I am experimenting with AP on a very irregular basis and sticking to the following general parameters:
1. Single Shot Exposures
2. Using both Native FL and Reducer/Flattener
3. All manual exposures using both in camera JPG or RAW's
4. No Post Processing
5. No Guiding
6. No Stacking
So with no AP experience this first shot was taken using the following:
1. Canon 6D (Un-moded) at prime focus
2. Mewlon 300 at native FL of 11.9 (old non CRS version)
3. No Flattener/Reducer
Focus needs improvement as it was done using in camera live view. Also I triggered the shot manual which resulted in a bit of vibration.
The shot was 30 seconds at ISO1600 unguided and unprocessed.
Mount was Takahashi EM400 with single star alignment, no guiding or multipoint model.
Fully expecting to get lambasted on my amateurish efforts
Even the greats e.g. Ansel Adams (landscapes), David Malin (the universe) , applied darkroom wizardry or “post processing” to their images, hence I am puzzled as to why you would want to approach astrophotography...which means photographing objects brighter than the Sun and darker than the night... in the same frame....in a manner beyond the capabilities of any sensor currently available.
The core of M42 is bright, so much so that the very real filigree tendrils in the nebula are lost in the glare of the headlights....
So, sure, you can choose to show only the headlights...but so much more can be revealed by even just a mild logarithmic stretch of the data.
For me, this is where astrophotography surprises and delights. To leave these details in the shadows has no point IMHO
Even the greats e.g. Ansel Adams (landscapes), David Malin (the universe) , applied darkroom wizardry or “post processing” to their images, hence I am puzzled as to why you would want to approach astrophotography...which means photographing objects brighter than the Sun and darker than the night... in the same frame....in a manner beyond the capabilities of any sensor currently available.
The core of M42 is bright, so much so that the very real filigree tendrils in the nebula are lost in the glare of the headlights....
So, sure, you can choose to show only the headlights...but so much more can be revealed by even just a mild logarithmic stretch of the data.
For me, this is where astrophotography surprises and delights. To leave these details in the shadows has no point IMHO
I completely appreciate the work of those greats that you mention and others on here that do outstanding images
As to the point:
I am simply experimenting to see what can be achieved with my current equipment and without having to resort to any additional processing/enhancement.
I am experimenting with AP on a very irregular basis and sticking to the following general parameters:
1. Single Shot Exposures
2. Using both Native FL and Reducer/Flattener
3. All manual exposures using both in camera JPG or RAW's
4. No Post Processing
5. No Guiding
6. No Stacking
So with no AP experience this first shot was taken using the following:
1. Canon 6D (Un-moded) at prime focus
2. Mewlon 300 at native FL of 11.9 (old non CRS version)
3. No Flattener/Reducer
Focus needs improvement as it was done using in camera live view. Also I triggered the shot manual which resulted in a bit of vibration.
The shot was 30 seconds at ISO1600 unguided and unprocessed.
Mount was Takahashi EM400 with single star alignment, no guiding or multipoint model.
Fully expecting to get lambasted on my amateurish efforts
I ended up in a scenario just a tad more complex than Issadao's,
but not by choice.
I spent more than 50yrs doing AP the traditional way, hypered film,
dodging and burning, manual guiding etc, etc: When the digital age
took over AP completely I was already almost 70, and at the very best
computer demi semi literate.
I managed all the basics o.k. but had huge problems trying to convert
RAW files and AVIs. I would convert to AVI only to discover that there were myriad codecs, and god knew which one I needed, so first compromise, I
stuck to JPEGS.
I tried PS, but the dozens, scores, even hundreds, of steps required to produce an image completely overwhelmed my addled brain.
Second compromise, I stuck to DSS and Registax.
Third compromise; I was never going to produce fine digital images, so
camera noise reduction activated, so no separate darks, no bias, no flats,
unguided up to 90sec subs.
I ended up just a little bit proud of what I managed to produce with this
primitive setup and method.
octoraymo
Last edited by raymo; 16-01-2018 at 12:41 AM.
Reason: correct an error
Hi Phil
You did well I supose to get your shot given you say you managed the shutter manualy.
Perhaps consider remote shutter control and stacking as your next step.
The stacking program Deep Sky Stacker is a free download and with it you can stack, which is very exciting, and do a little proceesing on the stacked image.
Alex
Hi Phil
You did well I supose to get your shot given you say you managed the shutter manualy.
Perhaps consider remote shutter control and stacking as your next step.
The stacking program Deep Sky Stacker is a free download and with it you can stack, which is very exciting, and do a little proceesing on the stacked image.
Alex
Thanks I might consider some stacking of a few single frames ...any suggestions for Mac stacking software ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisM
That's the whole gist of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjoe
Hi Phil.
Since your doing this for your own pleasure , and as an experiment.. why not I say.
bigjoe.
Yes just a sticking to the basics experiment for pleasure....Im not aiming for any imaging awards
Definitely valuing the input on how to stick to the basic non-post processing (My Amish Imaging ) or very limited processing suggestions to improve things .......I am of course guessing that adding guiding or multipoint model will help.
Et tu, Brute 
I might consider some stacking of a few single frames ...any suggestions for Mac stacking software ??
