Calling all Astrophotographers, all skill levels. Post your work.

a reply to: wmd_2008

I believe it was a bit over 5 hours exposure.
iso 800 200mm f4
Thanks!

SpaceX Falcon Heavy Second Stage + Tesla Roadster yesterday using a 20" telescope and FLI CCD with 3 minute exposures.

It's already over 5 times the distance to the moon, so it's quite faint, but it's still there. It won't be this close to earth again, probably in my lifetime.

So finally back out there taking images.

My ES 18mm - 55m bit the dust, and was actually keeping the camera from taking pictures. I could have been out there using my 500mm and 1000mm lens, but I have a lot more fun with wide angle shots.

I picked up a refurbished 28mm FD lens for my camera, along with the special adapter so I could attach and use it with my Canon Rebel T3i. Has a special lens in it so it can focus to infinity.

Ahhhh. Nothing like having the old manual lens so you can adjust everything yourself by hand!

So I went out the other night and did some 15 second frames with just the tripod. Here's Auriga, 15 seconds, f/2.2 ISO 400 (no....don't know what I was thinking either having the ISO so low):



Now, here's Auriga again....using my tracking mount, I took 16 2 minute exposures, f/2.2 ISO 800, and stacked them, for a total of 31 minutes of exposure:



Think it came out pretty good since it's been almost a year for me.

Caught a transit of the International Space Station over the moon this weekend. My camera recorded video at 30 frames per second, and ISS took only 22 frames to cross the entire face of the moon. Here is a stack of all 22 frames overlaid on each other (with each layer set to "darken only" in order to reveal the silhouette of the station in each frame):
i.imgur.com...

Spur of the moment. Decided to try and take some shots of the Pleiades tonight. Had a hell of a time polar aligning the mount as my oak tree has gotten a bit taller and was trying to block my view of Polaris.

Still, got 16 decent frames, each at 1 minute exposure, ISO 800, f/11.0 using my 500mm telephoto lens.

Stacked them quickly in DSS, and got this:



Going to mess with them more tomorrow.

Going outside in about 20 minutes to do shots of Orion's Nebula. Planning on taking about 30 shots, each at 2 minutes. Going with ISO 800, and using my 500mm lens, with f/11.0.

I'll post my results here.

So here we go, first pic is a single frame, 2 minute exposure, ISO 800 f/11.0 500mm focal length:



Here we have 11 frames stacked (took more than twice that, but looks like I had some errors in tracking), using DeepSkyStacker, adjusting some colors. Looks like I captured M45 to the right of Orion's Nebula:

a reply to: eriktheawful

Great to hear from you Erik! Nice to her you are picking up on astro again.

It's a good year now since I've started doing AP.
Remember this thread where I posted on of the first images with my new tracker.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

These are some of the results after a year.
+6 hours on Orion

1.5 hours on Andromeda

1.5 hours on a dark nebula somewhere in Taurus

+5 hours on the Pleiades



I have learned a lot in the last year and I can say I'm happy with the progress.
I used the same equipment as last year. Now time has come to upgrade and possible very soon I will buy my first telescope. Yet I'm not sure which one, decisions ,decisions .

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Outstanding images! I especially love the dark nebula one!

a reply to: eriktheawful

Thanks!
The nebula on the right of Orion is the Running Man Nebula.

I believe with some better processing skills you will get better results on your image. For a 30min exposure there is more detail to get out of it. That's one of the things I've learned, first take as much images you can and second learn and improve your processing skills. I've re-edited many of my shots from a while back with what I know now and have come up with far better results.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Yah, right now I'm using DSS and GIMP to process my images......DSS is very twitchy

a reply to: eriktheawful

Same here, always used DSS for stacking, it does the job pretty good. For post processing I use photoshop

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Working with DSS more this morning, one thing I've noted for my images: default settings seem to work a lot better.

Any time I go in and try to see if I can tweek things, makes the stack much worse.

One issue I am having is using offset/bias and flat images. When ever I try using them, the stack comes out horrible.

Pretty sure I'm doing it right: offset/bias images are lens covered, exposure set to the highest setting (which for my Canon Rebel T3i is 1/4000 of a second), and at the same ISO as the images I took (which in this case is ISO 800).

Flat images I'm using the White T-shirt method.

I'll keep trying, maybe I'm doing something wrong. But for now my best stacks come from using the RAW image files and dark frames.

For post processing I"m using GIMP. Would love Adobe Photoshop, but now that I could afford it, they only offer a monthly license version. Nice little scam they have going there, just like Unreal did with their stuff.

I did realize I was using a very out of date GIMP though and went to their latest version, which now allows me to load 32 bit TIFF files (before it only liked 16 bit), and has a few more post processing options than before.

So here's what I took last night, the Flame Nebula, NGC 2024.



30 frames stacked, each at 2 minutes exposure. ISO 800, f/11.0 500mm focal length.

Actually took 40, and all 40 came out, but DSS just refuses to stack them all.....even when I tell it to.

Also, this is with dark frames and flat frames. For some reason though, if I use any offset/bias frames, it really messes up the stack. Still have not figured out what I'm doing wrong there.

Big shout out to my son Josh who patiently stood there with a light to light up my polar alignment reticle and then used his young eyes to verify that the camera was in focus, hehehehe.

Going to be it for me for several nights as the weather is suppose to turn lousy. After it finally clears up, going to switch back to some wide angle shots. As cool as it is to zoom in on things, it's a royal PITA for me (mostly because it's REALLY hard to counter balance the mount with these very heavy zoom lens). I find wide angle much easier to do, heh.

ETA: for a MUCH better example of this image, take a look at my avatar, which was done by someone much, much more adept at this than me.

a reply to: eriktheawful

What version of DSS are you using? I've had issues in the past with version 3.3.2
When I switched to 3.4 I never had problems anymore. Now I'm using 3.3.6 + patch
I suggest you try with these versions and see if it changes things.
Also did you check the masterflat to see if there are any abnormalities?

I could send you a link of the new version but I'm not sure if it is allowed here?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Links to free software, as long as it's not auto-executing (DSS is not, it's a zip or rar file) is allowed.

Versions I've used: 3.3.2, 3.3.3 beta 45, and this morning I did this with their 3.3.4......I didn't know they had higher versions than that.

The master flat seems fine (evenly lit across it).

It's the bias files that make my stacking go horribly wrong.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Direct download link to DSS 3.6 (rar)
deepskystacker.free.fr...

Download link to 4gb patch
www.ntcore.com...

Unrar DSS 3.6 then run the patch.

I always use all the calibration files except the dark-flats as I've never had need for them.
About the bias frames, I remember reading somewhere that when using a dslr it isn't necessary to use bias frames as the readout signal is already incorporated in the dark frames.
If you are getting good results without them, just leave them out I would say. Nonetheless there is a reason why it's not working for you.
How does the image look like with the bias frames?

Try using the option "median" on the bias tab, that's what I'm using(not sure if this is the default setting)

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Thanks for the links! I'll download them and try it out later today.

When I get a chance I'll post the difference with and without bias frames but basically when I use bias frames, it's like someone went into a paint shop program, made a black screen and then splattered white paint blobs on it (stars), and nothing else, no mater how much I try to adjust the levels.

Well damn......okay, here's my result using 3.3.6 you gave me the link to, and with bias files....



It's not doing what it was doing before.

I did make one other change though: I changed bias files to "median", it was set to Kappa whatever it's called.

hrrrrmmmmmmmm.

But I'm happier now.

Now if only I could learn how to use my photoshop program better...

a reply to: eriktheawful

That's looking good! Glad it worked out
What photoshop are you using? I made some automated actions in photoshop CC 2014 that might give you a little help in processing.
If you're interested I can send you them.