Our Beautiful Universe - Photos and Videos

[davenn]

~3am, looking southwest about a week ago, about 150miles north of San Francisco, CA USA along Interstate-5, 14mm dslr lens, 2.8f, 2000iso, 10sec, full frame raw

Thankyou for sharing

Dave

 

[pinball1970]

~3am, looking southwest about a week ago, about 150miles north of San Francisco, CA USA along Interstate-5, 14mm dslr lens, 2.8f, 2000iso, 10sec, full frame raw
View attachment 246760

View attachment 246761

^Andromeda galaxy is visible close the center of the frame on this one, just to the right of the Milky Way

Wow, amazing image.

 

[DennisN]

Houston, we've got a full moon, so I took some photos last night with my mobile phone attached to my small miniscope.

ISO 50, 1/200 s exposure, f/1.8, 40 stacked photos with Registax.

A bright Moon and clouds, ISO 50, 1 s exposure, f/1.8

My miniscope and a bright Moon in the sky:

 

[metastable]

Thankyou for sharing

Wow, amazing image.

bonus (nikon d800 w/ nikon 14-24mm lens @ 14mm, 2.8f, 2000iso, 10sec, raw capture, looking south along I-5 ~150miles north of san francisco, california):

 

[pinball1970]

Houston, we've got a full moon, so I took some photos last night with my mobile phone attached to my small miniscope.

ISO 50, 1/200 s exposure, f/1.8, 40 stacked photos with Registax.
View attachment 246784

A bright Moon and clouds, ISO 50, 1 s exposure, f/1.8
View attachment 246785

My miniscope and a bright Moon in the sky:
View attachment 246786

The top image has a slightly brown hue to it, a little bit of dust pollution in the atmosphere?

 

[DennisN]

The top image has a slightly brown hue to it, a little bit of dust pollution in the atmosphere?

Houston, we've got a brown full Moon!

I think it is due to the fast exposure and low ISO (image sensor sensitivity), which makes it darker. And the hue probably also got changed in the photo above, since I increased the constrast in the photo editor.

Here is one of the original photos with ISO 50, 1/200 s exposure:

Comparison with another photo with ISO 50, 1/100 s exposure:

And another photo with ISO 50, 1/30 s exposure:
(and here it gets so bright that fewer details are visible)

 

[pinball1970]

Houston, we've got a brown full Moon!

I think it is due to the fast exposure and low ISO (image sensor sensitivity), which makes it darker. And the hue probably also got changed in the photo above, since I increased the constrast in the photo editor.

Here is one of the original photos with ISO 50, 1/200 s exposure:
View attachment 246817

Comparison with another photo with ISO 50, 1/100 s exposure:
View attachment 246818

And another photo with ISO 50, 1/30 s exposure:
(and here it gets so bright that fewer details are visible)
View attachment 246819

Interesting, the bottom image is a blue moon compared to the one above so more exposure? I rarely take notice of all the kit and technology I am too busy looking at the great images.

 

[davenn]

Interesting, the bottom image is a blue moon compared to the one above so more exposure?

You see blue in there ??

edit
Ohhh, I assume you mean his earlier post, the one with the tripod in it ?

 

[pinball1970]

You see blue in there ??

edit
Ohhh, I assume you mean his earlier post, the one with the tripod in it ?

Sorry yes #543

 

[metastable]

Interesting, the bottom image is a blue moon compared to the one above so more exposure?

I think each image can be as blue or yellow as one decides based on the camera/raw processing color temperature setting...

 

[pinball1970]

I think each image can be as blue or yellow as one decides based on the camera/raw processing color temperature setting...

View attachment 246821

I hope to join you guys with some images, when I am back off holiday I am going to try out my (rather cheap) telescope.
So temp, do you mean CCT? Of your 'white/standard white?' or do you do this to add colour to your white light images? For aesthetics ?

 

[davenn]

I think each image can be as blue or yellow as one decides based on the camera/raw processing color temperature setting...

Yes, but straight out of camera and they will look bluish for a wide field of the moon.
Plus those image with a phone camera, so unlikely to be a RAW file, just a good ol xxx.jpg Dave

 

[metastable]

So temp, do you mean CCT? Of your 'white/standard white?' or do you do this to add colour to your white light images? For aesthetics ?

As far as I know every digital slr will choose a white balance / color temperature setting for you automatically unless you choose one manually, or by capturing the raw sensor data (RAW format, which has a much larger color space than the JPG format), and then choosing the setting before applying the conversion settings to the final presentation jpg format. doing the raw processing this way let's you decide all of the conversion settings, rather than the camera choosing what color data to "throw away" when downsizing/compressing to JPG.

 

[metastable]

here's a screen shot of the RAW file:

presentation JPG:

 

[pinball1970]

As far as I know every digital slr will choose a white balance / color temperature setting for you automatically unless you choose one manually, or by capturing the raw sensor data (RAW format, which has a much larger color space than the JPG format), and then choosing the setting before applying the conversion settings to the final presentation jpg format. doing the raw processing this way let's you decide all of the conversion settings, rather than the camera choosing what color data to "throw away" when downsizing/compressing to JPG.

Ok thanks, best way to learn is to get some images and have a go I think. I think I may have a few questions for you guys once I get started.

 

[metastable]

Here is a list I found of reasons to shoot in RAW mode instead of JPEG...

https://photographyconcentrate.com/10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/

I took a screenshot of the reason I personally view as most important...

^the reference to "levels of brightness" refers to "per channel" or "per color," so 256 "levels of brightness" with a JPEG means only 256 R, 256 G, 256 B, as opposed to 4096 or 16384 in RAW.

I personally find this means in practice the RAW file contains a lot of "hidden" information in the shadow areas of the image (compared to a JPG)... information which would ordinarily be lost if the RAW had been converted to a JPG with "standard" conversion settings.

 

[DennisN]

Plus those image with a phone camera, so unlikely to be a RAW file, just a good ol xxx.jpg

Yes, the photos were taken as .jpg, but I can actually take RAW photos too with my LG G4 phone (and the camera is pretty impressive for being on a phone). I will try RAW next time!

As far as I know every digital slr will choose a white balance / color temperature setting for you automatically unless you choose one manually, or by capturing the raw sensor data (RAW format, which has a much larger color space than the JPG format), and then choosing the setting before applying the conversion settings to the final presentation jpg format. doing the raw processing this way let's you decide all of the conversion settings, rather than the camera choosing what color data to "throw away" when downsizing/compressing to JPG.

Thanks for the inspiration, @metastable, I will try photographing in RAW next time!

 

[metastable]

By the way the RAW to JPG conversion in my photos was done with Adobe Lightroom.

 

[davenn]

Yes, the photos were taken as .jpg, but I can actually take RAW photos too with my LG G4 phone (and the camera is pretty impressive for being on a phone). I will try RAW next time!

The huge advantage with processing RAW over jpg is that there is no compression with RAW files.
This means that they will handle substantial processing without being further corrupted.
JPG's are already significantly compressed and full of those compression artifacts, so doing editing
on them only worsens the artifacts in the image.Dave

 

[bruha]

Hi I attach some Gimp processed image of the moon . On image nr.0007G2 is possible to see crater with middle peak (I suppose ) on right border of siluette in dark area. Yesterday I was trying catch saturn by my PC CAM Bresser Ful HD but without succes-maybe sensitivity (gain) is to low for Saturn. Lot of succes

 

[davenn]

On image nr.0007G2 is possible to see crater with middle peak (I suppose ) on right border of siluette in dark area

yup good imaging there ... good to see the improvements you are making

Yes, I can see several craters that have central peaks Dave

 

[DennisN]

A very nice timelapse video of the total solar eclipse in Argentina on July 2 2019:

 

[bruha]

Hi I attach just for interest my last attempt of Jupiter and Saturn by compact SONY automat (not suficient -there is recognizable just Jupiter moons but Saturn )

 

[bruha]

And rest...

 

[Andy Resnick]

Skies cleared up for a few days, giving a moonless night and views of the Veil nebula, which just barely fits within a 400mm lens field of view:

Some crops of the various parts:

400/2.8 lens, 13-second exposures @ ISO 1250.

 

[bruha]

Hi, it is absolutely amazing.. (you can get place without light pollution?)

 

[Andy Resnick]

Hi, it is absolutely amazing.. (you can get place without light pollution?)

Thanks! No, light pollution is very much present- unaided, I can only see stars down to about magnitude 4.

 

[bruha]

Aha, it is similar like here in Prague (little beter in countryside) . Which parameters has your telescope...?

thank you

 

[metastable]

Thanks! No, light pollution is very much present- unaided, I can only see stars down to about magnitude 4.

If I had to guess I'd say you achieved this result with some artfully chosen RAW->JPG conversion settings.

 

[Andy Resnick]

If I had to guess I'd say you achieved this result with some artfully chosen RAW->JPG conversion settings.

There was not a single RAW -> jpg conversion, but it implicitly occurred via 300+ RAW -> stacked TIFF -> jpg.