbitsimulator.com/orbiter/CRW_4806.jpg
http://orbitsimulator.com/orbiter/CRW_4814.jpg
http://orbitsimulator.com/orbiter/CRW_4851.jpg

[russ_watters]

I posted my own thread without even seeing this one. D'oh. Anyway, I got my best yet (only my 3rd try...) shot of Saturn. The sky was very clear, but it was windy, full moon, and a lot of light pollution. I had to wait for a break in the wind, then shot a 30 second avi clip. Equipment is an ETX-105 and a QuickCam 4000. Photo taken at prime focus (1470mm), about 300 shots aligned, stacked, and processed with Registax.

[turbo]

Killer! Astrophotography is easy to do but hard to do right, and for your third attempt, that's pretty impressive.

[check]

That's pretty awesome russ. I've been waiting for clear skies here for a while, but looks like this morning should be good. I'll try to get one of Saturn.

I'm not very good with registax. Do you have any tips, Russ?

[russ_watters]

That's pretty awesome russ. I've been waiting for clear skies here for a while, but looks like this morning should be good. I'll try to get one of Saturn.

I'm not very good with registax. Do you have any tips, Russ? Well, when you say you're not very good, what do you mean? Anyway, I'll tell you what I know:

The webcam setup is key: the gain should be all the way down if possible - having it up at all just adds noise. The shutter speed should be as fast as possible while still being able to see the image. That'll leave you with a very, very dim image. That's fine - fast shutter speed means less atmospheric distortion and stacking the images makes them brighter (essentially, stacking increases signal to noise ratio, ie contrast). Also, if the image is too bright, you'll end up washing out all the details. Attached is a still from that Saturn video. Its unedited - just cropped. The video is uncompressed avi at 4 fps (I made the mistake of trying 15 fps with a .2s shutter speed :uhh: ). With the wavelet processing, the first 4 layers are what I generally use, in a bell curve (most of the detail is in the 2nd and 3rd layer). Don't overprocess (you'll know).

Last night, I tried Jupiter - I stayed up until 4:00 to get it. Attached is all I could do with stacking/processing. The Jupiter and Saturn pics are both of the same magnification (about 230x). Jupiter was shot at about 13 degrees above the horizon, Saturn about 70 (I took some more shots last night with similar results). Obviously, its utterly useless to try to image something so close to the horizon (I'm working on an atmospheric model in Excel to calculate just how much atmosphere you look through at various angles). I may try Jupiter again next week when it is eclipsed by the moon - it'll be a little higher then.

I know its obvious, but focus is critical and can be tough, especially if the atmosphere is bad or the image is dark. Up the brightness temporarily (but don't wash out the pic) to get it bright enough to focus or focus on a brighter (or higher, where the atmosphere is more stable) object.

I haven't had any luck with Saturn in a Barlow lens - my telescope doesn't pull in enough light to make it bright enough to image. Maybe Jupiter when it gets higher/closer. I'm not too worried about that though, because with a 2x barlow lens, I'll get about 460x magnification (calculated from the image size on the computer screen), which is above the theoretical max of my scope anyway (about 350x).

I have yet to have any success at all imaging deep-sky objects. The magnification at prime focus is far too high and I'm not having much success getting my focal reducer to work (it doesn't fit the telescope and I'm trying to adapt it).

[check]

Thanks russ.
I just meant I could never get really good results with registax, but now I think it's because I had the shutter too slow so the image was too bright to work with before stacking. I'll try it out tonight with a faster shutter.

[Aether]

Here is a picture that my girlfriend, Anne, and I took of the planet Venus as it made a rare transit across the face of the Sun on June 8, 2004.

The other photo is of me on the beach at Assateague Island in Virgina while shooting some video of the transit.

The telescope we used for this was a Meade ETX-70, and a hand-held Sony Cybershot digital camera.

[check]

Here is a picture that my girlfriend, Anne, and I took of the planet Venus as it made a rare transit across the face of the Sun on June 8, 2004.

The other photo is of me on the beach at Assateague Island in Virgina while shooting some video of the transit.

The telescope we used for this was a Meade ETX-70, and a hand-held Sony Cybershot digital camera.

Looks good! Much better than the pics of teh transit that I churned out. lol

[Aether]

Looks good! Much better than the pics of teh transit that I churned out. lol

Thanks check. I'm glad to hear that you got a chance to see it for yourself!

Here is a link to a page with the original photo which is about 3MB in size:

http://aetherodynamics.com/Transit_of_Venus06-08-2004.htm

[Labguy]

I like solar eclipses, total and annular:

[Aether]

Nice pics Labguy! Where did you have to go to see those events?

[Labguy]

Nice pics Labguy! Where did you have to go to see those events?The first two are from the "Great Eclipse" of 07/11/1991. For this one, I had to go to lower Baja, Mexico (Cabo San Lucas) to be near the center path of totality. totality was 6 minutes 19 seconds where I was. I think it is about another 130 years or so for one that long.

The second shot of the annular was on 05/10/1994 and the central path was dead-on at 13 miles north of El Paso, Texas. I was going to Phoenix that day anyway so I stopped there and took about 25 photos through a standard ND-5 inconel solar filter.

Two more below from 7/11/91 total. One shows the diamond ring before it split into a double, and the other shows the Chromosphere around almost 360*.

[Labguy]

Actually, the 50K limit on the photos doesn't post-up big enough to actually get a good idea of what the photo looks like. For those eclipse shots of mine above, larger versions are at:

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/smilner/sherrod1/corona.htm
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/smilner/sherrod1/dbldia.htm
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/smilner/sherrod1/dbldia2.htm
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/smilner/sherrod1/annular.htm

[Captain Cool Guy]

I recently got the Orion steady-pix for my birthday and I'm have an extremely difficult time trying to use it. I have done afocal photography in the past with out and my wife thought it would be easier with the steady-pix. I have a pretty robust 8 inch Schmitt-Cass, but aligning the camera with the eyepiece is a bear. Any suggestions or comments about the Orion steady-pix???

[Labguy]

I recently got the Orion steady-pix for my birthday and I'm have an extremely difficult time trying to use it. I have done afocal photography in the past with out and my wife thought it would be easier with the steady-pix. I have a pretty robust 8 inch Schmitt-Cass, but aligning the camera with the eyepiece is a bear. Any suggestions or comments about the Orion steady-pix???Sounds like a film camera. That's all I ever used and haven't done any for several years. No CCD for me.

If your camera is a 35mm SLR with removable lens, eyepiece projection is very handy with one of these:

http://www.telescope.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=52&itemType=PRODUCT&iMainCat=6&iSubCat=29&iProductID=52

Much easier than the bracket you now have. Plus, with your SCT, you probably have enough focus travel to do prime focus photos at f/10 using just the camera and the scope, no eyepiece and no lens on the camera.

[Captain Cool Guy]

I know some of the other methods for my sct but I feel bad because I think that my wife bought me a piece of crap and I just wanted to take at least one good role for her sake and I was wondering if anyone else has learned any techniques or even a procedure for using thier steadypix.

[tony873004]

Here's an eclipse picture I toon in January 1992 from San Diego. Astronomy Magazine published it in their Viewer Photos section and paid me $25
http://orbitsimulator.com/orbiter/1024_eclipse92.jpg

[turbo]

Here is a really nice webcam image of the Jupiter/moon occultation. Makes me think I should try webcam photography.

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1403_1.asp

[russ_watters]

New Saturn from last Friday attached. Only marginally better quality, but it is twice the magnification (Barlow lens). That's about the magnification limit (400x or so) and light gathering limit of my scope with my quickcam. Sky's could be better though (over Xmas, I'll drive up to the Poconos...). The image was dim enough its starting to look grainy. I'm working on a long-exposure mod for the quickcam. You can't see anything at all deep-sky with it at 1/5 second exposures.

[russ_watters]

I'm working on a long-exposure mod for the quickcam. You can't see anything at all deep-sky with it at 1/5 second exposures. So, last night I attempted the mod. All I have to show for it is a burned finger and a stabbed thumb (and a broken camera). I'll try again tonight and if I fail, I guess I'll just get myself a Meade Deep-Sky Imager ($300).

[check]

So, last night I attempted the mod. All I have to show for it is a burned finger and a stabbed thumb (and a broken camera). I'll try again tonight and if I fail, I guess I'll just get myself a Meade Deep-Sky Imager ($300).

LoL. Damn. Welll your saturn pics are awesome. How'd the other night go for ya?

[russ_watters]

LoL. Damn. Welll your saturn pics are awesome. How'd the other night go for ya? The pic in post 34 remains my best.

I bought a Deep-Sky Imager. Unfortunately, that means the skies have been pretty bad since except for Christmas day (and even then, the full moon washes it out). Also, again there is a learning curve. The attached mediocre pic of the Orion Nebula is all I have so far....

[russ_watters]

I had a prolific night last night. Attached are some highlights. Conditions were actually pretty bad (I could see the cirrus clouds with the naked eye), so I'm extremely happy with how the images came out - very good for how bad the conditions were. Hopefully, I'll get some clear skies and maybe go for a drive away from the city next week. And its probably time to get a website so I can post the full-sized images...

First and best is the Orion Nebula. Its a composite of about 50 images of varying exposures up to 45 sec. You can just barely see the dark, sweeping cloud on the right-hand third of the screen. Need darker skies!

Next is Saturn - no detail of the planet, but 4 moons (and a 7th magnitude star). ~40 images of 5-15 sec. You can see how hazy the sky was from how bright it is around Saturn - there should be more moons visible in the pic.

And, of course, a moon mosaic. Its 6 tiles, about 40 images each.

In the comet Macholtz thread, I posted a pic of the comet.

I got a portable power station for Christmas, and I've got an old laptop with broken hinges to use as a dummy terminal. A friend of mine has an apartment on a golf course (how cool is that!) and I can now leave the scope and a laptop out on the course and control it from inside, staying warm.

I'm having a couple of problems to work out:

-Tracking could be better with the scope. Or, rather, tracking is good, but it seems like every now and then it makes a small correction in RA, and that means only a third of my 45 second exposures look good. It may depend on how well its aligned, but I'm not sure. But if I could just make it stop doing the corrections, I could probably take 5 minute exposures before there would be noticeable trails.

-The Meade software isn't great and I'm having trouble figuring out how to get pictures of Saturn to come out. Maybe its a matter of drawing a small target box, but The contrast is too high and the disk is washed out.

Stiff learning curve with this hobby, but its rewarding...

[russ_watters]

A couple of nights ago, I hit Jupiter and Saturn. Jupiter is only about 25 degrees up at 1:00am, so its still a little fuzzy, but I got some decent pics nonetheless.

Attached are 2 pics of each, one with moons, one without. That night the moons of both planets were nice enough to line themselves up close to their planets. The closeups of the planets are at the same scale, about 650x magnification (half of that, digital), which is twice the theoretical maximum for my telescope. The pics with the planets and moons are composites - a series of longer exposure pics to get the moons and a series of shorter ones to get the moons.

For Saturn, the moons are, from left to right, Titan, Rhea, Dione, and Tethys. Titan is about mag 8, the others about mag 10, so that's pushing the limits of my telescope for a short exposure. If you look close in the closeup, the outer ring is transluscent and you can see the planet through it.

For Jupiter, the moons are, from left to right, Ganymede, Europa, Io, and Callisto. Obviously, these are much brighter (mag 5-6), so they came out much better. You can just see the great red spot rotating away, left of center. I think the darker spot in the middle of that band is an artifact - I had some major dust problems on something.

[russ_watters]

4th pic....

[Labguy]

4th pic....Is the "rosey-red" color on these from using a filter or from processing??

[russ_watters]

Is the "rosey-red" color on these from using a filter or from processing?? Wavelet processing. I may have overdone it a touch( :redface: ), but it does bring out the details.

edit: looking through my pics for a more natural color one, I found one that actually came out better. The color is the same, but it doesn't have the artifact in the middle. Hmm....gotta redo the composite now.

Annoying, but it seems that sometimes an hour's worth of stacking and processing doesn't give better results than a quickie auto-stack. Practice makes perfect though.

I'm having trouble with my scope too - I already mentioned the tracking issues, but another annoyance is the scope just doesn't like it when its cold. Twice now, I've been out in ~15F degree weather and each time the adhesive on the flip-mirror loses its stickinees and it falls off. I have to take apart the scope to put it back on. Gotta glue it this time... Relatively minor bugs, overall, though.

[check]

Those are awesome, Russ. Keep 'em coming.

oh, if you're finding you have to scale the images for uploading to PF, try posting them at www.imageshack.us. It's free and really easy.

Anyway, my pics never turn out that great probably a combination of the telescope and digicam. Here's a stacked/processed image of saturn, you'll see what I mean: http://img239.exs.cx/img239/8819/sat0en.jpg

BUT, I think I'm gonna get some instruction on the school's telescopes. Then I'll be able to use their 6" and 12" refractors w/ tracking. :) (The school also has a 1.2m reflector but they only let grad students use that. Go figure... :tongue2:)

Oh yeah, I think this thread should allow image tags.

[Chronos]

Fantastic images, Russ.

[Zach_C]

Russ, what scope do you use?

[russ_watters]

Russ, what scope do you use? Its an ETX-105. The first half of the Saturn pics were taken with a Logitech Quickcam 4000, the rest with the Meade DSI.

[guevara0001]

hey .........i never thought this board have this important threads!
hey man believe me!
i had a digi cam......... how can i have some good astro pix?

[russ_watters]

i had a digi cam......... how can i have some good astro pix? You mean a regular point and shoot digital camera? Dunno - I just bought a mount for my Nikon Coolpix 3100 and hopefully in the next few days I'll see what it can do through my scope. Since it doesn't have manual exposures, its probably only good for planets and the moon. If you have a digital SLR, you can take some outstanding high-res pics of galaxies and nebula. Do you have a telescope? Big lens? Binoculars?

[russ_watters]

I bought a new 3x Barlow lens and a 2x "shorty" barlow lens. I haven't done any stacking yet, but I tried the shorty and the 3x on Thursday night. It was cold and it was a work night, so I set up my telescope on my brightly-lit front porch (its a condo and you can't turn off the outside floodlights or porch lights). Polaris was through a tree, so I couldn't line the scope up to north and one of the alignment stars was behind my apartment so I didn't line up with it (in hindsight, I could have selected another star), so my alignment was terrible, so I didn't think I could keep Saturn centered with much more magnification. Even with all the light pollution and horrible alignment, the results were pretty good...

As it turns out, the 2x lens I had been using before is more like a 2.5x lens (calculated by counting pixels for Saturn on all 3 lenses), so I didn't get much more magnification out of the 3x than I had before. Next time, I'll stack them.

Attached is the result of the effort. Its a composite of Saturn at .4sec exposure (150 stacked frames) and the moons at 5sec exposure (50 stacked frames). Counter-clockwise from left is Dione, Titan (of course), an 11th magnitude star, and Rhea.

A 5s shot of the moons makes Saturn so overexposed that its tough to do the composite. I had to paint-out the halo. The raw (gamma slightly increased) 5sec shot is also attached. Enceladus and Tethys (why couldn't they be easier to spell? "Io"?) are just visible at 11:00 and 12:00 above Saturn. I couldn't isolate them for the composite. One of these days, I'll get up to the Poconos with my scope and maybe the clearer, darker skies will get rid of that halo.

[russ_watters]

Last night, Europa passed in front of Jupiter. I set up my scope around 11:30, had it start taking photos and went inside for a few hours to play poker, going outside every now and then to recenter, etc. It took more than 6,000 photos over 3.5 hours. Attahed are 3 of the resulting, processed photos. Maybe I'll put them into an animation.

[russ_watters]

Europa transited Jupiter last night again. More pics attached. Europa is visible above Jupiter in a couple of the pics. I have about 3 hours of photos - animation to follow.

I added a title block for information and a little touch of professionalism. It'll be useful when I start selling the pics. :wink:

[russ_watters]

M-13 from a few nights ago...

[The_Professional]

I love the pictures russ, wonderful images. Especially the one on thread 38. They're very clear and quite detailed, did you shoot them with a digital camera attached to the telescope.

[russ_watters]

I love the pictures russ, wonderful images. Especially the one on thread 38. They're very clear and quite detailed, did you shoot them with a digital camera attached to the telescope. Starting with post 38, all pics are with the MEADE Deep-Sky Imager (http://www.meade.com/dsi/index.html).

I'm still having some tracking problems, so I'm not having much luck with deep-sky objects, but the planets will keep me occupied for a while... (tonight: Ganymede transit of Jupiter).

[turbo]

I'm still having some tracking problems, so I'm not having much luck with deep-sky objects, but the planets will keep me occupied for a while... (tonight: Ganymede transit of Jupiter).If you will describe your tracking problems, I will try to help. I have probably managed to replicate every tracking problem imaginable over the past 30 years or so. They are all tractable to some extent, depending on the equipment you own and the amount of attention that you are willing to expend on addressing its limitations.

If you do not have a permanent mount, you are constrained by having to set up every night, and your tripod can shift throughout the session when you are working on ice and snow, especially if you have a light scope and you just touch a tripod leg with a boot! You've got to polar align the mount (easy to gloss over with a cheap PA mount - you've got to PA through the primary), and then supply adequate degrees of guidance to each type of exposure. Back when I had a lot of opportunity to do this in dark sites, each exposure had to last at least 20 minutes to capture usable images of faint deep-sky objects on Konika 3200 film through a 6" f:8. These aren't snapshots, and they can feel like forever when it's -20F or lower (the clearest nights for this kind of work).

Without accurate polar alignment, field rotation errors can ruin your exposures. Atmospheric refraction can make getting sharp images impossible, especially close to the horizon. Periodic errors in your scope's drive can be infuriating, and are impossible to detect unless you have the troubleshooting skills to ferret them out. Guidescope flexure can ruin every image in an entire night, if you are not cognizant of it, and they are prevalent when working with short-tube scopes with inadequate guidescope mounts. Working through a variety of telescopes, I have experienced all of these, and would be willing to help troubleshoot any guiding problems that anybody here has.

By the way, if anybody here is imaging through a SCT or any other similarly-designed telescope that uses a moving primary, let me offer a very basic piece of advice. You must get a high-power guiding ocular with an illuminated reticle and after aligning your scope and activating your drives, focus out, then bring the focus slowly back in until the stars are crisp. Then:

1) set the reticle on a star
2) run the focus slightly in and out.
3) observe the position of your chosen star both in and out from correct focus to see any perceived shift.
4) focus out and then critically focus the star and see if the star at focus is at the original position in the reticle. If the position is sufficiently accurate, you can (in the future) hope to focus out, then in to critical and retain alignment.

You can repeat these steps (reversing in and out) and determine in which mode your scope most repeatably keeps alignment. Whichever procedure gives you the most repeatable position for the guide star is the procedure that you must use to have any chance to keep your scope useful for astrophotography.

If you cannot get repeatable results in either mode, your telescope will sabotage your efforts at astrophotography, and you likely own a scope that can never properly be collimated either, because this type of image shift implies excess mirror tilt. If you want to pursue astrophotography, especially with film, sell the scope and get a decent newtonian or a refractor with optics that are in relatively fixed locations and alignments.

[russ_watters]

If you will describe your tracking problems, I will try to help. I'm out of the country for a couple of weeks, but I'd be greatful for the help.

[Jeff273]

Russ,

Nice photos. Are you shooting from Philly? What are your skies like? I'm in rural south-central PA and I have maybe mag 5.5 from my yard. Have you done any deep-sky work? If so, I'd be interested in your results given the high light pollution in Philly.

[russ_watters]

Jeff, I'm just outside of Norristown, about 20 miles from center city. All of the photos I have posted so far are from this area. As for deep-sky: everything I have taken so far I have posted here. I haven't put much effort into figuring out my limiting magnitude, but I'd have to guess about mag 5 or even a little worse. The combination of bright skies, a small scope, and unreliable tracking for lengths of time over 30 seconds has limited what I've been able to do deep-sky. I'm still working on it....

[russ_watters]

I'm out of the country for a couple of weeks, but I'd be greatful for the help. Ok, I finally got a chance to break out the scope last night and attached is a fairly typical 45 second exposure. About half of them come out OK and half look something like that. The pic is about 25 arc min across, which makes the oscillation about 20 arc sec across. Like I said, it happens every 30-45 seconds and it is very consistent - it does not get better or worse with better or worse alignment.

Alignment (I'm doing polar) really hasn't been an issue (yet) - last night, for example, the image would move down through the field of view over about half an hour. That's an alignment issue obviously, but since I can't go over 30 seconds because of the oscillation, it hasn't hurt me. I have had better alignment nights, where the image would stay roughly centered for a long time, except oscillating back and forth.

My tracking is not yet good enough that I've had to deal with periodic errors. A lot of the other things you talked about are beyond my basic problem: getting rid of this oscillation so I can at least get ~2 min exposures.

I have worked out a similar system to what you describe for dealing with image shift when focusing - essentially, I always focus clockwise.

[turbo]

Ok, I finally got a chance to break out the scope last night and attached is a fairly typical 45 second exposure. About half of them come out OK and half look something like that. The pic is about 25 arc min across, which makes the oscillation about 20 arc sec across. Like I said, it happens every 30-45 seconds and it is very consistent - it does not get better or worse with better or worse alignment.

Alignment (I'm doing polar) really hasn't been an issue (yet) - last night, for example, the image would move down through the field of view over about half an hour. That's an alignment issue obviously, but since I can't go over 30 seconds because of the oscillation, it hasn't hurt me. I have had better alignment nights, where the image would stay roughly centered for a long time, except oscillating back and forth.

My tracking is not yet good enough that I've had to deal with periodic errors. A lot of the other things you talked about are beyond my basic problem: getting rid of this oscillation so I can at least get ~2 min exposures.

I have worked out a similar system to what you describe for dealing with image shift when focusing - essentially, I always focus clockwise.Your troubleshooting is accurate. This has nothing to do with alignment, it has to do with a flaw in your RA drive train. The frequency with which this occurs is very high - perhaps too high to attribute to a faulty RA gear, but we've got to look at that first. What is the model and vintage of your scope? Is there a drawing of the RA gear layout that I can access on-line or is there one in your owner's manual that you can email me? Depending on the gear ratio and the fineness of the hobbing, it's possible that you have a burr on the smaller gear that is causing this problem, but still, a 30 second period seems really short.

Please also tell me if your drive is AC or DC driven and whether the drive incorporates a transformer or power inverter to deliver the final juice to the drive motor. This should be in your owner's manual (I hope!).

It's good that you have established a focus procedure that gives repeatable results. Little things like this can seem insignificant, but they are critical to successful astrophotography. If you intend to step up to photography of faint objects, you will encounter much longer exposure times and these "little things" will become big pretty quickly.

[russ_watters]

Ok, so I have my scope on my coffee table, pretending to align itself. After its finished and tracking, I'll open up the drive and have a look (something I really should have done before. I'll post some pics too....

[russ_watters]

Attached is a photo of my RA drive. Its an ETX-105. The only visible problem is too much grease, but that's not a fatal issue. There are no chipped teeth, burrs, or anything else visible that could cause the problem.

I watched run it for several minutes, then turned the scope off and moved it by hand. Moving it by hand, everything appears smooth. When electronically driven, every now and then, for no reason I can see, it starts oscillating back and forth for about a second, then resumes moving (and corrects itself). It does not happen at regular intervals - sometimes it happens 5 times in 10 seconds, sometimes the drive runs smooth for minutes at a time. Seems to me like it could be an electronic issue.

Do you know much about the new Autostar feature, "[drive] percent"? It corrects for backlash and "looseness" (the gears have to move a little before they start moving the scope) in the drive when manually slewing. I've gotten good results with it fixing issues like "creep after beep" and slow response times, but could that have anything to do with the tracking rate? Perhaps I need to play with those values some more....

I think I'll call Meade tech support to see what they have to say.

[turbo]

Since you have looked at the drive train while it was operating, did you notice if any of the gears have a period of 30 seconds or so (or any period that could divide evenly into the minimum period of the oscillations)? There could be a very tiny piece of plastic or nylon floating around in all that grease causing some binding periodically. BTW, that IS quite a bit of grease in there and I would be a bit surprised if the scope did not give you drive troubles on cold nights.

[russ_watters]

I've cleaned off some of the more critical surfaces (a greased clutch plate? c'mon :rolleyes: ), but I guess I'll clean out the whole ra drive gear assembly.

[turbo]

I've cleaned off some of the more critical surfaces (a greased clutch plate? c'mon :rolleyes: ), but I guess I'll clean out the whole ra drive gear assembly.That's probably a good idea. On colder nights, you could easily get ropes of grease forming (like taffy) and feeding into one or more parts of the drive train, and causing periodic binding. You might want to check with Meade before trying this, but in cold weather situations, that entire train would probably be better lubricated with a light coating of silicone. It would give less loading (requiring fewer corrective guiding measures) on the RA drive, and would make your scope's drive last longer. If you ever observe in a COLD environment, and your RA drive has to pump cold stiff grease, you can bet that those little nylon gears will get sloppy PDQ. If the RA drive is being stressed, the scope will soon be useful for little more than bird-watching and casual sky-gazing.

[dekoi]

Could anyone suggest good equipment for astrophotography?

What is the most cost-effective digital camera and (digital camera compatible) telescope?

[dekoi]

My hope for a reply is slowly diminishing.

Another question: What will a decent 4-6" aperature refractor/reflector telescope allow me to see? What viewing distance is allowed (considering a little city light and smog)?

[russ_watters]

My hope for a reply is slowly diminishing.

Another question: What will a decent 4-6" aperature refractor/reflector telescope allow me to see? What viewing distance is allowed (considering a little city light and smog)? Sorry...

I have an ETX-105 (4 inch) and I like it. The tracking is a little sketchy as you can see from my previous posts, but as a beginner-intermediate scope with real go-to capability, its pretty good.

With the naked eye, a scope of this size will allow you to see planets in pretty good detail with the naked eye and the brighter nebulae and galaxies. Attached is an unprocessed photo of Jupiter and its comparable (though a little higher contrast) to what you can see through the eyepiece. The processed pics are a good twice the detail and you can get pictures like that with a $20 webcam. For more than just faint-fuzzy pics of galaxies or nebulae, you need a camera that'll do long exposures.

[turbo]

To dekoi: It depends what you can afford and how much storage room you have and where you can observe from (including questions of transport). The nicest scopes are pricey, but they can also be a life-long investment, so you'll have to factor in your interests. If you are the type that latches onto a hobby or interest, only to lose interest in a year or two, you should buy a USED entry-level scope (let the original owner eat the depreciation) and if you find that a few years later, you can't live without better quality, then go for it. You're hooked.

Roland Christen (Astro Physics) has made exquisite apochromatic refractors for many years (I have one of his early 6" f:8 models). They command some pretty stiff prices, but the optical quality is astounding. I went through a succession of commercial-grade scopes (including a really sweet little 5" JSO Schmidt-Cassegrain and a 3" Questar) before investing in one of Roland's instruments. Tony Hallas and Daphne Mount contributed wonderful deep-sky photos to amateur astronomy magazines for years using these great refractors. They have since moved up to some pretty big scopes - here is their website (they have married since they started their collaberation.)

http://www.astrophoto.com/index.htm

Here is Roland's website. You can see some of the pictures that he has taken with the 'scopes he builds - absolutely killer.

http://voltaire.csun.edu/roland/

These sites are just to show you the results that dedicated amateurs can get with good observing sites and great equipment. This level of commitment takes a great deal of time and no small amount of money. Many people can come up with the money - fewer are willing to invest the time to achieve the level of proficiency necessary to turn in results like this.

I have not been active in astrophotography for years due to time constraints, light pollution in my location, etc, but soon I hope to be moving to a VERY dark location and intend to build a roll-off roof observatory for my APO and buy a CCD camera. No more 20-40 minute guided exposures with Konika 3200 film when it's -20 deg F (absolutely the clearest skies you can get, except when the sun acts up and the sky is washed out by aurorae.) I processed all my own film and only let the photo-processors do the final printing. Digital will be a hoot.

[GerdankenDonuts]

My school is building a new science complex and the administration has agreed to make an observatory part of the complex. The budget may be in the high 5 figures for the equipment (maybe a slim chance for low 6 figures).

I'm pretty new to observational and CCD astronomy and so would like to solicit advice from anyone who cares to give it.

What I would like to know is, if you were in this situation and could purchase a 16 inch f/8 Meade RCX 400 (Ritchey-Chretien) or 20 inch f/6.8 Celestron C20 (Dall-Kirkam), which would you choose? I was even looking at the $48K 20 inch f/9 or f/8.1 Ritchey-Chretien from RC Optical Systems. The plan is to fully automate the observatory and make it available remotely on a supervised basis to secondary and maybe a few post-secondary schools and science education organizations (e.g. museums, Challenger Learning Center, etc.) in our region. I'm also trying to involve amateur astronomers to help operate and maintain it. In a sense it would be their telescope too.

It would probably be used primarily for deep sky photography but it should be capable of lunar and planetary work. I'd like to use it to search for SN's, NEO's and other minor planets and do some stellar spectrography as well. My naive response was of course the C20 ($40K) but i was talking to someone at a well established telescope retailer and to my surprise, he thought that i should really lean towards the 16 inch RCX 400 ($16K). In addition to cost, he said that the Dall-Kirkam design is much touchier in terms of getting and keeping collimation.

In order of priority after the telescope:

The CCD will be an SBIG ST-8 with AO and all the standard filters and a selfguiding spectrograph.

There should be enough left in the budget for an H-alpha and maybe a Ca-K telescope (like the one available from Coronado) to send live daytime solar video to everyone who wants it. I am not sure if there would be enough for a separate smaller dome and mount/pier, etc. in the building funds or alternatively if it would have to be piggybacked on the primary telescope.

If enough is still enough left after this I would like to get one of the large portable planetariums (like the 23 ft one from Digitalis or the large Star Lab).

Finally, if there was enough to get all of this with the 16 inch RCX but not enough to get everything with the C20 with associated factors thrown in, where might you draw the line?

I should add that a meteorology station would be almost essential since it is a robotic telescope and this would probably be considered part of the building infrasturcture and so not part of my equipment budget. At least that is my hope.

[russ_watters]

That question is probably beyond our expertise here. I'd suggest a dedicated astronomy forum - www.cloudynights.com is one I visit and there are a number of people there (amateurs and professionals) who own/use scopes in that class.

[Labguy]

It isn't posted here, but my solar corona photo is posted on Space.com today. Format there allows larger size.

http://www.space.com/amazingimages/cte.php?guid=42d0a2dc400360.56363193&cat=s

[russ_watters]

Very nice - what kind of equipment did you use to take it?

Speaking of the sun, though, I just got a solar filter and attached is the first pic I took through my scope...

[Labguy]

Very nice - what kind of equipment did you use to take it?Used a Canon T-90 with Canon 800mm lens. Kodak Ektar 125 print film, 1/2 second at f/11.

[zanazzi78]

Here is a shot of the transit of venus as seen from Swansea, South Wales

i used a 114mm reflector wiht a 900mm focal lenght with a Mylar solar filter.
A universal t-mount fitter with a 20mm eye piece. mounted on the t mount was a Canon EOS 50E loaded with Fuji Superia XTRA ISO 200 film.

The exposure was 1/45th second taken at 0600hr UT,obviously on the 8 June 2004.

This was the first look i hade of the Transit, just after second contact, as it was a very cloudy day but i got lucky and managed to get 36 usable shots!

I had only been attempting astrophotography for about 2 mponths when this was taken.

[zanazzi78]

I thought i`d also sare the very first picture i`ve took. Apart from the croped image i`m very pleased with it

[zanazzi78]

The latest attempt the Summer Triangle (for ref. Vega lower left ... taken on the 1/8/2005)

[cscott]

Astrophotography is very pretty :smile: and was wondering where I could find high resolution images that I could use as a background.

[turbo]

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~rhl/PrettyPictures/

Here you go. If these don't do it for you, you're going to have to make your own (good luck!)

[russ_watters]

Sorry I missed this before...The latest attempt the Summer Triangle (for ref. Vega lower left ... taken on the 1/8/2005) What kind of camera/mount did you use for that? I recently bought a nice upper-mid level digital camera with 10x zoom and a big lens (like F2.8 even at 10x zoom) and up to 15s manual exposure. I'm hoping for some wide-field shots like that, but summer weather in PA means I haven't had a clear night in months...

[zanazzi78]

Sorry I missed this before... What kind of camera/mount did you use for that? I recently bought a nice upper-mid level digital camera with 10x zoom and a big lens (like F2.8 even at 10x zoom) and up to 15s manual exposure. I'm hoping for some wide-field shots like that, but summer weather in PA means I haven't had a clear night in months...


I can’t afford such luxuries as Digital camera. :cry:

I used my Canon EOS 50E; It was loaded with a colour 200ISO film and a 28mm – 80mm telefocus lens set to 30mm and stopped at f4. The film was exposed was for 5 min.

The camera was piggybacked on my telescope, a basic Celestron 114EQshort on an equitorial mount.

The photo has been heavily shopped! I took out the colour first and then just played around with the levels until I got some thing that looked good.

I’m going to try the same shot (as soon as the weather clears) with an ISO 400 and attempt a 10 min exposure, as I’ve seen some pics recently on the net of the Summer triangle with some great colours in it.

[zanazzi78]

Astrophotography is very pretty :smile: and was wondering where I could find high resolution images that I could use as a background.
www.spacetelescope.org/images/index.html

[cscott]

Thank you for the links.

[russ_watters]

I bought a new toy to play with. It's a 135mm/f2.8 lens I found used at B&H Photo for $39. I cut a hole in the back lens cap, glued a t-thread spacer to it, and built a little piggy-back rig for it and my DSI. Its pretty heavy, so I was a little worried that my ETX wouldn't be able to handle it (I have a counterweight on the bottom-aft), but it did a pretty good job (my usual periodic jerkiness tracking problem notwithstanding). I get about 2 degrees of field of view, which is about perfect for most open clusters and larger galaxies/nebulae.

The piggyback rig isn't quite aligned with the telescope, so I don't think I actually got M-39 in the one pic, but it's a decent pic anyway: lots of stars in the area - so many, in fact, that I can't really identify the area on my planetarium program. Clouds were moving in so fast, I made no attempt to be sure I was on target after slewing away from M-13. From centering M-13, it looks like the piggyback rig is canted up about a degree, and I made some adjustments for next time.

The weather should be clearer in the next few days(and the moon will be moving out of the way), so I'll hopefully get some better pics. I'll set up in a better area, too - these pics were taken outside my apartment, with a big floodlight 20 feet away, pointed directly at the scope.

If I can get my tracking issues worked out and get some luck with long exposures, I may buy a DSI Pro. I'm a little disappointed that the DSI uses a grid of filters to get color, making the effective resolution about a quarter what the advertised resolution is. Otherwise, I may just go back to a webcam for planetary work.

[Chronos]

Try 'tracking' a fixed object first [streetlights are good] and see what happens.

[turbo]

If I can get my tracking issues worked out and get some luck with long exposures, I may buy a DSI Pro. I'm a little disappointed that the DSI uses a grid of filters to get color, making the effective resolution about a quarter what the advertised resolution is. Otherwise, I may just go back to a webcam for planetary work.Hey, Russ. To get some experience with piggybacking and tracking, you might want to haunt the pawn shops a bit and get an OM-1. These are the perfect cameras for astrophotography. Light, with removable focusing screens, AND mirror lock-up to minimize vibration. Best of all, you don't need the meter for astrophotograpy, and can get one with a broken meter really cheap. Yes, film is not as user-friendly as digital imagery, but the resolution is wonderful, and it's easier to determine the source of periodic tracking errors with a long film exposure. You could also take some adult-ed courses in film photography and get some free (or cheap) lab time to process your own film and make prints. I've done this at home and it's a blast.

[russ_watters]

Try 'tracking' a fixed object first [streetlights are good] and see what happens. I'm not really sure what you mean, but I use streetlights to align my finderscope all the time. It really is a tracking problem, not an unsteady mount problem, if that's what you mean, and I describe it starting with post #59.

An update, though: I spoke with Meade tech support a week ago and the guy I talked to said its periodic error and I should use Autostar's periodic error correction (newly available for the ETX) to correct it. I think he's wrong, as it is my understanding that periodic error occurs slowly over several minutes. My problem happens in less than two seconds: The image jumps ahead (I think its ahead, but need to verify that) in half a second or so, holds for a second, then jumps back. I'll try it, though, just to cover my bases.

[russ_watters]

Busy night last night. I finally got some decent pictures of Mars, and with my new piggyback rig, I captured a bunch of open clusters and the Andromeda galaxy. With the moon near full and with a somewhat humid night and lots of light pollution, the Andromeda galaxy is pretty low contrast, but I need to learn some enhancement techniques anyway, so it's something to work on. It was also a little windy, so I'll be able to get more detail on Mars on a calmer night (and when it gets higher and closer). The tracking error is noticeable, but small enough with the 135mm lens that I don't have to throw away many of the long-exposure pics. Anyway, here they are:

The first three are the easy to recognize ones: M31, Mars, and the Pleaides. The number after the name is the exposure. The Mars photo is a stack of several hundred frames and the rest are several dozen.

[russ_watters]

These next two are the Perseus double-cluster and M-34.

[vincentm]

What telescope are you using russ, and how much is it?

[russ_watters]

The telescope is a Meade ETX-105 (~$800) and the camera is a Meade Deep-Sky Imager (~$300). Of the pictures in the last two posts, only the Mars pic was taken through the scope (and a 2x barlow lens: ~$50). The rest were taken through a 135mm SLR camera lens (~$40, used) piggy-back mounted to the scope and adapted to the DSI (see post #84). Page through the thread for more pics...

[wintery_hexagon]

very nice . Thanks every one.

[zanazzi78]

Just finished this...

I thought i`d attempt a mosaic and the moon looked rather seductive a couple of weeks ago low in the westen sky so i htought i`d take a few picks.

[russ_watters]

Nice - what equipment are you using?

And a few critiques, if you don't mind:

-The photo appears slightly out of focus. I use Meade's DSI and with its low resolution, I actually hold the computer about a foot from my face while focusing to be able to see minute changes. Also, making very minor adjustments, then taking your hand off the focus knob while the picture stops shaking helps get a sharper focus.

-I'm not sure how you assembled the mosaic, but the borders between frames are very noticeable, implying you just laid them over top of each other. Photoshop has plugins for stitching and I actually use a program called "Image Assembler", which aids both in aligning and in blending the images.

[russ_watters]

New pics. These are a month old, but I forgot to upload them. They are from Sept 29. That was the first night it got really cold and I drove to the Poconos to set up shop, so while the sky was very clear and very dark, it was also very windy.

First is another shot at the Andromeda Galaxy. The data actually isn't much better than the last time (though there are more pics), but I'm getting better at image processing - particularly with removing light pollution. So the result is considerably better than the last.

Next is Mars, obviously. I have a nice quality 5x barlow that I just started using for planetary work. That puts me waaay above the theoretical maximum magnification for my scope, but the results still look good. I'm pretty sure the haze to the bottom right is from the wind, not Mars' atmosphere.

Third is a shot I took with regular still-photo camera. I didn't realize until just now that the reason I can't see the Milky-Way is because I didn't point the camera at a very bright part of it! So I have an overexposed, noisy (even though that's a stack of 5x15s, unguided), and not altogether interesting photo. But I'm showing everything so people can learn from my mistakes. I think the ISO was 400, and I guess it needs to be more like 100 to reduce the noise. If you can't tell what the photo is, it's Cassiopeia, with the Andromeda Galaxy at the top, left of center, and the Perseus Double Cluster in the middle of the upper-right quadrant. I went once-through with Photoshop to remove light pollution and amp effects, which is the reason for the funny coloring at the top-left. If I feel like it, I'll see if I can improve it, but it may not be interesting enough to be worth the effort (except for practice).

Update on my tracking issues: I was told by a Meade rep that my problem (described in earlier posts) is periodic error. I'm not so sure because while it seems to be periodic, it is a very rapid shift (less than a second), not a smooth sine-wave-type error. But my scope has periodic error correction (with a firmware update), so I'll see if I can get it to work. So far, no success - I want the camera to guide the scope to make the corrections accurate and fast, but I can't get the camera to guide it. If anyone has any suggestions....

I have my DSI software interfacing with my scope and I can slew the scope manually using the software, but it won't guide. I have a suspicion that it's because of the orientation of the camera not matching what the software thinks the orientation of the camera is, but I'm not sure. See, the problem is that when the camera is looking through the top of the diagonal, they want it oriented to the right: which means taking off the finderscope, which I will not do. And when the camera is attached to the camera port in the back, they want it oriented facing down, which makes it hit the base and severely limits the range of motion. Next time I get the chance, I'll find a lower star to point at, but I'd really like to be able to look through a barlow lens - that would improve the accuracy, right? The software has a box where you enter the focal length, so it knows exactly how much tracking error it is seeing on the screen. But then, doesn't a Barlow cause the image to be mirrored? I can never keep these things straight...

One thing, the documentation on this stuff is terrible. I guess once I run the PEC training module on the scope and have the camera guide it, it should work.

Another issue, my scope got progressively sloppier over the summer as grease migrated from the gears to the clutches, to the point where no amount of tightening (short of breaking something) would keep the drives solidly locked.. I cleaned it up last night, and it feels a lot better. I can't imagine someone who is afraid of taking it apart being able to use it.

[Turbot]

Another issue, my scope got progressively sloppier over the summer as grease migrated from the gears to the clutches, to the point where no amount of tightening (short of breaking something) would keep the drives solidly locked.. I cleaned it up last night, and it feels a lot better. I can't imagine someone who is afraid of taking it apart being able to use it.I was afraid that would happen after you posted the pictures of the guts. Those nested nylon gears are a grease-pump, designed to make that goo migrate everywhere except perhaps where it's needed most. I'm afraid that on really cold nights, the grease will firm up, and those little nylon gears on their skinny shafts will deflect and cause guiding errors as globs of the grease feed into tight places. It's good that you have the mechanical aptitude to tinker with that rascal. If the gearbox was properly isolated from all electrical parts, I would recommend cleaning out the grease with carb-cleaner (available at auto-parts stores) and lubricating with powdered graphite instead, so the nylon gears would last longer, but conductive lubricants are not an option when electronics are in the neighborhood. Maybe you could lubricate with a high-quality oil like Break-Free (available at all good gun shops). It's got good film strength and doesn't evaporate and leave gummy residues like some lubricating oils. Another good choice would be Royal Purple synthetic lubricant or perhaps even some Mobile 1 - that stuff stays fluid at 30 below and has better film-strength than any petroleum-based lubricant that I have tested.

[zanazzi78]

Nice - what equipment are you using?
And a few critiques, if you don't mind:
-The photo appears slightly out of focus. I use Meade's DSI and with its low resolution, I actually hold the computer about a foot from my face while focusing to be able to see minute changes. Also, making very minor adjustments, then taking your hand off the focus knob while the picture stops shaking helps get a sharper focus.
-I'm not sure how you assembled the mosaic, but the borders between frames are very noticeable, implying you just laid them over top of each other. Photoshop has plugins for stitching and I actually use a program called "Image Assembler", which aids both in aligning and in blending the images.



thanx for the pionters, Russ, I do find focusing difficult. I use a SLR with film, (no digital photography for me, yet!), the viewfinder is only an inch or so across so can be very difficult to see some times. It also makes the image appear fainter than when viewed throught the scope, which in a pain. Normally i take multiple shots of the same object finly addjusting the focus in one direction for each shot, this normally garantees at least one very sharp image.

These shots were done as a test to use to attempt a mosaic so i wasn`t too concerned with teh image quality. I`ve never done one before so i`m still learning and yes i did just layer the pictures. I`m not that good with photoshop so hints tips would be fantastic.

More info on "image assembler" would be great also. (i`m of to goggle it now!)

P.s. I realy liked your M31 pics i might have a go in the next couple of weeks (if it ever stops raining Bah!)

edit: You mentioned in your post the Cass pic is a stack of 5x15 sec shots.
I`ve never stacked my shots. What are the benefits of stacking? How do you do it properly?

[russ_watters]

I do find focusing difficult. I use a SLR with film, (no digital photography for me, yet!), the viewfinder is only an inch or so across so can be very difficult to see some times. It also makes the image appear fainter than when viewed throught the scope, which in a pain. That's tough. I use a decent generic digital camera for the wide angle shots and have the same problem. I assume you're shooting through a telescope, though, so it may help to use a focusing aid such as a HARTMAN MASK (http://rao.150m.com/Focusaid.html). Normally i take multiple shots of the same object finly addjusting the focus in one direction for each shot, this normally garantees at least one very sharp image. I do that too, especially with high magnification images of planets, since with atmospheric distortion it can sometimes be literally impossible to know if they are in focus. It's annoying, though. These shots were done as a test to use to attempt a mosaic so i wasn`t too concerned with teh image quality. I`ve never done one before so i`m still learning and yes i did just layer the pictures. I`m not that good with photoshop so hints tips would be fantastic. Well, I'm a relative novice with photoshop too, but we can learn together! More info on "image assembler" would be great also. (i`m of to goggle it now!) HERE (http://www.panavue.com/index.htm) it is. I've been using it for years to make scenery panoramas. edit: You mentioned in your post the Cass pic is a stack of 5x15 sec shots.
I`ve never stacked my shots. What are the benefits of stacking? How do you do it properly? Stacking works via averaging (there are actually several methods, but this is the simplest to explain :redface: ). By taking multiple pictures and calculating the average color of a certain pixel, errors are cancelled out, increasing the signal-to-noise ratio. A black, but speckled sky turns even gray (which then can easily be darkened without losing what you were photgraphing) and details in the object you are imaging are enhanced by building signal and reducing the noise.

There are a number of benefits:

1. It makes images brighter. This allows shorter exposures, making tracking less important. They don't add exactly, though, ie 2x15s=30s. I think it's an inverse square relationship or something: 2x15s=23s.

2. It vastly reduced all types of noise, be it atmospheric noise or camera background noise (the digital equivalent of graininess in film).

3. It increases the effective resolution of your equipment. Ie, when pixels overlap each other, the computer can split them.

The end result is that the stacked pictures are many, many times the quality of what you can see with your eyes or the raw images.

Attached are two pictures of Saturn I happened to have on this computer at work. They are my first half-decent one using a webcam, first posted way back in post 17 of this thread. The pic that says "frame cap" is a raw image, doubled in size to see the level of detail. This is what you would see on your screen when taking the pictures and is also about what you'd see looking through the eyepiece (though you would look at it at lower magnification). Stack 300 of them together and do some minor enhancements and you get the second pic.

Also, check out Jupiter in posts 50 and 51 of this thread. Europa's shadow on Jupiter is almost exactly at the theoretical resolution limit of my telescope. Looking through the scope or at the raw pics, I could only pick out the shadow about half the time. In the stacks, the shadow stands out nicely.

REGISTAX (http://registax.astronomy.net/) is probably the most popular software - it is easy to use, and better yet, it's freeware.

[russ_watters]

Attahed is an animation I made last night of Mars. It's 4 images taken over about 5 hours. Since Mars was at 27 degrees altitude (about 7:35) when I took the first pic, it's pretty blurry. If I can, I'll try again in 2 weeks when it'll only be a little smaller, but will be at 40 degrees by that time.
In between shots of Mars, I took some wide-angle photos of a few other things. I'm still working on processing them...
edit: There were some alignment issues in the animation, plus I realized it was oversaturated and the color wasn't balanced right. I fixed it as best I could. I'm going to try again if I get a good night next week...

[russ_watters]

More from last Wednesday:

Both are with my 135mm f2.8 lens, piggybacked and my DSI.

First is the North American Nebula, minus Canada. I'll get the rest later. It's 20x90s.

Next is Orions sword, 20x60s. I need to learn to do masks so I can blend images at different exposures and bring out the dim details without washing out the bright ones...

[vincentm]

Wow russ thanks for the images, im still undecided (due to bills and scheduling) which way i should go, go out and get a $500ish telescope, take a trip out to eastern WA on a regular basis, or join the Seattle astronomy club. I'm thinking both, but with school coming up in January and me being on call at my job during the "off hours" who knows. But thank you for the wonderful pics.

[turbo]

By all means, join the Seattle Astronomical Society. They have a number of members who have volunteered to help people learn about aspects of astronomy:

http://www.seattleastro.org/resources.html

They also have a "library" of telescopes that can be "checked out" for up to a month at a time by members. Taking advantage of this service might help you figure out what kind of telescope might be right for you, and save you from making a potentially expensive mistake.

http://www.seattleastro.org/telescopelibrary.html

[RedScout]

What is the most affordable process to take digital pictures with a telescope and also get decent quality pictures? I was wanting a digital telescope for christmas but it is out of my price range.

[Amergin_West]

Wow..cool stuff guys. I'm new to this. :) anyone wanna give me some starter tips, maybe tell me what I should have to start? o.O

[russ_watters]

Well...do you have any equipment now? What is your experience level, pricerange, etc?

[Labguy]

Yo, Guys;
Maybe just lucky for a day, but look at the top left of:
http://www.space.com/amazingimages/?page=best&cat=s&term=all
under Space.com site.
If you vote, please don't give me a "1" on that photo...:biggrin:
It was harder to get than you might think..:confused:

[russ_watters]

It was a terrible winter for astronomy here - warm and humid. We went weeks on end without clear skies when usually we go weeks with clear skies almost every night. I only got out two or three times.

Anyway, attached is a half-decent photo of the moon occulting the Pleaides on April 1. Taken with a regular 10x zoom digital camera on a tripod, 1s exposure. Maybe I'll try to brighten the tree branches - they frame the picture pretty nicely (image is cropped a little close to see much of it, though).

Sometime, I need to take a series to show the moon's motion through the backdrop of stars. Most people don't realize just how fast the moon moves - it passed entirely through the constellation/cluster in the 3 hours it was up. But it was Saturday night and I had things to do...

[Vincent Vega]

I've been wanting to splurge on a CCD camera cooled by a OCZ Cryo-Z with a nice scope. I saw your site Russ. Do you have a site too Labguy? What is your handle over there, astroden?

[tony873004]

I had a nice view of the clouds occulting the Moon occulting the Pleadies. I wanted to see this one. So, thanks Russ. That's as good as it gets for me.

[Life|Time]

Wow, all of this Astrophotography looks incredible! I really want to start getting into taking my own pictures, but have no idea where to start. I have no equipment and no idea of what equipment I would need...

Any Help? Like maybe a beginners guide on a website somewhere?

Thanks, Rich.

[russ_watters]

There are tons and tons of individuals' websites that you should browse, but a lot depends on what you want to do, what your level of experience is, and what your budget is.

If you have no astronomy experience whatsoever, you may want to start off with a $2-300 non-motorized scope (ehh - maybe a motorized one) to help you decide if you really like astronomy enough to spend a lot of time on it.

The next step up from there is a computerized scope in the $600-$1200 range and a cheap webcam, then later a $300 astrocam (like Meade's DSI).

The next step up from that is probably $3,000-$5,000 worth of equipment

[batboy]

Do astronomers at the 3,000 dollar level become degenerates, in a way, with their huge optics? Once you have seen Hubble's and other huge observatories pictures, I'd think you'd never be satisfied. I plan on buying a $3,000 scope before I pass.

[Life|Time]

There are tons and tons of individuals' websites that you should browse, but a lot depends on what you want to do, what your level of experience is, and what your budget is.

If you have no astronomy experience whatsoever, you may want to start off with a $2-300 non-motorized scope (ehh - maybe a motorized one) to help you decide if you really like astronomy enough to spend a lot of time on it.

The next step up from there is a computerized scope in the $600-$1200 range and a cheap webcam, then later a $300 astrocam (like Meade's DSI).

The next step up from that is probably $3,000-$5,000 worth of equipment

Thanks for the reply! I wouldn't mind spending in around the $600-$1200 region, as it is something I've wanted to do for a long time and I know I'll like it! :rolleyes:

What I don't really understand is what sort of camera you use with a telescope? :uhh: I'd probably prefer a digital camera to use...Just need pointing in the right direction of what to buy and how to use! Complete beginner here :smile:

[russ_watters]

Do astronomers at the 3,000 dollar level become degenerates, in a way, with their huge optics? Once you have seen Hubble's and other huge observatories pictures, I'd think you'd never be satisfied. I plan on buying a $3,000 scope before I pass. My take on that is that once you get to that mid-level, you're starting to get close to the type of pictures taken by professionals. And here's why: while the Hubble has access to literally billions of interesting objects, and yes, every one is unique in some way, but there is a lot of repetition. Ie, there are only a handful of types of spiral galaxies and all look somewhat similar. Perhaps you can only see 100 of them with a $3000 telescope while Hubble can see a billion, but the pictures you take won't look all that much different. I've seen side-by-side comparisons, but can't seem to find any right now.

THIS (http://www.waid-observatory.com/gallery-nebulae.html) guy is using a telescope that retails for $4000 (the newest, best version of it, anyway) and a camera of the level he's using probably costs another $800 today.

[russ_watters]

Thanks for the reply! I wouldn't mind spending in around the $600-$1200 region, as it is something I've wanted to do for a long time and I know I'll like it! :rolleyes: Ok, On that range, you have the Meade ETX or the low end of the LXD75 series.
http://meade.telescopes.com/site_search/index.php?&keywords=&display=&cur=5&cat=17&sort=pd&brand=51&lp=&hp=
...or the Celestron C---GT series
http://celestron.telescopes.com/site_search/index.php?&keywords=&display=&cur=4&cat=17&sort=pd&brand=22&lp=&hp=
...or the Orion Skyview Pro series (probably the best, bang-for-buck)
http://www.telescope.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=149144&itemType=PRODUCT&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=8&iProductID=149144

Had I done it differently, I probably would not have gotten my ETX, I would have either spent a little more for an LXD series or gotten an Orion for about the same price. Part of the problem there was that I already knew I wanted to go the next level up, but didn't quite have the funds yet, so I wanted something to hold me over until I could get something better (which I am about ready to do). I actually bought a $400 Meade reflector that was junk, decided I was willing to spend $800, then didn't spend enough effort on the decision.

Some key issues:

Focal Ratio (ratio between focal length and aperature):
This is probably the biggest issue. It is what determines whether or not you can do deep-sky imaging with much success. Lower is better and if you want to do deep-sky, having a high focal ratio is an absolute killer. At f14, my ETX requires eight times the exposure of the Orion Skyview Pro (f4.9 - you ratio the squares) to get the same brightness. Now mine can work with a focal reducer, which brings it down to about f7, but that still means double the exposures. Similarly....

Mount:
Very close second. My mount has a tracking bug that makes exposures over 30 seconds impossible (and even at 30 seconds, I can only keep about half). Some people have gotten better, but the ETX is hit or miss. The Skyview Pro is better, though even then people say getting 2 minutes unguided is difficult with any scope. Still, that means you can get 8x brighter images with the Skyview than I can with my ETX, without having to jump up in difficulty to autoguiding. There are a lot of deep-sky objects in range of a scope like the Skyview, not a lot in range of mine.

Aperature/Focal Length:
Since most scopes in the same product line/family have the same focal ratio, bigger scopes essentially just yield the same brightness but a bigger image. For planetary, though, aperature=resolution.

Scope Type:
Real quick, reflectors or CATs (half refractor, half reflector) are generally the most versatile and therefore best bang-for-buck. I encourage you to learn about the different types, though. What I don't really understand is what sort of camera you use with a telescope? :uhh: I'd probably prefer a digital camera to use...Just need pointing in the right direction of what to buy and how to use! Complete beginner here :smile: There are three basic options:

Webcams:
For planetary imaging, a decent webcam (Quickcam 3000 or 4000, or anything with a CCD, not a CMOS imaging chip) will match or exceed the results of a more expensive camera. Regardless of if you are going to move up to deep-sky imaging, I highly recommend starting out with a webcam. People make adapters, but all you really need to do is remove the lens and hot-glue a 35mm film canister to it. Then it goes in place of your eyepiece.

By shooting videos and stacking hundreds of images with software like Registax (http://registax.astronomy.net/), you get about double the resolution from the final pic than in any individual image.

Low-end deep-sky imagers:
Meade makes a camera called the Deep-Sky Imager ($300) and Orion makes the Starshoot ($400).
http://meade.telescopes.com/site_search/index.php?keywords=DSI&display=grid&cat=26&brand=51&lp=&hp=
http://www.telescope.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=130820&itemType=PRODUCT&iMainCat=6&iSubCat=29&iProductID=130820

They come with software that takes the pictures and they have image processing suites with them. They are a good start, but they are low resolution and low sensitivity. One big drawback of the color DSI - it is actually a monochrome camera with a grid of filters on it. That means its output resolution is really only a quarter of what the CCD is (and therefore advertised as), and it is noticeable in some of my photos. I don't think the Starshoot has that issue.

Midrange CCD Imagers:
The next step up from there is the monochrome DSI II ($700), or competing products in the up to $1500 range. The obvious drawback is the need to shoot 3 (or more) sets of images to then combine the colors via software. Benefit: sensitivity and resolution.

DSLR Cameras
On a similar pricerange is a regular digital SLR camera. Their benefit is bigger chips (for wider fields of view) and higher resolution. Drawbacks are that they are unsuitable for planetary imaging and their sensitivity is lower than the dedicated astrocams at similar prices.

You can also piggyback (means exactly what it sounds like) a dslr with its lens to take really wide-field pictures. I coupled an slr lens with my DSI for a few of mine.

Have a look at my website (shameless plug). You'll notice nice planetary pictures, but not a lot of deep sky. The Orion Skyview should be capable of slightly better planetary and much better deep-sky.

I need to start copying some of this stuff to my blog on my website....

[Life|Time]

Wow...thanks for all the information! It is really helpful! Ok, you can tell i'm a complete beginner from this question! Where can I get a 35mm film canister? Could I just use superglue? lol!

Also, with the telescopes that find objects themselves do you need to be connected to the Internet? Or even a computer? How does that work?
:)

Thanks!

[batboy]

If they don't have what you need in stock try http://www.optcorp.com/


They shipped mine in 12 hours.

[russ_watters]

Oops, never replied to this one...Also, with the telescopes that find objects themselves do you need to be connected to the Internet? Or even a computer? How does that work? They have a computer in the controller, but you can also control them from a regular computer if you want to.

[russ_watters]

I set up my scope on my deck at my new townhouse for the first time last night. It was pretty good, though my scope's tracking was pretty mediocre.

First up, Jupiter, with Callisto to the left, Ganymede and Europa to the right, and Io in front, casting a shadow.

Next, comet Schwassmann-Wachmann 3, fragment C, I think. Good news/bad news - it is breaking-up, which makes it interesting to look at, but dimmer than expected.

Next, M57 - my first photo of the Ring Nebula. At mag 9.5, I wasn't sure I'd be able to get it, but it is relatively consistent brightness, so it came out ok. That's as opposed to a galaxy that may be listed at mag 8, but that would just be the core - the arms of galaxies are much dimmer.

Unfortunately, I have some trees behind my place that obscure everything below about 45 degrees, and the inclination of the ecliptic sends planets behind my roof. But setting up on my deck is a lot better than setting up on my driveway - I don't have to watch it (heck, I can leave it and go to bed!).

I'm still itching for a new telescope. At 15 second exposures, only about half of the photos are useable and at 30 seconds, only about a quarter of them. Its this nagging tracking bug I can't seem to shake. Plus, the focal ratio is so slow you can't get too much out of it. With a faster scope and more consistent tracking, there is a lot I could see from here with just 30sec or 1 min exposures.

Still processing more...

[russ_watters]

Saturn.

Not my best, but not bad.

[russ_watters]

Tonight, Jupiter being occulted by Ganymede. Going to have several pics...

This one has Ganymede right below its shadow, and Io, probably overbrightened.

[Knavish]

Slightly off topic, but could any of you recommend a telescope for a beginner? I would love to make this a hobby. I don't want anything too fancy (within a hundred dollars?), just something to inspire me. I have free time this summer.

[larkspur]

Before you go buy a cheap scope you should find an astronomy club in your area and go to one of their star parties. At a star party you will be able to look through several scopes and talk to people about their experiences with cheap scopes. You may want to save up for a better scope instead.

[russ_watters]

Both celestron and Orion make similar beginner's reflectors for about $130: http://www.telescope.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=5135&itemType=PRODUCT&RS=1&keyword=

You'll also want a 2x Barlow lens to double the magnification for planetary viewing.

Jupiter is only up for about another two months and Saturn one month before going behind the sun - then you'll need to wait until winter to see either. You will, of course, be able to view the moon with it, and there are a number of clusters and nebulae that are viewable with it.

[russ_watters]

I recently bought Meade's new DSI Pro II, which is a black and white camera of higher resolution and sensitivity than my last camera. Below is my first lrgb photo with it. It is a lot of work to take many separate exposures and then combine them, but the results are good. I'm really limited by my equipment here - with my telescope's tracking bug, I can only keep about 1/3 of photos of 30 seconds exposure, and I can't do any longer. So this photo is heavily processed, which is why the contrast is pretty low. I'm really itching for a new scope, and it'll probably happen before the end of the summer.

Anyway, this photo is M-51, the Whirlpool Galaxy, a relatively nearby neighbor. For the luminance data, I set up my scope on my deck and went to bed! I love my new house...

[Moonbear]

ISo this photo is heavily processed, which is why the contrast is pretty low.
Is that what gives it that grainy look?

Sounds like you're enjoying your new house and living where it's dark at night. :approve: I always enjoy the updates...love the pictures. Sure you don't want to drive several hours out of your way to show me some of these views in person? :biggrin:

[franznietzsche]

Slightly off topic, but could any of you recommend a telescope for a beginner? I would love to make this a hobby. I don't want anything too fancy (within a hundred dollars?), just something to inspire me. I have free time this summer.


I would recommend a six (or larger possibly, depending on your budget, but not smaller) inch, dobsonian mounted newtonian reflector, from either Meade or Orion. Its about as inexpensive as you'll get for what is still a very good scope (in large part because of the mount). About $300 or so.

[russ_watters]

Is that what gives it that grainy look? Yes. It is tough to amplify the signal without amplifying the noise. To give an idea of how little good data was in the origionals, attached is an unprocessed luminance (b/w) frame. Sounds like you're enjoying your new house and living where it's dark at night. :approve: I always enjoy the updates...love the pictures. Sure you don't want to drive several hours out of your way to show me some of these views in person? :biggrin: Yeah, like my house and deck. We'll see about the drive - I may be buying a new telescope this summer.

[Moonbear]

Yes. It is tough to amplify the signal without amplifying the noise. To give an idea of how little good data was in the origionals, attached is an unprocessed luminance (b/w) frame.
Wow, that starts out pretty dim. Now I can see why you lose quality in order to enhance the brightness.
Yeah, like my house and deck. We'll see about the drive - I may be buying a new telescope this summer.
Hee, you're always so cryptic. Does that mean after buying a new telescope, you won't be able to afford a trip anywhere, or that once you have a new telescope, you'll have more incentive to show it off?

The weather around here has been atrocious lately for even just plain old stargazing without a telescope though...for my first few days back last week, it was disgustingly hot and hazy, and then changed to dreary, cloudy and rainy for a week. It's definitely dark enough, but you can't see anything through the cloud cover. This is not normal spring weather. :grumpy:

[larkspur]

Here is a picture I took this past weekend while in New Mexico. This is a single shot from a Canon 300D mounted on Takahashi Sky Patrol camera mount,280 seconds, ISO 800.


7108

[Math Is Hard]

Here is a picture I took this past weekend while in New Mexico. This is a single shot from a Canon 300D mounted on Takahashi Sky Patrol camera mount,280 seconds, ISO 800.


7108
It's beautiful! My dream is to go out to the desert sometime and see the Milky Way with my own eyes.

[larkspur]

A few years ago, I attended a conference in Hawaii. While there, I took a tour of the Keck Observatory on Mauna Kea. I had never imagined there were so many stars to be seen with the naked eye. That experience got me interested in Astronomy.

Here is another photo taken this past weekend. You can see the Andromeda Galaxy if you look just above the telescope in the picture.

7109

[Moonbear]

Here is a picture I took this past weekend while in New Mexico. This is a single shot from a Canon 300D mounted on Takahashi Sky Patrol camera mount,280 seconds, ISO 800.


7108
Wow! Cool! (What more can I say?)

[Math Is Hard]

Truly awesome pics. Maybe we should have our next Sisterhood convention in New Mexico or Hawaii.

[hover]

Here is a picture I took this past weekend while in New Mexico. This is a single shot from a Canon 300D mounted on Takahashi Sky Patrol camera mount,280 seconds, ISO 800.


7108

wow, that is a good picture :surprised . wish i could take pictures of the sky like that. The only thing that i can take a picture of with any success is the moon and a picture of orion but your picture is way better.

[larkspur]

Truly awesome pics. Maybe we should have our next Sisterhood convention in New Mexico or Hawaii.
I would certainly show up for that one! The closest dark sky to me is in Moonbears neck of the woods. Spruce Knob, WV.

[Moonbear]

I would certainly show up for that one! The closest dark sky to me is in Moonbears neck of the woods. Spruce Knob, WV.
Cool! I was just recently looking up info on Seneca Rocks, which is really close to there, as a possible weekend trip idea for the summer. That information now makes that an even more appealing idea. :cool:

[Labguy]

I don't remember if I have ever posted these here before, but if I did it was a very long time ago. Some of these are worth keeping for you astrophoto buffs out there and I have found the exposure tables to be spot-on. For f/ratios not listed, it is easy to see where to start for bracketing.

For solar exposures, non-eclipse:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~sherrodstephen/SolarEx.htm

For lunar exposures:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~sherrodstephen/moon2.htm

For image size on film, CCD, anything:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~sherrodstephen/Image%20Size.htm

For use with the popular nebular filters:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~sherrodstephen/knisley.htm

And the next two are for the "Newtonian guys" who might want to build a scope or make changes to a commercial scope if needed:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~sherrodstephen/diagonal.htm
http://www.users.qwest.net/~sherrodstephen/secondary_offset.htm

There is one well-known program on the internet named "Scope Design" (or something similar) that is supposed to give all newtonian parameters for tube length, diagonal size, mirror placement, focuser height, etc., etc. but I have entered the info it requires many times and it is just plain wrong!

Hope the links I listed are useful to at least some of you, especially beginners. This centerline photo of an annular eclipse was taken using the solar exposure table with no bracketing needed.

7131

[Knavish]

Hi again,

I ended up getting the StarBlast: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000XMT38/sr=8-1/qid=1150141614/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7243800-3241567?%5Fencoding=UTF8. I reasoned that even if I do get a bigger scope someday, I'll be able to keep this one for its portability.

[Brinx]

Last night I played around a bit with my small bresser skylux telescope (70/700 refractor) in combination with a ToUcam pro II webcam. I made a mosaic of the moon out of 7 separate AVIs which were stacked in registax. The seeing wasn't very good (it's been quite warm here in Holland lately!) and the moon was only about 20 degrees above the horizon. Click on the link for a full-size version (1000x1200 pixels).

http://img88.imageshack.us/my.php?image=moon150720062kd7.png

[larkspur]

Nice job Brinx!

[scott1]

I'm not the one to take this picture but:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v502/Einhanderkiller/summermilkyway_gross.jpg
That's a mirror that a found for some reason the orginal site is down
I'll post the orginal when the site is up, it's a better picuture

[russ_watters]

Wow, that's a great pic - an impossible pic. It must be a composite with the night sky laid on top of a photo taken at dusk. They may have even had to shade the camera from the town lights to get the long exposure of the sky.

[Astronuc]

What one can do with a solar filter -

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_atlantis_transit.html (talk about timing!)

and more -

http://www.astrophoto.fr/index.html

[russ_watters]

Neat - most photos of satellites suffer due to poor lighting of the spacecraft - silouetting it ensures you get a good view of the shape.

[russ_watters]

...Continued from my "I Did It thread. First night using the new scope, I'm going for quantity over quality tonight - I'm using my old DSI Color instead of my new DSI II b/w. This way I get color images in one shot instead of needing 4 sets. Obviously, the sensitivity is lower, and the resolution is too. So far, my paper dew shield is getting the job done...

First up is M13, 20 exposures of 30 seconds. Though I took some 5 and 15 second exposures to compare, I'll call this my first real image with this scope. In darkening the background, I may have clipped it a little. I only spent a few minutes on the processing.

[russ_watters]

Here's M57 - about 40 30 second subs.

Also, not an astrophoto, but a good one of me with the scope. Note the Pleaides in the background (totally accidental). It's a 5 second exposure with a flaslight illuminating the telescope.

[russ_watters]

M27, 20 frames, 30 sec. Perhaps I forgot to turn on dark subtraction - I got a lot of hot pixels and amp glow. I'll have to go back and work on that. Still, some of the faint nebulosity (the handlebars) is visible.

[russ_watters]

Over Thanksgiving, I took my telescope to the Poconos and spent 9 hours in a random parking lot... (yes, I am somewhat insane)

First up is a 45 second luminance frame of M81. I took rgb photos too, but in the 4 hours since I set up, the temperature dropped 30 degrees, my telescope shrank and went out of focus, and I didn't notice. Oops - still climbing that learning curve....

M77 came out pretty well, but the stars are slightly elongated from continued minor tracking issues (its a lot better, though).

M15 shows a big improvement over that M13 photo from a month ago. The scope was a little out of collimation, which I think is why the stars were a little smeared on that one.

I'll probably need to start autoguiding soon. I was hoping for consistent tracking up to 2 minutes, but it isn't happening. I may be able to tweak the mount a little (the tracking is better sometimes than others, suggesting an adjustment in the gears may help), but at my focal length, I probably won't be able to get it to take longer exposures without a guidescope.

[russ_watters]

I also redid M27. I think I need some work in color balancing - M27 is more green than my image has it.

[-Job-]

Those are some pretty cool photos. What kind of telescope would one need to see stuff like that? How much exposure do you need?

[russ_watters]

My new telescope is the Orion Atlas 11 (a C11 with an Orion Atlas mount) in 147 and the camera is a Meade DSI II Pro. The objects I've taken pictures of already are relatively bright, so you don't need quite that much for them (though more exposure would be good).

[sas3]

Here is a picture of comet Hyatake that I took from my back yard in Tichigan Lake Wisconsin. I think it was taken with a 80mm and about 45 seconds. 35mm SLR AS400 Film if I remember corectly.
Hope you all enjoy it.


http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9688/comtc5.png

[russ_watters]

Very nice pic.

[russ_watters]

I took three pictures tonight.

First is the "Blue Snowball", a planetary nebula. This one is really bright and 30 second exposures are all that is really needed. The only stretching that was done was to cut off the black level at the bottom.

Next is the Crab Nebula. Decent for my first attempt, with 30 and 45 second sub-exposures. There is a ton of subtle detail to bring out with much longer exposures.

Last is Saturn. I've taken a bunch, and frankly, I've been a little disappointed so far. I'm matching, but have not yet exceeded the quality I got from my older, much smaller telescope. I think it is mostly due to the atmospheric turbulence around here.

I've gotten the hardware I need to start autoguiding, so I should be able to start figuring that out soon (tomorrow...?) and up the quality of my another step.

[russ_watters]

I've gotten the hardware I need to start autoguiding, so I should be able to start figuring that out soon (tomorrow...?) and up the quality of my another step. Well, it took an extra month, but here's my first autoguided pic. It's 15x2 minute red subs 15x3 minute blue and about 30x3 minute green subs. I intended to go to bed while shooting luminance frames, but fell asleep on the couch while it was shooting the greens.

I've got a very dirty CCD, which is surprising since I keep the camera in a zip-lock bag when not using it, but I cleaned it tonight and it looks better. Regardless, I've uncovered a bunch of learning curve issues to deal with. Still, it's a pretty good result. Compare it to my image in post 125: http://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7011&d=1148840740

[russ_watters]

I finally got a good night of seeing for imaging Saturn. Attached is the result - by far my best yet.

I'd actually been starting to wonder if I was doing something wrong or if there was something wrong with my scope, but nope - it looks like it is all about the seeing where I live. I did take more exposures than usual (1000 vs about 3000) and I did the color correction in Registax and I think it looks more natural than in some of my others.

This is about 500 of 1000, stacked in Registax 4, single point alignment (can't seem to get multipoint to work...), .25sec exposures, 5x powermate, bmp format, taken with my DSI-Color.

I'm not finished processing yet, but this is probably 95% of what I'll get out of it (at 3:00 in the morning....). I also took a few avis with my QuickCam VC, so we'll see if they yield anything....

Btw, I have finally updated my website...

[turbo]

Very nice, Russ!

[zanazzi78]

March 3rd lunar eclipse

[Kurdt]

Here is one of my shots of the Lunar eclipse. I posted it in the general discussion forums but obviously it belongs here aswell.

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/2113/lunareclipse030307hb7.jpg (http://img83.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lunareclipse030307hb7.jpg)

[russ_watters]

Nice. It was hazy and I was out to dinner. Though I could see it through the clouds when I was finished, I didn't try to take any pictures of it.

[bigzul]

New Saturn from last Friday attached. Only marginally better quality, but it is twice the magnification (Barlow lens). That's about the magnification limit (400x or so) and light gathering limit of my scope with my quickcam. Sky's could be better though (over Xmas, I'll drive up to the Poconos...). The image was dim enough its starting to look grainy. I'm working on a long-exposure mod for the quickcam. You can't see anything at all deep-sky with it at 1/5 second exposures.


HEY NEED HELP

i am and first timer in all this but i have purchased a konus 70 telescope it has a focal lengh of 900mm aperture of 70mm

can somebody tell me how i view planets with this what lenses do i use to give me a good view of the planet like saturn and jupiter help please

[russ_watters]

Saturn is up right now, Jupiter is not (until early morning). Start with your largest eyepiece (I'd guess they gave you a 15mm or so), then put a barlow lens on it after you get the planet centered.

[MadScientist 1000]

Saturn is up right now, Jupiter is not (until early morning). Start with your largest eyepiece (I'd guess they gave you a 15mm or so), then put a barlow lens on it after you get the planet centered.

What if you just have 1 and half of an eye? Any suggestions there?

[bigzul]

Saturn is up right now, Jupiter is not (until early morning). Start with your largest eyepiece (I'd guess they gave you a 15mm or so), then put a barlow lens on it after you get the planet centered.

hey i didnt gt a barlow with mine but how much magnification is required to see jupiter like in ur pics a 900mm focal divided my a 10mm eye peiece shoudl give me 100* mag

[bigzul]

Here is one of my shots of the Lunar eclipse. I posted it in the general discussion forums but obviously it belongs here aswell.

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/2113/lunareclipse030307hb7.jpg (http://img83.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lunareclipse030307hb7.jpg)

hey what telescope did you use

[Kurdt]

I didn't use a telescope. I used a 300mm lens on my camera.

[russ_watters]

Still climbing the learning curve....

Here's my latest M-51, nearly 4 hours worth of data, guided, lrgb. The skies were pretty inconsistent (making it noisier than it should be), so I'm actually pretty pleased with the result.

When imaging, I accidentally slid my filters the wrong direction and ended up with two sets of reds - it took about 4 hours of mostly wasted processing time to figure that out. :grumpy: Tonight I had just enough transparency to redo the blue (it isn't great data, but it'll do). I'm still fiddling with the image, but this is about 95% complete. Note the dim, distant galaxy in the upper-right.

Compare with my previous two tries at this galaxy...
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1238705&postcount=156
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=999862&postcount=125

I just bought an Orion ED80 apochromatic refractor to use as a guidescope and for widefield imaging. I haven't taken many pictures of clusters with my new scope because the fov is too small, so I'll probably get a bunch in the next few weeks (they are easy - they don't take much exposure).

[turbo]

Pretty nice, Russ. You'll probably have fun with that APO. I've got an 80mm f:5.6 Vernonscope APO that is pretty nice as a WF imager.

[vincentm]

I'm loving your site russ, nice gallery:surprised

[russ_watters]

Thanks. I've been updating it a lot lately.

Here's a new pic of M63 I took a few days ago. Compare it to the previous one on my site...

I still have a lot to learn, but it is fun being on the part of the learning curve where improvements from one image to the next are drastic.

[sas3]

All I can say is WOW!.

[Astronuc]

Still climbing the learning curve....

Here's my latest M-51, nearly 4 hours worth of data, guided, lrgb. The skies were pretty inconsistent (making it noisier than it should be), so I'm actually pretty pleased with the result.

Here's a new pic of M63 I took a few days ago.
Very nice, considering the skies through which the light must pass.

You need to get out west - like the Grand Canyon - where the skies clearer.

Now this is what you could do if you had your own satellite.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/12mar_stereoeclipse.htm?list183321

[twinsen]

Heres my pic of m36 taken the other night its a 1 min unguided shot through my canon 300mm lens @ f4
the focus is horrible and it wasnt aligned but it is my first ever astrophoto shot.

The second shot is earthshine the flaring is due to the overexposure of the moon i think but this is unavoidable.

Alex

[russ_watters]

Good start. Two suggestions:

For the first, since it is on a fixed-mount, you can try taking a half dozen to a dozen 15 second exposures and stacking them with a program like Registax. It'll be sharper and brighter.

For the second, you can take several exposures of different lengths and composite them in photoshop. I'm working on an earthshine pic as well.

[twinsen]

When i say unguided i mean it was on a motorised EQ mount but without any kind of pec adjustment or guiding.
If it was on a stationary mount a 1min exposure would leave star trails half way across the fov lol

Alex

[russ_watters]

Oh. Hmm... at only 300mm, I wouldn't think that PE would show up. But yeah, you're right - even at 300mm, the earth's rotation would be a lot more...

[sas3]

There are some pictures of lightning that I took the other night.
In my Blog
They are not astro photos but I figured you would like to see them anyway.

[Digz]

Hi Guys, Im new here and there appears to be some really great stuff going on.

Ive been into astronomy for a few years and Im recently begining to take it more seriously. Ive got a Celestron 675 Telescope and Im looking to upgrade it soon.

Im also an amateur photographer and want to extend my skills into the world of astrophotography and this looks like a great place to start.

So to start I thought I would attach a couple of photos. One from the recent lunar ecplise and one from my second attempt at astrophotography. The first is a series of 4 images of the various stages of the eclipse. The second is a 27 image stack looking towards Orion.

[russ_watters]

Very nice. I like the wide-angle shots, but don't have the equipment for that right now.

[russ_watters]

I've made a lot of recent updates to my website. Here's something that took me forever to take. It is 8.5 hours of exposure (at f 7.5), taken over about two weeks. I think, Astronuc, that you are right about my skies being a severe limiting factor. At 8.5 hours, even at f7.5, I should have a whole lot better s/n ratio. Still, not too bad...

[russ_watters]

This one's better. It doesn't have the dim outer arms of a spiral galaxy, so it doesn't need quite so much s/n ratio.

[Burnsys]

I took this one with a borrowed Galileo Reflector, D:114 F:7.9 , 20mm eyepiece
I just placed a Sony DSC H5 on the eyepiece.

I am going to an astronomy club and i am considering to build a 150mm reflector to use for astrophotography.
I was also looking for an ecuatorial mount, the EQ4, i eard it can be motorized, i can get one for $300 without motors, what do you recomend??

[neutrino]

Here's some beginner astrophotography: Crux and Alpha and Beta Centauri. This is the first time I have actually "processed" an image (followed a set of cookbook instructions to remove LP, online). Didn't bother to remove the noise. I think the unprocessed one shows more stars. :biggrin:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1098/525227250_27cdce84c2_b.jpg

[Brinx]

I've made a lot of recent updates to my website. Here's something that took me forever to take. It is 8.5 hours of exposure (at f 7.5), taken over about two weeks. I think, Astronuc, that you are right about my skies being a severe limiting factor. At 8.5 hours, even at f7.5, I should have a whole lot better s/n ratio. Still, not too bad...

It's still a nice pic, indeed. I have one question regarding combining the separate exposures: did you have to re-align them, or were they all in the correct orientation already (requiring just a translation to match up)? I'm asking this in relation to fixing relative rotations between the different exposures: rotating them to mach orientations would inevitably mean that you lose some detail.

[russ_watters]

Jezz, sorry, been so long since I ues my scope I haven't looked in this thread! There is software out there that aligns and stacks images. I use Registax. It doesn't deal well with field rotation, so it is best to do all your data from each channel in one night.

I've done colors on consecutive nights, and combining them into an RGB image works best if the camera remains attached to the scope during the few nights of imaging so there aren't any rotation issues.

For luminance, I just went two months between capturing the color data and replacing some poor luminance data with better luminance data using a hydrogen alpha filter. So nothing about the camera setup was the same - not even the magnification. But it was relatively easy to rotate and stretch the luminance image in Photoshop.

Here's the full saga:
On 6/20 I shot:
14 exposures at 30 seconds for red (7 minutes)
27 exposures at 45 seconds for blue (20 minutes)
26 exposures at 45 seconds for green (20 minutes)

The red channel is more sensitive than the other two, so I use less exposure, though the number of exposures really should be equal. Also, tracking wasn't very good that night, so I had to discard a lot of frames. Still, the overall exposure time was a little on the low side. My first attached image is the resulting RGB.

I then shot:
34 exposures at 2 min for luminance (1:08 total) the same night.

Due to my bad tracking, the stars came out egg-shaped. So the second attached image is the combined lrgb. Not terrible, but the egg-shaped stars are a dealbraker to me. Plus the exposure time seemed a little low - the detail wasn't great.

Then I had two solid months of clouds, during whcih the telescope was set up in my living room. Last night was the first good night of sky(and perfect tracking) in months, and I shot:

26 exposures at 4 min each with a hydrogen alpha filter (1:44 total).

The third image is the result of combining that luminance image with the earlier color data. It's just under 2.5 hours of data altogether. I really could have used longer subs for the color, but it is good enough I'm not going to redo it for a long time. This was the first target I ever imaged (last year) and I've spent way too much time on it trying to get a good one as I climbed the learning curve. My first attempt is here, earlier in the thread (11 months ago): http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1097341&postcount=148

[lanman]

I have a Celestron C4.5 reflector telescope, and a Minolta XR-5 (I think) camera. I got the parts to connect the two, but found that I couldn't get it to focus. To make the connection, first the lens assembly must be removed from the camera. How can it be focused once it's on the telescope?

[russ_watters]

Some newtonians don't have enough in-focus travel to focus some cameras. You can try modifying the focuser assembly (ie, getting a shorter one) or using a focal reducer or barlow to alter the focal length.

[sas3]

Has anyone here tried the new version of Google Earth with Google Sky, just wondering what you though of it.
One very interesting thing about it is you can create and share your own imagery.

[Chronos]

A camera adapter should solve the problem, lanman - e.g.,
http://www.telescope.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=73&itemType=PRODUCT&iMainCat=3&iSubCat=240&iProductID=73

[chemisttree]

...For luminance, I just went two months between capturing the color data and replacing some poor luminance data with better luminance data using a hydrogen alpha filter. So nothing about the camera setup was the same - not even the magnification. But it was relatively easy to rotate and stretch the luminance image in Photoshop...

...I shot:
26 exposures at 4 min each with a hydrogen alpha filter (1:44 total)...

Russ,

Have you ever tried to shoot the luminance shots using an IR bandpass filter instead of the H alpha? I've heard that the IR image is less subject to seeing problems.

[russ_watters]

All of my images are shot with a uv/ir filter, including the Ha. I do that to make them parafocal, since the Meade color filters pass uv and ir. So I have stacked filters (one on the nosepiece of the camera, and one in a rack).

[chemisttree]

So you don't have an IR bandpass filter? It might help with the luminance shot.

http://www.astrovid.com/technical_documents/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Baader%20IR.pdf

http://astro.neutral.org/imagehtml/20060505_m51_near_IR.html

[russ_watters]

Oh, you mean one that just lets through IR, not one that blocks it - right. Misread.

It is my understanding that you want to block the IR for images of nebulas because stars shine so bright in IR that they'll drown out the nebula. The stars get bloated. That seems to fit with my experience.

For galaxies, you need all the light you can get, and imaging in IR only doesn't give much signal. The second link you provided shows that.

Actually, about the only time you even want to include the IR at all is if you are imaging only stars or planets (though even for planets, the resolution is lower in IR because of the wavelength).

[Ki Man]

I just got a 500x reflector on Thursday. Gazing is pretty hard though because I live in OC and theres alot of light pollution so its hard to make out most things in the sky other than the moon. Any tips for a high schooler's stargazing?

[twinsen]

Lets see.
Does your telescope have any manufacturer name on it or any other information other than its a 500x scope.
If you are trying to observe at 500x magnification it will be almost impossible to find anything unless you know the sky very well. Try a lower power eyepiece. A large focal length eyepiece if you have one.

Telescopes which use magnification as a selling point are generally pretty rubbish. You can get a magnification of over x1000 out of a 60mm refractor if you have the right eyepieces this does not mean it is any use at that magnification and will most likely give a rubbish image.

Alex

[sas3]

More importantly what kind and size is it, I have a 13.1 inch dob and I mainly use the lowest power, about (52 X) as do most people. My first scope was a 3 inch sears retractor and the highest usable magnification was about 200 X and even that was pushing it.
I have the ability to go up to 800 X with my dob but have rarely used it.
You will probably rarely use 500 X.

[chemisttree]

He is probably referring to the focal length (500 mm) and confusing it with magnification.

Ki Man, is your scope a Celestron ExploraScope 100 or similar?

[russ_watters]

No, low end telescopes are generally advertised according to magnification. So that's probably really what it says.

[Ki Man]

:redface: its actually hard to tell since the box was oddly labeled and has been thrown away. It didn't really specify for me 500 what so i just had to fill in the blanks there. Low end but what I'm more concerned with now is getting the skills down first. Once I find myself a job over the summer and start making some money I'll try to upgrade, so this is sort of like learning with training wheels before getting on a real bike.

1000mm x 114mm and can be seen here (http://www.opticsplanet.net/rasco-1000x114-galaxsee.html)

[russ_watters]

That's a quite respectable beginner scope. Good aperature, good focal ratio, and with a barlow, good versatility. You'll be able to see planets, bright nebulae and clusters, and maybe some bright galaxies with it.

[chemisttree]

Can you use a Meade DSI to guide a non-Autostar equipped mount?

[russ_watters]

Yes, I use my DSI to guide my Orion Atlas 11. People make special adapters to connect from USB to the guide port in most motorized telescopes.

[Telmerk,the Magician]

Dear Astrophotographer-Forumers!

A would like to get some help from You! I need a digital camera for my work that has the following capabilities:

- Minimum 1fps image capturing rate
- ...at 2MP size at least.
- and all these thing WITHOUT any external control (I mean PC-conrtol, or something else. Just the camera on its own.)
- and this should work for at least 2 hours.

Do you know any type of camera that can match these things?
I hope you can help!

Thank so much in advance!

Kind regards,

T. the M.

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure such a thing is possible - the problem is memory. Shooting 1sec, 2mp exposures for 2 hours will require 30 gigs of it. You may be able to do it with a hard drive equipped digital video camera, but I'm not sure if they are that programmable.

[Telmerk,the Magician]

Dear Russ_Waters,

Yes, I considered this problem, but I can imagine, that it is possible to change the memory card (SD, for example) when it is needed. The camera signs with a beep, or something. . .

Of course I can make a compromise, if there is something that can do it at a lower fps.

Many thanks,

Telmerk

[chemisttree]

Perhaps you should look at stand alone, high resolution, wireless, security cameras. googled it (http://www.rctoys.com/rc-toys-and-parts/DF-EE-SYSTEM/RC-PARTS-WIRELESS-VIDEO-KITS.html) here.

[russ_watters]

Well, if swapping out the card is an option, you can use a DSLR.

[Telmerk,the Magician]

Dear Russ_Watters, dear Chemistree,

Thank you so much for your advice, in this system it would be okay to swap the cards, so the DSLR would be the best solution. I just don't know is there any DSLR that can meet the requirements of programming the frame rate (I mean to tell the device that it should take pictures for a few hours at a given fps)
I was given an advice from a friend to search for somebody who is an expert in programming micro-controllers. With a micro-controller it may be possible to "hack" the DSLR camera....but I am not sure, I've never done things like this.

Many greetings,

Telmerk

[turbo]

If you get a Canon DSLR, you can equip it with a programmable corded timer remote (about $130 US) that lets you schedule sequential shots over a period of 100 hours (over 4 days).

[Telmerk,the Magician]

Dear turbo-1!
This seems to be the solution! Is it possible to directly buy this thing? Would you please specify me the device?
If I can make this, the only task would be to change the memory cards time to time. And this is not a problem.

Thank you!

Many greetings,

T the M. :smile:

[Telmerk,the Magician]

Canon TC80N3 Timer Remote Control for EOS D30, D60, D10, 1D, 1V & 20D SLR Cameras
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-TC80N3-Remote-Control-Cameras/dp/B00009XVA3

I've just googled it, sounds good.
:rolleyes:

[Yannick]

I don't have to much experience in astrophotography, but here are two pictures i would like to show you:

1. Comet 17P Holmes (1. Nov., 23:00 GMT), stack of 60 Photos with 30 seconds exposure, f=200mm SLR objective mounted on a FLI Maxcam CM7 CCD camera. The "spiral" was probably caused by a hot pixel or dark current. 30 dark frames combined and subtracted from the image. I would have wished to be able to take photos with the telescope, but the guiding turned out to be too inaccurate...

2. Moon mosaic. Same ccd camera as for the comet. Telescope: 5" Mak-Cass
(! Filesize !) http://www.astrospectroscopy.com/unterseiten/bilder/mondmosaik.jpg

I hope you can understand my poor English :frown:

Yannick

[russ_watters]

Great moon mosaic.

[turbo]

Yannick, I agree with Russ (at least on this non-political issue):rofl: That is a wonderful image! Here is a site that is inhabited by some of the best amateur astrophotographers in the world (not an overstatement!!!!), and you should start posting your stuff there.
http://forum.ourdarkskies.com/

One of our members (Noel Carboni of Florida) is a post-processing genius and he and his astophotographer partner Greg (in England) have produced some of the most amazing images you've ever seen. They have a book in the works that will be a best-seller amongst astronomers (and not necessarily just amateurs). Once you are a member of ODS, Noel will give you (FREE, yes, really FREE) a set of his actions for Photoshop that will help you get the most out of your images. The web-master, Vincent, is a good guy and fun to deal with, too. Come on over. Neutrino (a member here) invited me to go there a year or two ago, and I appreciate that heads-up!

[IsotropicSpinManifol]

I took a picture of Jupiter's moons without a telescope. This is from my 300 mm zoom lens on my Canon Digital Rebel:
http://orbitsimulator.com/orbiter/jupiter.jpg

thats cool. It would be an awesome party trick.

[baywax]

Hi.

I thought this might be of interest to those of you who haven't seen this article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/babyversionsofmilkywayspotted

Great photos everyone!!! Very enjoyable and educationable... eh?!

[NerfMonkey]

Second attempt at photographing the moon (holding a digicam to the eyepiece):

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/5214/telescoping11208006tc2.jpg

The shadowed part was actually also visible but when I turned up the brightness on the camera enough to see it the cratered side became white and blinding and I lost all the detail.

[Enigma007]

Man you guys make me want to run out and buy a better telescope. Don't laugh, but I thought I was doing good with a Baytronix Newtonian. (You know the ones on ebay for a few hundred bux)

I regret it now, I didn't know any better back then. What would you recommend for a budget of around $1000 to $2000 ?
Thanks
Enigma Valdez

Is this just for astrophotography?


Twistedseer

[turbo]

Man you guys make me want to run out and buy a better telescope. Don't laugh, but I thought I was doing good with a Baytronix Newtonian. (You know the ones on ebay for a few hundred bux)

I regret it now, I didn't know any better back then. What would you recommend for a budget of around $1000 to $2000 ?
Thanks
Enigma ValdezFirst off, don't compound your error by spending money on more gear that you haven't tried out or researched. You'll have to decide whether or not you will want to spend the time and effort pursuing astrophotography or if you'll stick with visual observing with an occasional through-the-eyepiece shot of bright objects. If you're not certain, that's OK. Your MANDATORY first step will help you decide. Find a local astronomy club and ask if you can attend their next star-party (group observing session). Be sure to show up early and offer to help people set up, if they will let you. Pay close attention to the space that their gear takes up in their vehicles and to amount of time and labor required to set up and align the scope. Someone might drive up with a big Dobsonian loaded in the back of an SUV, set the rocker box on the ground, put the OTA on the rocker box, fasten a couple of tension springs, slap in an EP and be ready for observing (minus cool-down time) right away, while others with Goto mounts will set up, point their scopes at a couple of bright stars to train the computer and be ready to go almost as fast and yet others will manually align their non-computerized German equatorial mounts. Then comes the good part - usually people will let you look through their scopes to compare what you can see from telescope to telescope. By the time the evening is over, you will have gotten a pretty good idea how various designs and makes of telescopes compare, and if you tell people that you want to buy a scope, you may get a very good deal from a club-member that has a used scope in your price-range and wants to upgrade or to finance accessories for a different scope that is more frequently used.

Lots of these folks are gear-hungry, and always looking to add or upgrade equipment, and they network pretty well, so if one of their buddies is looking to sell an old C-8 to finance a new Nagler EP, they'll probably know about it.

Good luck

[Enigma007]

thanks for that... I've only found one or two astronomy clubs near me and I think I'll join up and follow your guidelines. You're right I'm not sure, but I can easily see myself going hardcore.

[russ_watters]

It's been a crappy winter so far, so this is my first deep-sky image since the fall. It is my first HaRGB image and the first time I combined multiple different exposure lengths in one luminance image (to avoid blowing-out the core). It is M-42, taken with my DSI II Pro and ED80 and a .63 focal reducer. Obviously, coma is a problem with the focal reducer. I need to either go easier on the reduction or find one that works with an APO (instead of one that's designed for a CAT).

The image is 30x5sec, 20x30sec Ha; 20x10s R; 20x15s G,B. I also took some 45 sec Ha that I didn't use in the final image.

I also took two panes of the Flame/Horshead nebulas in Ha. Hopefully I can do the color later this week (I only get about 4 hours before Orion goes behind my house).

[yiuscott]

Hi

I am a beginner in astronomy and so my pictures are no way as impressive as the other member's...

I took this just before christmas. It was a full moon. I took it using a Orion skyview pro 6" I think the scope was slightly out of collimation that day...

[russ_watters]

That's a darn good start. What kind of camera did you use?

[yiuscott]

Its a three year old digital camera, Lumix fx-8.
I took it using the scenary setting...

[turbo]

For those with telescopes who don't want to deal with prime-focus photography just yet, you can still get some pretty nice shots of the heavens using piggy-back photography. Before I had the proper equipment to do prime-focus photography, I used to piggyback my Bronica on my JSO telescope and do long exposures of fairly wide areas of the sky. Unless you have a short focal-length telescope, or want to produce mosaics, it would be difficult to get images like this. This is the North America nebula and surrounding area. I scanned the print (which has faded and browned a bit over the years) and photoshopped it to bring the colors back into balance.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x318/turbo-1/NAneb.jpg

[twinsen]

Yer piggybacking a camera lens is a great way to start off in astrophotography. Heres one of the orion nebula taken with a 300mm f4 canon lens.

Alex

[turbo]

Very nice!

[yiuscott]

I took this photo of Jupiter using a Nikon D60 by prime focus through a Orion Skyview Pro 6.

[twinsen]

Thats a superb shot considering the equipment. To image the planets though you really need a very large image scale. This means a smaller fov which is more easily obtained with cameras with smaller sensors like webcams. DSlr are more suited to widefield images. Also with a webcam you can employ a technique called 'lucky imaging' where you take lots of frames of the planet. Because the atmosphere distorts the image you can pick the best frames with the highest resolution and then stack them in procesing software. This way you can get to see actual details on the planets :)

Alex

[NOBARTHOLEM]

do you know where i can find a picture of the deep space image, or whatever its called. I want to analyze it. You know the one by the hubble space telescope. i couldn't find it on the NASA site or on google, if you can help me out i'll be looking.

[turbo]

do you know where i can find a picture of the deep space image, or whatever its called. I want to analyze it. You know the one by the hubble space telescope. i couldn't find it on the NASA site or on google, if you can help me out i'll be looking.
Are you talking about the UDF? If so, here is a link.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/image/a/

[sas3]

Can someone take some pictures of Comet Lulin, I will not be able to make it up-North in time ( that’s where my telescope and camera are).
I have been reading about it and see it has an anti tail. I never even heard of an anti tail, In some of the pictures I have seen on-line it seems to have chunks or turbulence in its normal tail also.
Hopefully it will put on a good show, I think closest approach is on 2/24/09.

Thanks

[turbo]

Can someone take some pictures of Comet Lulin, I will not be able to make it up-North in time ( that’s where my telescope and camera are).
I have been reading about it and see it has an anti tail. I never even heard of an anti tail, In some of the picture I have seen on-line it seems to have chunks or turbulence in its normal tail also.
Hopefully it will put on a good show, I think closest approach is on 2/24/09.

ThanksHere you go! Mike Brous is shooting through the muggy light-polluted skies of Louisiana and managed to capture not only an ion-tail disconnect, but a very prominent pointy anti-tail. If you are interested in astrophotography, I highly recommend that you sign up there as a forum member. One of the world's premier image-processors (Noel Carbone) will send you (via email) a very comprehensive set of astrophotography actions for Adobe image-processing software for free if you are a member of ODS. He and his imaging-partner Greg in England have captured lots of APODs and have a coffee-table book in the works that will knock your socks off. You'd swear that they have commandeered a major observatory.

http://forum.ourdarkskies.com/index.php?showtopic=23259&hl=

[sanphy]

i want to make an astronomical telescope, can anybody help, give any specifications

[russ_watters]

I have a new camera - a DMK, grayscale camera. Here's one of my first Saturn shots with it... My best yet.

[Gnosis]

I have a new camera - a DMK, grayscale camera. Here's one of my first Saturn shots with it... My best yet.

Nice shot Russ.

[baywax]

I have a new camera - a DMK, grayscale camera. Here's one of my first Saturn shots with it... My best yet.

Spectacular russ!!

If its a grayscale camera why is there colour?

[russ_watters]

Thanks, guys.

Baywax, all CCD chips are single color, but those on normal cameras have a matrix of color filters on them and software to generate the color. I take separate exposures with separate color filters, then mix them with software to generate the color photo. This maximizes the resolution and color depth of the camera/photos.

[Kronos5253]

I have a new camera - a DMK, grayscale camera. Here's one of my first Saturn shots with it... My best yet.

Awesome shot russ! Almost a straight on view of the rings, which is kinda sad :( (everyone loves the rings! haha) but it really brings out the detail in the planet having them "out of the way".

But GREAT SHOT!

One of these days I'll learn how to take pictures like this...

[baywax]

Thanks, guys.

Baywax, all CCD chips are single color, but those on normal cameras have a matrix of color filters on them and software to generate the color. I take separate exposures with separate color filters, then mix them with software to generate the color photo. This maximizes the resolution and color depth of the camera/photos.

Very cool russ. Is Saturn a challenge to photograph? I just wondered because Jupiter seems like a sure bet to shoot since its so bright these days. Can you get a good shot of Jupiter and its many moons? Has anything unusual been going with Jupiter after Shoemaker-Levi?

[russ_watters]

Very cool russ. Is Saturn a challenge to photograph? All planets are a challenge to photograph because the resolution is limited primarily by how steady the atmosphere is - especially where I live. The atmosphere was perhaps the best I've ever seen it that night and it gets close to that maybe 10 nights a year. I take about ten thousand photos at a time via video (my camera is like an expensive webcam) and combine them with software designed to filter out atmospheric distortion to flesh-out the details. It takes some practice and some effort. My website has a tutorial showing what that process looks like: http://www.russsscope.net/staxtutorial.htm I just wondered because Jupiter seems like a sure bet to shoot since its so bright these days. Can you get a good shot of Jupiter and its many moons? Jupiter isn't out right now, it is almost directly behind the sun. You may be looking at Venus in the evening if you think you see Jupiter. Jupiter is bigger than Saturn so photos of it will naturally be higher resolution, but for the past few years, it has stayed lower in the sky for those in the northern hemisphere, making it tough to get good detail due to the atmosphere. When it comes around again this summer, I'll post my results. Has anything unusual been going with Jupiter after Shoemaker-Levi? No, it left scarring that dissipated in a few months. Amateurs did get a few photos, but that was before the explosion in amateur astrophotography (due to good, cheap cameras), so there weren't many.

[baywax]

All planets are a challenge to photograph because the resolution is limited primarily by how steady the atmosphere is - especially where I live. The atmosphere was perhaps the best I've ever seen it that night and it gets close to that maybe 10 nights a year. I take about ten thousand photos at a time via video (my camera is like an expensive webcam) and combine them with software designed to filter out atmospheric distortion to flesh-out the details. It takes some practice and some effort. My website has a tutorial showing what that process looks like: http://www.russsscope.net/staxtutorial.htm Jupiter isn't out right now, it is almost directly behind the sun. You may be looking at Venus in the evening if you think you see Jupiter. Jupiter is bigger than Saturn so photos of it will naturally be higher resolution, but for the past few years, it has stayed lower in the sky for those in the northern hemisphere, making it tough to get good detail due to the atmosphere. When it comes around again this summer, I'll post my results. No, it left scarring that dissipated in a few months. Amateurs did get a few photos, but that was before the explosion in amateur astrophotography (due to good, cheap cameras), so there weren't many.

Thank you russ.

Venus...? that is so bright for Venus. Is it closer than usual? Maybe I'm seeing the International Space Station. Except it doesn't move. I'll have to check this out. I'm at the 49th parallel and this planet sets after the sun by about 3 hours. (Obviously not an astronomer eh?!)

[Nabeshin]

Thank you russ.

Venus...? that is so bright for Venus. Is it closer than usual? Maybe I'm seeing the International Space Station. Except it doesn't move. I'll have to check this out. I'm at the 49th parallel and this planet sets after the sun by about 3 hours. (Obviously not an astronomer eh?!)

Well Venus is the brightest object in the night sky, save the moon.

[baywax]

Well Venus is the brightest object in the night sky, save the moon.
No way! So I've been pointing out Venus and calling in Jupiter!!!? I really thought Jupiter was brightest because of its' number of moons. What's up with Venus? Is this because its closer than Jupiter?

[russ_watters]

Yes, Venus is about as big as earth, is pretty close right now, and is white. All that makes it very bright.

[bobmerhebi]

Hello guys.

I would just like to share with you my images & webstie.

Direct link to my images: http://picasaweb.google.com/BOBMerhebi

Website: www.astrobob.tk

I will be glad to read you comments or suggestions.

Thank you,
BOB

[PalashD]

I just saw all the 16 pages full of these awesome pics and I am gonna do it again :smile:!
They are just great!

I hope I can get a good camera some day and take such great pics!

[3dfan]

astrophotography is my hobby, i like to collect photos of space objects and thaks for useful links, I am kinda newbie at it

[quddusaliquddus]

Hi all :D. I wanted to know - is it very expensive to take photos of planets in general? What would be the minimum cost (approx) required for a noob?

[Telmerk,the Magician]

Hi all,

Does anybody knows how to attach a CANON EOS 1000D onto a MEADE APO 152/1370 telescope? The telescope has a 2'' focuser drawtube. Many thanks, TtM

[bobmerhebi]

Hi all :D. I wanted to know - is it very expensive to take photos of planets in general? What would be the minimum cost (approx) required for a noob?

Hey there,

No its NOT necessarily. I have been an amateur astrophotographer for about more than a year now. I got my first digi cam; a Canon G9, although its expensive but you can find other than this that you can use. My first astrophoto was using my Canon EOS 750QD which is around 10 years old & still new with me. I took photos of the Partial Solar Eclipse back in 2006 & then got the digi files from the studio & processed them on my pc.

You can aslo purchase a fully mechanical cam (that doesn't use a battery for the bulb setting, of course if you know how to use such cams althoug I don't recommend a beginner to start with those) for a very cheap price.

make sure to check out my work on my flickr account: www.astrobobalbum.tk & my website: www.astrobob.tk

if you need any help, plz dont hesitate to ask me. :)

hope I answered you

[bobmerhebi]

Hi all,

Does anybody knows how to attach a CANON EOS 1000D onto a MEADE APO 152/1370 telescope? The telescope has a 2'' focuser drawtube. Many thanks, TtM

How to ? Easy. You just need to search for a cam-telescope adapter. its called by some a telescope adapter & others call it a cam adapter.

you get either a kit or the parts individually. I personally recommend the kit. It consists or the adpater + a T-ring that fits you cam from one end & the telescope from another. You can get the T-ring of your choice when ordering. As you will need different T-Rings for Different Eyepiece sized (i.e.; 1.25" or a 2").

I hope i also answered you

you can stay updated on my website that I included in the previous post, as I will sometime soon add my equipment pictures to it.

Cheers :)

[russ_watters]

Hi all :D. I wanted to know - is it very expensive to take photos of planets in general? What would be the minimum cost (approx) required for a noob? People (like me) start out in astrophotography with a decent webcam and telescope. For a few hundred dollars, you can take pretty good pictures of the moon and planets.

[russ_watters]

We had some rare good weather last week and I captured my first good deep space photo in a while. This is an edge-on spiral galaxy. It is about 5 hours total exposure.

[baywax]

We had some rare good weather last week and I captured my first good deep space photo in a while. This is an edge-on spiral galaxy. It is about 5 hours total exposure.

Incredible job Russ. Hot diggity dog man... that is deluxe!!!

How did you avoid light pollution?

If you want dead black skies... try up in south central BC, Canada.

[russ_watters]

Thanks.

I don't avoid light pollution, it is a real problem for me. The exposure details are in the pic, but the Luminance channel is only 4 minutes per subframe, which is all I can typically do with my camera and skies (and tracking on my mount...) without washing out the image (actually, the weather was so good, I probably could have done longer this time). Signal to noise ratio is then built by combining multiple exposures instead of taking one longer one.

And though it is a problem, it isn't quite as big a problem as you might think: light pollution adds a flat light to the entire frame, including where the galaxy is, so it brightens the galaxy as well. As a result, you can subtract out the light pollution with software and be left with what the image would have looked like without it. In theory, anyway...

[Telmerk,the Magician]

How to ? Easy. You just need to search for a cam-telescope adapter. its called by some a telescope adapter & others call it a cam adapter.

I hope i also answered you
Cheers :)

Many thanks, Bob, I need to know if a simple so-called T2 adapter solves the problem or not. Hopefully yes, today I gonna have a look at the telescope.
Clear Skies, TtM

[Sorry!]

We had some rare good weather last week and I captured my first good deep space photo in a while. This is an edge-on spiral galaxy. It is about 5 hours total exposure.
holy crap that is amazing.... wish i could take photos like this. or even see with my own eyes stuff like this

[russ_watters]

Many thanks, Bob, I need to know if a simple so-called T2 adapter solves the problem or not. Hopefully yes, today I gonna have a look at the telescope.
Clear Skies, TtM It really is that simple. Orion has them: http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=photo_accessories/~pcategory=astro-imaging/~product_id=A0317

You'll want to double-check what connections the back of your telescope came with, though. It is fairly typical for them to come with that threaded female connection as a component of the focuser, but if not, you'll need this too: http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=photo_accessories/~pcategory=astro-imaging/~product_id=05270

[russ_watters]

holy crap that is amazing.... wish i could take photos like this. or even see with my own eyes stuff like this Thanks - you can't see stuff like that with your eyes, though, you can only take pictures of them, which is why I spend much more time having a camera look through my telescope than using my eyes. I said 5 hours exposure, but I guess since I did the colors separately and stacked multiple exposures, it is really the equivalent of about 1 hour. But that still makes it many thousands of times more light captured (brighter) than what you can see with your eyes.

[baywax]

But that still makes it many thousands of times more light captured (brighter) than what you can see with your eyes.

How old is the light from that disc galaxy?

[russ_watters]

49 million years.

[Sorry!]

Thanks - you can't see stuff like that with your eyes, though, you can only take pictures of them, which is why I spend much more time having a camera look through my telescope than using my eyes. I said 5 hours exposure, but I guess since I did the colors separately and stacked multiple exposures, it is really the equivalent of about 1 hour. But that still makes it many thousands of times more light captured (brighter) than what you can see with your eyes.

ohhh i missed the exposure time. Still that is quite amazing. I'm wondering as I've never had a telescope before how do you keep the galaxy in the frame? since it would be moving relative to where your telescope was originally positioned... i assume some sort of equipment follows it for you?

[russ_watters]

I'm wondering as I've never had a telescope before how do you keep the galaxy in the frame? since it would be moving relative to where your telescope was originally positioned... i assume some sort of equipment follows it for you? The telescope is motorized and aligned to the earth's rotation axis, so theoretically should be able to passively follow an object across the sky. Realistically, the tracking accuracy required is impossible to do passively, so I have a second telescope and camera mounted on the first and my laptop sends constant tracking corrections to keep the object centered.

[baywax]

The telescope is motorized and aligned to the earth's rotation axis, so theoretically should be able to passively follow an object across the sky. Realistically, the tracking accuracy required is impossible to do passively, so I have a second telescope and camera mounted on the first and my laptop sends constant tracking corrections to keep the object centered.

Most cool!

49 million year old light. Is it a kind of crusty light?!:smile:

So this one is not to far out from our own. Did you give us the name yet? Just wondered.. I may have read the post after a Friday night:rolleyes:

edit: Does it mean that 49 million years ago, if there were telescopes and people around, no one would be able to see that galaxy... because the light had not reached us yet?

[russ_watters]

So this one is not to far out from our own. No, not really - and it is one of the dimmer/further one's I've captured. 60MLY is the furthest I've captured. But there are a lot of galaxies within that distance!
Did you give us the name yet? Just wondered.. I may have read the post after a Friday night:rolleyes: No name that I'm aware of, just that 4 number catalog designation in the file name: NGC4565. edit: Does it mean that 49 million years ago, if there were telescopes and people around, no one would be able to see that galaxy... because the light had not reached us yet? No, the galaxy itself is billions of years older than that, so if we had looked at it 49 million years ago, we'd just see it slightly older than it is now.

[Sorry!]

The telescope is motorized and aligned to the earth's rotation axis, so theoretically should be able to passively follow an object across the sky. Realistically, the tracking accuracy required is impossible to do passively, so I have a second telescope and camera mounted on the first and my laptop sends constant tracking corrections to keep the object centered.

That is so awesome. I shall add that to my list of things I want to buy at some point in my life. :D

[thomasxc]

these are taken with a nikon d40 (6.1 MP) and a 70-300 manual focus telephoto lens. as for the one with the stars, i could see none of those with the naked eye. that one was a 30 second exposure.

[thomasxc]

during this time of year, its hard for me to get much. (i am in north central florida..)i have no problem with light pollution. it's just that my elevation is almost nothing, like 300 feet.

[turbo]

Has anybody here gotten high-quality images of NGC 101? The ones taken by the UK Schmidt camera might be nice, but when they were digitized, the fine details got lost in pixelation. I'm not employed in astrophysics, but this system is of concern to me and my collaborators as we develop our 2nd paper on interacting galaxies.

[russ_watters]

Here's my best Jupiter yet. Unfortunately, I screwed up with my filters and only shot red and green (the filters are in a wheel and not labeled by color), but fortunately, Jupiter is mostly red, so it still looks reasonably good. The moons are Europa and Io

[baywax]

Here's my best Jupiter yet. Unfortunately, I screwed up with my filters and only shot red and green (the filters are in a wheel and not labeled by color), but fortunately, Jupiter is mostly red, so it still looks reasonably good. The moons are Europa and Io

Thomas and Russ... far out! Thank you.

I was about to buy a telescope as a BDay present for a 13 year old but was told I'd only be getting a similar power to binocs at the under 300 buck range (Canada). Do you guys know of one that is superior in quality and price? Thanks!

[thomasxc]

thanks. sweet, russ. yeah. im looking at at nice celestron, but dang! almost four hundred. im not real familiar with brands and/or different types, baywax...I'm a (seventeen year old) noob.

[mheslep]

Here's my best Jupiter yet. Unfortunately, I screwed up with my filters and only shot red and green (the filters are in a wheel and not labeled by color), but fortunately, Jupiter is mostly red, so it still looks reasonably good. The moons are Europa and Io
Nice. Can the effects of the recent impact of the Earth size object still be seen on the surface?

[Sorry!]

Nice. Can the effects of the recent impact of the Earth size object still be seen on the surface?

I don't think that the object that recently hit jupiter was Earth sized. I believe the 'plum' it created was Earth sized. I may be wrong however.

[baywax]

I don't think that the object that recently hit jupiter was Earth sized. I believe the 'plum' it created was Earth sized. I may be wrong however.

You're right, the plume and debris field is earth size. Its in Jupiter's southern hemisphere and appears as a black dot. Actually it must have grown in size by now.

Thanks Thomas! Go ahead, be 17 all you want!

[russ_watters]

Nice. Can the effects of the recent impact of the Earth size object still be seen on the surface? It can, but not in that pic. I'm not sure where it is, but I have several other pics from the same night (3 hours ealier and so that covers most of the planet) I haven't processed yet. They aren't as good a quality, but maybe its in them (if it is still prominent).

[thomasxc]

haha

[Denyven]

Hey guys, one of my friend's friend's took a picture of the latests eclipse. I think it was taken over the pacific, near Iwo Jima. Check out the earth shine on the moon!

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6944/tse2009e500mmmid1.th.png (http://img403.imageshack.us/i/tse2009e500mmmid1.png/)

[Thymo]

Denyven, is that even real!?

Astrowesome! :D

[chemisttree]

Hello Jupiter! This year Jupiter is going to be a great subject.

Image taken from deep inside the city lights of San Antonio (9-16-09).
Scope is an AstroTech 80ED on an Orion Atlas mount. Camera used was a Phillips webcam (SPC-900NC, WalMart).

It is the best I've gotten out of this small scope... imaged during an public outreach that SAAA (http://www.sanantonioastronomy.org/) has every cooperative Wednesday night.

[russ_watters]

Mars is about 2 weeks from opposition. Here's my first attempt at it this time around.

[mheslep]

Hello Jupiter! This year Jupiter is going to be a great subject.

Image taken from deep inside the city lights of San Antonio (9-16-09).
Scope is an AstroTech 80ED on an Orion Atlas mount. Camera used was a Phillips webcam (SPC-900NC, WalMart).

It is the best I've gotten out of this small scope... imaged during an public outreach that SAAA (http://www.sanantonioastronomy.org/) has every cooperative Wednesday night.Are those stars or Jupiter's moons shown there off of Jupiter's equator?

[russ_watters]

The fact that they are aligned with the equator is a dead giveaway that they are moons.

[mheslep]

The fact that they are aligned with the equator is a dead giveaway that they are moons.Thought so, but I had no idea of the apparent magnitudes expected of stars vs Jupiter moons on that kind of equipment.

[russ_watters]

Yeah, you can see the moons easily with binoculars.

[chemisttree]

Great shot of Mars, Russ. I've been visually observing for the last couple of weeks with my upgraded (APOgrade) optics in the 80mm using a 7mm T1 Nagler. It is the first time I have been able to see the dark ring around the polar cap that is clearly visible in your shot. I was really jazzed to have finally seen some detail on Mars on my little scope!

I see a lot of older SCT's for sale these days... probably everyone is upgrading to the HD version that has been recently introduced. Good time to be in the market for a used larger SCT, eh?

[russ_watters]

Shortly after the snow stopped last Saturday, it cleared up and I shot this image of NGC2903. It's a barred spiral galaxy. This is something like 6 hours of of exposure on Saturday and Monday. The snow tends to make the sky brighter, so I'm pretty pleased it still came out so good.

[baywax]

Shortly after the snow stopped last Saturday, it cleared up and I shot this image of NGC2903. It's a barred spiral galaxy. This is something like 6 hours of of exposure on Saturday and Monday. The snow tends to make the sky brighter, so I'm pretty pleased it still came out so good.

Excellent Russ! Its a bit like our own galaxy eh?!

[Redbelly98]

Excellent Russ! Its a bit like our own galaxy eh?!
It looks so much like our galaxy that I wondered, at first, if Russ simply photographed our Milky Way, and was passing it off as another one. :biggrin:

But seriously -- super photo Russ.

[baywax]

I've often wondered about the stuff like that which is around the galaxy in Russ's photo. Are those stars in our galaxy in the photo or more distant galaxies or both?

[russ_watters]

Every sharp point of light is a star in our galaxy, but I also see [probably] three other galaxies in the background. One likely eliptical galaxy is to the right, then two other possible galaxies are center, low. I wasn't able to get the background very flat, so there is a lot of background light in this photo that gets in the way.

[Chronos]

Composite CCD photo I'm guessing. Amazing resolution. What was exposure time per image? Did you use filter?

[russ_watters]

Info:
Telescope: C-11 with a .33 focal reducer
Camera: Meade DSI III Pro
Exposures: 8x4min red, 8x6min green/blue, 70x2min and 15x4min luminance
(that's 8 exposures, 6 minutes each, with a red filter, etc...5.5 hours total)
Exposures were stacked in DeepSkyStacker and color mixing and post processing was in Photoshop.

[Phyisab****]

Hey guys, one of my friend's friend's took a picture of the latests eclipse. I think it was taken over the pacific, near Iwo Jima. Check out the earth shine on the moon!

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6944/tse2009e500mmmid1.th.png (http://img403.imageshack.us/i/tse2009e500mmmid1.png/)

That is just amazing!

[mheslep]

...
(that's 8 exposures, 6 minutes each, with a red filter, etc...5.5 hours total)
Exposures were stacked in DeepSkyStacker and color mixing and post processing was in Photoshop.So you avoid the any need to autotrack the object by manually readjusting the scope's point over the many hours and then having the software auto-align the different images?

[russ_watters]

So you avoid the any need to autotrack the object by manually readjusting the scope's point over the many hours and then having the software auto-align the different images? No, my telescope autoguides (there is a secondary scope and camera mounted piggy-back). There are several reasons for multiple short exposures and software-stacking:

1. My mid-level mount's tracking accuracy is borderline for the magnification I'm using. Shorter exposures=less tracking error.
2. My skies aren't very clear and much over about 6 min for luminance would get me a white-out. As it is, the photos come out gray and I have to adjust the color palette in Photoshop (aka, stretching the histogram) to turn the gray black.
3. My skies aren't very still most of the time and the longer the exposure, the less sharp the image. So while a stack of 10 4min luminance images has a higher contrast than a stack of 20 2min exposures, the 2min exposures ended up with quite a bit higher resolution.....caveat: they were shot on different nights.

[mheslep]

No, my telescope autoguides (there is a secondary scope and camera mounted piggy-back). There are several reasons for multiple short exposures and software-stacking:

1. My mid-level mount's tracking accuracy is borderline for the magnification I'm using. Shorter exposures=less tracking error.
2. My skies aren't very clear and much over about 6 min for luminance would get me a white-out. As it is, the photos come out gray and I have to adjust the color palette in Photoshop (aka, stretching the histogram) to turn the gray black.
3. My skies aren't very still most of the time and the longer the exposure, the less sharp the image. So while a stack of 10 4min luminance images has a higher contrast than a stack of 20 2min exposures, the 2min exposures ended up with quite a bit higher resolution.....caveat: they were shot on different nights.
So you do both - your telescope autoguides for short periods and then you post process with software the merges all of the shots into one. Is the autoguiding an open loop correction based on, say, known correction for earth rotation, or is it a closed loop track on a some target that you designate?

And I forgot: beautiful shot.

[russ_watters]

So you do both - your telescope autoguides for short periods and then you post process with software the merges all of the shots into one. Yes. Is the autoguiding an open loop correction based on, say, known correction for earth rotation, or is it a closed loop track on a some target that you designate? The telescope mount is motorized and all motorized mounts will passively track at earth's rotation rate. I wouldn't call that autoguiding, though, since no corrections are made for imperfections in the tracking.

Just about every mount has a sinusoidal tracking error based on the size and shape of the gears and the machining precision (even a thousandth of an inch machining imprecision is very noticeable my photos). On many scopes, that error can be recorded and played-back to subtract it from the tracking to vastly reduce the error. I'd call that an open loop tracking correction scheme. That's not what I use.

I use a completely closed-loop autoguiding scheme, which is what most long-exposure imagers use today. I have a secondary telescope with its own camera piggybacked on top of the primary telescope (it is pictured on the front page of my website...). Software on my computer records the x-y position of a star several times a second, webcam-style, and feeds tracking corrections to the mount to keep the star centered.

Incidentally, somewhere in my system is a bug which is really getting on my nerves. When tracking near the zenith, the alignment of my primary scope to my guide scope starts to diverge, which causes an (apparent) tracking error in my photos. Possible causes:

-Mirror flop (the primary mirror may be flopping back and forth).
-Piggy-back mount flex.
-Guidescope focus tube flex.
-Polar alignment error.
-Main mount flex.

Other aspects of my photography equipment/skills are getting better, which is amplifying this problem, so I'm going to do some serious diagnosis soon...

....And on my Christmas wishlist for next year, an adaptive optics autoguider, which makes these problems irrelevant. Adaptive optics autoguiders steal a bit of light from the main scope and perform normal autoguiding, but add another element: a flat lens that makes finer adjustments in guidance up to 40x a second, vastly improving guiding and even partially counteracting the effects of poor atmospheric conditions.

[turbo]

Russ, number one (primary mirror shift) is a big one for commercial cats and I don't know of a reasonable way out of it, apart from avoiding zenith, rotating the 'scope around the declination axis, and resuming a bit later after the field is at least a few degrees past zenith. A close friend of mine had this problem with an otherwise well-built orange C-8 with an off-axis guider. Of course this was during film-only years in which you couldn't discard errors and combine the good stuff, so he was tearing his hair out. I had a very minor problem with differential flexure, which I solved by finding the balance point of my guide-scope, and mounting that balance-point exactly between the mounting rings, PLUS checking for alignment of the guide-scope as the temperatures changed, and re-tightening the thumb-screws in the mounting rings to help account for shifts due to thermal expansion/contraction.

Suggestion: Put a high-power EP in both the main scope and the guide-scope and align them on an appropriate star to within a frog's hair (you might need to borrow an illuminated-reticle guide EP from a friend if you don't have 2 of them). Once you have the two OTAs aligned perfectly, flip the whole system in DEC and pick out another star to compare alignment. Got shift? It's probably primary mirror mis-alignment.

[russ_watters]

Thanks, turbo. I was going to try something like that to narrow down the error. What makes it seem less likely to be mirror shift to me is just how regular the excess motion it. Anyway, If I can isolate the problem (heck, even if I can't), there are 3rd party mirror locks I can buy and install.

...I also have an off-axis guider I haven't tried yet.

[baywax]

Hey Russ,

Sorry to barge in, I just met this kid that told me all about his digital telescope. He has it hooked up to his apple laptop and can punch in a topic like the Apollo 11 landing site and it will give him coordinates which I guess he enters and the telescope moves. Then the images are direct to his laptop. That's pretty cool but I wondered what you think about that strategy(?)

[russ_watters]

Hey Russ,

Sorry to barge in, I just met this kid that told me all about his digital telescope. He has it hooked up to his apple laptop and can punch in a topic like the Apollo 11 landing site and it will give him coordinates which I guess he enters and the telescope moves. Then the images are direct to his laptop. That's pretty cool but I wondered what you think about that strategy(?) I can do essentially that and it is kinda cool, but it is more trouble than it is worth. The telescope already has its own hand controller with an object database. Just type in the name or catalog number or scroll through a list and hit enter.

All of my photography is done via the computer.

...what my telescope won't do without a computer is track satellites, so I'm going to have to give direct laptop control a shot to take pictures of the ISS. That's even worse because while the software I use, Starry Night, will make my scope go-to an object just by pointing and clicking, it won't do satellite tracking. I have to find a different piece of software for that.

[baywax]

I can do essentially that and it is kinda cool, but it is more trouble than it is worth. The telescope already has its own hand controller with an object database. Just type in the name or catalog number or scroll through a list and hit enter.

All of my photography is done via the computer.

...what my telescope won't do without a computer is track satellites, so I'm going to have to give direct laptop control a shot to take pictures of the ISS. That's even worse because while the software I use, Starry Night, will make my scope go-to an object just by pointing and clicking, it won't do satellite tracking. I have to find a different piece of software for that.

That's amazing Russ, thank you.

One more question for you... sorry!

I asked the kid if he could see the leftover bits of the Apollo landing and he said no. This guy, who is about 10, said "you can't see those but there are blurs that seem unnatural to the rest of the terrain. Now, I understand that its going to take a very high powered telescope to see what's left of the lunar module or the flag etc... but, I still don't understand why its so difficult to hone in on this kind of detail. You may have clarified this before, but I'm still fuzzy on it.:redface:

[Stanwyck66]

Here are a couple of Saturn I took the other night..I tried stacking a group of about 30 images similar to this, but it came out worse than the individual pictures themselves..am I doing something wrong with Registax or do I need better equipment? At any rate, these are the two best images I could get of the planet, considering the rings are edge on :(

[russ_watters]

I did a Registax tutorial that may help: http://www.russsscope.net/staxtutorial.htm

My guess would be you need to play with the wavelet sliders (step 6). Also, if you are using a webcam, try shooting a lot more pictures. Also, make sure they are high quality files (bmp or uncompressed avi, not jpg or mpeg).

What kind of telescope and camera are you using?

[Stanwyck66]

Well, I think Registax is having trouble aligning the images. I'm only using a 6" inch dobsonian (around 200x magnification) and a digital camera, but I've been able to take alot of pictures like the ones above. I'm assuming those are good enough for Registax to recognize, even though those are a bit enhanced with my limited photoshop skills. Even with 30 or 40 images of similar quality, its saying alot of them are low quality and not aligning properly. I just recently started trying stacking pictures, so I plan on getting a webcam within a week or so. Also, I tried stacking images of the moon, but I can't seem to get the alignbox big enough to fit the whole moon. I tried using the customized alignbox setting, but there is some error which brings the size back down to 256 after I type in the number. I may be overreaching a bit, but I'm pretty much addicted to my telescope so its just a matter of time before I upgrade to something I'm sure will take the pictures I want :)

[russ_watters]

A webcam will be a big help. It's tough with a regular digital camera.

[chemisttree]

For an afocal image of Saturn, your photo is pretty good! You can see the thin line of the rings across the face of the planet which no small thing for it being that low in the sky. There is a little atmospheric refraction (red edge/blue edge) so I assume that you took the pics when it was low in the sky?

What kind of camera and scope/eyepiece did you use?

On the Moon, you can align in Registrax using a crater with good contrast most of the time.

[russ_watters]

FYI, the first pic was my first ever astrophoto with a Quickcam and a crappy 60mm (2.4") refractor. The second pic was taken with a 104mm (4.1") Mak-Cas and the Quickcam.

Notice the dates on the pics....that's the big problem, when you light the fire you need more....

[MotoH]

is 35mm film still a viable option for Astrophotography?

[russ_watters]

I wouldn't consider it to be.

[Stanwyck66]

...is a little atmospheric refraction (red edge/blue edge) so I assume that you took the pics when it was low in the sky?

What kind of camera and scope/eyepiece did you use?

On the Moon, you can align in Registrax using a crater with good contrast most of the time.

First, it could have been higher in the sky your right, unfortunately I didn't have time to stay up as late as I needed for it to be higher. I'm using a 6" reflector and a digital camera..and I tried using a prominent crater for stacking moon images and it seemed to work much better, thanks!

FYI, the first pic was my first ever astrophoto with a Quickcam and a crappy 60mm (2.4") refractor. The second pic was taken with a 104mm (4.1") Mak-Cas and the Quickcam.

Notice the dates on the pics....that's the big problem, when you light the fire you need more....

Second, Russ, would something like a Quickcam and an OIII filter be sufficient for taking pictures of nebulae? I have relatively dark skies and can head out of town if needed.


Annndd finally here is my best attempt at Mars, I was surprised to get detail along the poles.

[russ_watters]

It would be dificult with a stock quickcam because they don't do long exposure photography. There are people who have modified them (by cutting and soldering the leads on the CCD chip!), but that's difficult. Plus, dobs don't do tracking, so long exposure imaging really isn't an option.

[MotoH]

I can't seem to get a very large mars. It is just a small pin head in the telescope. I am using a 4.5 inch reflector with a 6mm 12.5mm and a 32mm eyepieces. Mars is still supposed to be pretty close to Earth during March is it not? I am not expecting a big Mars, but the ice caps would be nice to see! Maybe my eyes just need to adjust to taking in fainter details.

[russ_watters]

You should see the ice caps but mars is pretty small. A 2x Barlow may help.

[MotoH]

I don't want to piggy back on this thread, but it really isn't worthy of a thread itself.

I have my latitude set for my latitude (48deg.), the Declination set at 90 degrees, and the R.A is at 17(hours?). This should make it so when I point my telescope exactly north, Polaris will be in my telescope, correct? If it is perfectly lined up, will I then leave my telescope in this position, and only rotate the R.A. to get to all of the stars and planets?

Also my motor drive should turn the R.A. 1 hour for every hour it is running right? What about planet tracking? It will be faster than one hour?

[russ_watters]

You'll find with alt and Dec set the RA doesn't matter - just swing the counterweight below the scope for convenience. And yes - the point of the motor drive is tracking at the speed the earth rotates. Planets don't move enough faster or slower to matter in one night.....the moon and comets do though.

[MotoH]

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/OEM_rider/100_1216.jpg

I just wanted to show my first telescope off. . .!

[chemisttree]

The time stamp shows year 2216. It's amazing that telescopes haven't changed much in all that time!

[MotoH]

Something must have been blocking the antenna:
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/OEM_rider/100_12161.jpg

[MotoH]

I took this one last night:
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/OEM_rider/100_1318.jpg (http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/OEM_rider/100_1318.jpg)

[Anna13]

WoW.
Your photo is brilliant,MotoH. I love it.

[Chronos]

Thanks a lot, guys, I just purchased new scope, ccd, and accessories. Only spent twice as much as planned [and still short a few extras]. I won't be ordering out for pizza in the foreseeable future. I will, however, be able to take beautiful close up shots of neighbors' pizza ... putting up sign next to scope - 1 slice per observer.

[MikeyW]

Im going to go back and read this entire thread, but just thought I'll ask this now rather than later...

I am trying to do astrophotography with a DSLR. I just bought a D5000 + kit lens. I'm not expecting to take photos of galaxies or anything, hopefully just capture some detail on the moon and maybe some planets. Is this achievable with a standard 50mm f/1.8 lens? I'm thinking of buying one. I understand that if you want more a detail you can spend a lot on a telezoom lens but then you have to do some sort of tracking as well?

Going to try and get Mars which should be in the sky tomorrow I think, hopefully a series of 30 second images put together will give some brightness.


PS that moon picture above is awesome.


edit- considering getting the ridiculously cheap Nikon 70-300mm lens and try to get some 30 second exposures to put together. It seems that a lot of the "real" amateur stuff (telescope, tracking software, mounts) comes in at above a PhD student's budget so hopefully I can learn some things this way and then move up slowly.

[russ_watters]

The moon is a lot smaller than it looks to your eyes: you need a pretty long telephoto lens to take good pictures of it with a dslr. You don't need tracking or long exposure: it is very bright.

Mars is also very bright: you don't need long exposure for it either.

[MikeyW]

Thanks Russ. Is 200mm long enough? I really only have a choice between a 55-200mm and a 70-300mm in my price range. The former would be much more useful in other areas, and it has VR.

Plus the camera has 1.6 crop factor.

[chemisttree]

Thanks a lot, guys, I just purchased new scope, ccd, and accessories. Only spent twice as much as planned [and still short a few extras]. I won't be ordering out for pizza in the foreseeable future. I will, however, be able to take beautiful close up shots of neighbors' pizza ... putting up sign next to scope - 1 slice per observer.

Was that the 10" SN on the LXD75 mount?

[russ_watters]

Thanks Russ. Is 200mm long enough? I really only have a choice between a 55-200mm and a 70-300mm in my price range. The former would be much more useful in other areas, and it has VR.

Plus the camera has 1.6 crop factor.
I'm not really sure how it works with DSLRs, but the math on that works out to 6x zoom. That's marginal, but should be OK for a start.

[baywax]

Thanks for inspiring me and my youngest boy, guys. First we need to master the telescope and get some clear skies. Then we need to figure out the camera end of it! We have an observatory in the middle of town... lots of light pollution. But Russ has shown how that can be overcome. There's another out at the university with less lights around. This is great, thanks again!

[russ_watters]

You're welcome!

The camera part is dangerous - once you rip the lens off a webcam and slap it onto the back of your telescope, there is no going back!

[Chronos]

Still mastering the scope, it is obdurate. Added 2 wraps of foam to mount dew cap. Looks good so far. Will need to add thumbscrew.

[baywax]

You're welcome!

The camera part is dangerous - once you rip the lens off a webcam and slap it onto the back of your telescope, there is no going back!
:smile:

We're headed to the interior this summer with an old crappy 40 mm telescope but, the sky is so clear and extremely dark where we're going that you can see all 14 of the 7 sisters and one entire arm of our galaxy like it was attached to your shoulder. Webcams, web, cells, shoot 'em up games be damned! We've got a date with some very nice horses!

[Stanwyck66]

I just moved to the DC area and took my scope out for the first time..this is the best Jupiter I've taken so far. I darkened it a little to see more detail and color.

[Mikeral]

Hello astrophotographers :biggrin:
I am new to the whole domain and just posted my first shots on youtube, i shot a couple short passes of stars with a webcam (logitech C200) and my telescope (Link (http://www.tasco.com/single.cfm?s=Telescopes&family=Luminova&product=40114675)). Anyway, if anyone has any tips for me, would be nice to hear some, mind you i don't have a big budget for equipment, university tuition ftw. I'm mostly looking for tips on noise reduction and better image quality. i have a mac, for any software related issues, which tends to be very picky.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6a9kruqFtBI&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6a9kruqFtBI&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Chronos]

yes, lxd75-sn10. optical tube is a bit heavy for mount, but, am juicing it up. i am a mechanical engineer so [perhaps mistakenly] assume i can manage the task. my observing area is fenced and surrounded by trees. i can only view about half the sky, but, wind is rarely an issue. i put diy wilcox rings on tube for convenience. handles are still hillbilly, but, working on that.

[MikeyW]

Hi all again.

Was just wondering what this object is in the night sky.

I took a photo with it on a wide angle lens, it caught my eye as something much brighter than any star, and it did not twinkle so I believe it might have been a planet!
When I zoomed in I thought "no star can be this circular" - the angular size is too big, right?

Also I think it might be interesting to note the "sunstars" that I got out of the camera from the road lights are not also present on this object- why? It was taken at wide angle of 15mm (35mm equivalent), with a 6 second exposure on f/22.

The location was the Canary Isles, 24th June, and the direction of the object is pretty much dead west.

http://a.imageshack.us/img340/9312/dsc0246kr.jpg

400x zoom

http://a.imageshack.us/img13/3319/dsc0246copy.jpg


Please tell me it's Mars!

[russ_watters]

Hi all again.

Was just wondering what this object is in the night sky.

Please tell me it's Mars!
Sorry: Venus.

Also sorry, but that pic doesn't show the disk, it is just blown-out and/or out of focus. At that resolution, the disk would probably be just a little less than a pixel across.....it would also be a fat crescent shape. Venus has phases!
Also I think it might be interesting to note the "sunstars" that I got out of the camera from the road lights are not also present on this object- why? I'm not sure what you mean - could you rephrase?

[chemisttree]

I think he means diffraction spikes. Likely from an effects filter on his camera or its coming from the iris. He is stopped down to f22! Some of that is his wide angle lens which I believe acts like a focal reducer. He probably doesn't have a round iris at that f stop. I'm thinking it is a hexagonal shape.

You won't see those spikes on any but the brightest objects. If you had a tracking mount and cropped it to exclude the foreground and focused venus to a tiny point (half moon shaped thing) and increased your shutter speed to 1 minute, you would likely see it.

[russ_watters]

That makes sense - I agre with all of that. I also didn't notice before, but now that I'm looking for it, Venus is noticeably hexagonal in that picture.....except that no camera would need 1 minute of exposure. I have imaged Saturn at f50 and use about a .1 sec exposure. That's a little too much magnification, so most of my planetary imaging is done at f25, with ~1/30th second exposures.

[chemisttree]

Yes, shorter speeds are needed for range and detail but if it is the spikes you want instead, longer times would exaggerate that. He is already using a 6 second exposure and the spikes are only faintly there.

BTW, I'm going to take back my "focus Venus to a tiny point" recommendation. At that f number what he has is likely the best focus he can achieve. Any bluriness is most likely due to seeing.

That is a very nice picture, MikeyW! Just like a postcard.

[MikeyW]

Thanks! I waited for a good hour for the right lighting. It's just a shame I didn't have my longer lens, I might have been able to get some resolution with a 200mm lens- although I don't know how I would have kept the camera still.

I took a similar photo handheld at about f/5.6, 1/30 second exposure and it was just a big blurry line, so I imagine at a large zoom I will need even more light.


You're right about the diaphragm blades, there are 6 which are slightly curved so at f/22 it is probably 80% hexagon, 20% sphere.

[FawkesCa]

ten points if you can figure out how i took this pic of Mars. (hint: i did cheat, but i DID take this with my own camera)

[FawkesCa]

and just for kicks, ill throw this in with it

[adyarbakery]

hi,

I took these photos of the sky from Yosemite.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adyarbakery/4827577169/

I found that there were streaks on the image - which could be a planet, comet or a meteor. I know it is not a planet (I checked on stellarium for that). However I can not figure out if it is a comet or a planet. These are 8 second exposures. Any idea if it is a comet or a meteor?

I tend to gravitate towards it being a comet, since it was in the sky for an extended period of time (photographs taken after 5 minutes later also showed the streak).

Any ideas how to figure out?

thanks,
ab

[428]

hi,

I took these photos of the sky from Yosemite.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adyarbakery/4827577169/

I found that there were streaks on the image - which could be a planet, comet or a meteor. I know it is not a planet (I checked on stellarium for that). However I can not figure out if it is a comet or a planet. These are 8 second exposures. Any idea if it is a comet or a meteor?

I tend to gravitate towards it being a comet, since it was in the sky for an extended period of time (photographs taken after 5 minutes later also showed the streak).

Any ideas how to figure out?

thanks,
ab

Hello.
It is probably neither. Firstly, the trail in the first picture is curved and it has distinct dotted pattern. Secondly, the object appears to be moving towards (or perhaps from?) the constellation Perseus throughout the gallery. None of them look like or behave like that. My bet would be a man-made object flashing at ~1s intervals (since the are around 7 light pulses in each photo and your exposures are 8s).

[428]

I've been lucky tonight and managed to snap a perseid :). On the left side you can see constellations Perseus and a bit of Cassiopeia, the Double Cluster, M31 is visible as well (near the center of the image). The gradient present is a glow of a city. Photo details: taken by Sony Alpha 100, 30s exposure, f/5, 100 iso, location: Brno, Czech republic

[Caramon]

Hey guys!
I currently have a Dobsonian XT8 Classic (8" Aperature) telescope and I do regular observing at least once a week. I own a set of Celestron lenses and filters so my gear is decent! I have been observing for a few months now and I've gotten to take a wonderful look at the Orion Nebula (M42), Jupiter, M22, among many other objects. I've recently become interested in Astrophotography and was wondering how I would be able to start. What equipment and necessary skills would be required to begin a life long journey in Astrophotography? If you would be able to explain some things about Astrophotgraphy or post some links for me to read that would be wonderful!

This was my first moon photo taken with a digital camera:
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8422/moonpicture.th.jpg (http://img687.imageshack.us/i/moonpicture.jpg/)

[chemisttree]

I took this photo early this morning using an IR pass filter on a SPC900NC webcam. The moons are, from top to bottom, Ganymede, Io and Europa. Too bad there was no GRS visible.

[Stanwyck66]

I was out poking around in the sky last night and noticed a small spot on Jupiter I hadn't noticed before. The spot seemed a bit too small to be the GRS and looked like a dark point in my scope. Unfortunately, it didn't show up in the photograph but appeared where the arrow ends in this image.

Could it be possible I saw the shadow of one of Jupiter's moons to the bottom left?

[Chronos]

er, any picture with clouds and blue in the background are probably not mars.

[russ_watters]

Could it be possible I saw the shadow of one of Jupiter's moons to the bottom left? Not sure where you live or when that makes "last night", but Europa made a transit from 10:30PM EDT on 8/19 to 1:00 AM EDT on 8/20 and Io made a transit from 2-4PM EDT on 8/18.

[russ_watters]

Jupiter, my new personal best!

[chemisttree]

Very nice, Russ!

[baywax]

Jupiter, my new personal best!

Whoa dude! El perfecto!!! Excellent clarity and detail... I understand the nearest object to the left in your photo is Neptune, is this correct?

I took my youngest son out to view Jupiter at its closest in 50 years and he was truly impressed. Then we went down to the 1m lensed telescope by the Planetarium... then he was like WOWed!!!

Cool!!!

[russ_watters]

Thanks, guys.

I understand the nearest object to the left in your photo is Neptune, is this correct?
The two other objects in the photo are Ganymede and Io.

[baywax]

Thanks, guys.


The two other objects in the photo are Ganymede and Io.

Ah... two of the 400 moons of Jupiter!!! thanks Russ!!

[Redbelly98]

I got some photos of the lunar eclipse Tuesday morning.

I used a Nikon Coolpix 4500, with a Kenko 8x32mm monocular mounted to it. All photos were later resized to 40%.

Here's a shot of the full moon Monday night, a few hours before the start of the eclipse. I was mainly setting up the focus of the monocular + camera, so that I wouldn't have to use the autofocus feature later on.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/redbelly98/MyPhotos/FullMoon_2010Dec20.jpg

.

The total phase, about 3:40 a.m. Eastern USA time:

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/redbelly98/MyPhotos/LunarEclipse_2010Dec21_Total01.jpg

.

The partial phase, 3:53 a.m.:

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/redbelly98/MyPhotos/LunarEclipse_2010Dec21_Partial01.jpg

.

Two exposure settings for the partial phase, about 4:00 a.m. The right-hand photo gives me a real, and eerie, sense of the Earth casting its shadow onto the moon.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/redbelly98/MyPhotos/LunarEclipse_2010Dec21_Partial02.jpg

[baywax]

I got some photos of the lunar eclipse Tuesday morning.

I used a Nikon Coolpix 4500, with a Kenko 8x32mm monocular mounted to it. All photos were later resized to 40%.

Here's a shot of the full moon Monday night, a few hours before the start of the eclipse. I was mainly setting up the focus of the monocular + camera, so that I wouldn't have to use the autofocus feature later on.





Far out Redbelly.... we missed the whole thing due to cloud cover, so, thank you!!

[Borek]

Just realized I posted my pictures of Janury 4th eclipse in a separate thread - somehow I missed astrophotography sticky:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=460858

[Chronos]

Nice shoot, Russ. The limb darkening is striking. Is this a result of image processing? Is this a single shot, or stacked? I would probably need half a dozen stacked images to get one this bright using my Meade 8" ACF. I should probably try using my 'big' 10" SN scope, but, the little SC is easier to set up - no tube wrestling, counter weights, or polar alignment to mess with. I like bells and whistles when it's 10 degrees outside.

[russ_watters]

Nice shoot, Russ. The limb darkening is striking. Is this a result of image processing? Is this a single shot, or stacked? I would probably need half a dozen stacked images to get one this bright using my Meade 8" ACF. I should probably try using my 'big' 10" SN scope, but, the little SC is easier to set up - no tube wrestling, counter weights, or polar alignment to mess with. I like bells and whistles when it's 10 degrees outside. You're talking about my Jupiter pic? It's something like 1500 stacked of each color for Jupiter, 200 each color for the moons, at different exposures. I've used Photoshop for overall brightness and contrast, but the gradient towards the limb is real. The outer planets don't have full phases like the inner ones, but unless it is exactly at opposition, one side will be a little darker than the other.

I don't know why you wouldn't be able to get it bright, though, it's just a matter of exposure and Jupiter is pretty bright. You should be able to get pictures with you 8" pretty close to what I've done. I'm shooting around 1/30th sec exposures.

[DLuckyE]

I took this one a while back

http://www.flickr.com/photos/doggettx/5264801104/

I tried it as a single shot at first but couldn't get detail on both the moon and Jupiter at the same time, so did 2 shots and combined them.

[Redbelly98]

I took this one a while back

http://www.flickr.com/photos/doggettx/5264801104/

I tried it as a single shot at first but couldn't get detail on both the moon and Jupiter at the same time, so did 2 shots and combined them.

Nice! Any idea what the faint spot is, to the right of Jupiter and slightly out of the plane of the moons' orbits? (Easier to see in the full-size photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/doggettx/5264801104/sizes/o/in/photostream/).)

[DLuckyE]

Nice! Any idea what the faint spot is, to the right of Jupiter and slightly out of the plane of the moons' orbits? (Easier to see in the full-size photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/doggettx/5264801104/sizes/o/in/photostream/).)

I'm not sure, but I think that's Io

[Drakkith]

Wow, this thread has been here for 4 1/2 years! I started to read the 1st page before I realized the date, and what got me to realize it was so old was Turbo saying how expensive CCD's were lol.

[HeLiXe]

I took this one a while back

http://www.flickr.com/photos/doggettx/5264801104/

I tried it as a single shot at first but couldn't get detail on both the moon and Jupiter at the same time, so did 2 shots and combined them.

This is really nice :)

[Chronos]

I recently purchased a canon T1i [500D] for astrophotography. The meade pro III ccd was disappointing. The sensor is just too small to yield a useful FOV. I hope it may still prove useful for autoguiding.

[Drakkith]

I've been itching for another CCD or something myself. I'll probably wait until I can get better with my Meade DSI II before I get something else though. Even if it is a huge pain in the butt most of the time.

[HeLiXe]

I do not even own a telescope -_- I do look at the sky quite often, and since I have moved light pollution is very minimal. I need to get a telescope before the beginning of next year but am still researching which one to get. Lovely pictures on this thread :) one day I will be adding some of my own.

[Drakkith]

You can get a 5-6 inch scope for pretty cheap. 100-200 bucks for a good deal, depending on what you want on it.

[Shovel]

Does anyone know where I can find data on meteor rates for various meteor showers? I was out last night with my T1i and tripod and managed to capture one. My shots are a little lacking though, and I spent a lot of time fiddling with my camera instead of watching the sky. I'd like to try again with some new settings and connect my laptop to the camera for automation, but I want to include some sweet, sweet math into the mix.

What I'm looking for is any data regarding the distribution of meteors in the sky by date, so I know roughly how many to expect given my view of the sky and I know when to stop looking. Any compiled data regarding the statistics of meteor distribution would be awesome.

[sas3]

Just trying out setting on my camera and caught a plane and a meteor and thought I would share it. 30 second exposure F3 cheap GE 14.1 meg pix camera.
It's a nice camera the cheap part was the price.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/69555355@N07/6325503509/in/photostream/

[Drakkith]

Nice! I don't even have a camera with adjustable exposure other than the one specifically for my telescope.

[Redbelly98]

Just trying out setting on my camera and caught a plane and a meteor and thought I would share it. 30 second exposure F3 cheap GE 14.1 meg pix camera.
It's a nice camera the cheap part was the price.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/69555355@N07/6325503509/in/photostream/
As Drakkith said ... nice! Even without the meteor.

I'm not spotting the plane, where is it?

[sas3]

The plane is the bright streak the meteor is to the right and much dimmer heading into the trees

[russ_watters]

Haven't done much lately, but here's a shot of Jupiter last week, with Io passing in front of it. I took a dozen sets and the quality was inconsistent, but this is one of the better ones. I'm still working on processing and will probably put together an animation of most of the transit.

[chroot]

One of my recent favorites, of the Andromeda Galaxy:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6089/6118111104_fe55022412_b.jpg

- Warren

[Jamie Kern]

There are lots of lovely shots here - I particularly like Russ' - I'm very impressed with the detail you got on those galaxies. I'm going to spend some time looking through all of these!

I feel a duty to link to my observatory's Astrophotography page. Not everything is up there - just some particularly nice shots people took through our old facility. We're currently in the process of setting up the main instrument at the new one.

Bridgewater State University's Astrophotography (http://www.bridgew.edu/Observatory/Astrophotography.cfm)
Enjoy!

Edit: Wow, chroot - that's lovely. I'm confused as to how I missed it five minutes ago!

[sas3]

The aurora were out last night and I took some pictures.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/69555355@N07/6965195608/

[Drakkith]

The aurora were out last night and I took some pictures.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/69555355@N07/6965195608/

Nice!

[Some Slacker]

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb223/SomeSlacker/NearFull1.jpg

This was two nights work just fiddling around, I have no kind of equipment to actually do any real astrophotography but I gave it a shot.

Taken with a Bushnell Dob 8" using afocal coupling and a cheap digital camera (real cheap) and an 18 mm lens.

[sas3]

I Shot this with my Coulter Odyssey 1 and a cheap Garmin GPS (has a built in camera like a cellphone) held up to the eyepiece

http://www.flickr.com/photos/69555355@N07/7112650509/

[Some Slacker]

I Shot this with my Coulter Odyssey 1 and a cheap Garmin GPS (has a built in camera like a cellphone) held up to the eyepiece

http://www.flickr.com/photos/69555355@N07/7112650509/

Nice! I like it!

I see we had the same problem with way too much light as the details (except near the edges) got a bit washed out. (Putting the camera up to the lens = afocal coupling, or something... heh)

[sas3]

I used an off-axis aperture stop as seen below
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1119/569393765_4d4c8a2f41.jpg (Not my picture)

That helps a lot, without it the moon hurts your eyes.

[Bikersquirrel]

Hi noob here :) I only recently managed to really get into astrophotography (kids often dictate otherwise i.e no time!), and decided to test run my shiny new camera on the super moon. I did manage to get a few reasonably good shots, but they were all a bit too dark. I looked.up some advice on the best settings to use on my camera, and was recommended to switch the ISO to 100. I tried again the next night but just couldn't get the exposure right. Any suggestions? I'm using a fuji HS20 EXR bridge camera. Thanks in advance!

[Drakkith]

Bikersquirrel, I don't shoot with a normal camera so I can't really help you much on the settings, but if you head over to cloudynights.com and hit up the DSLR forum or beginning and intermediate astrophotography forum there should be plenty of people who can help you.