Milky Way over Mount Kilimanjaro. Photo by Bryan Murahashi
J-P Metsävainio does amazing pics!http://astroanarchy.zenfolio.com/
Apparently my photos are not a proper level :(http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/321090961/albums/astrophoto
Oh, they the 'proper level'..I think you KNOW that. So why didn't you post them on the thread?
I do not know about all the forum topics. I thought if I create an album with the tag astrophoto all will see them :(
great shots :)
Search Google Images with 'Michael Shainblum'. I came across him on 500pix recently, and was blown away. I am not sure how you would do an Astro panorama with the long exposures and star movement from one frame to the next, but I have not looked into it either.
Very difficult, but possible. The way I did it was to identify the same star in adjacent frames, which is very time-consuming (several hours of it). With a very wide lens (full frame 14mm) the stars don't move enough to confuse the panorama software. This is an example of mine from a few months ago:
My favorite is #3 of the Veil Nebula.
What an odd selection to choose from all those dozens of fantastic images submitted by all contributers. There's very little variation here, many people submitted lovely images of star clusters, nebulae, galaxies, noctilucent cloud - all sorts in fact. Yet these are mostly just wide-field star trails. Star trails are generally considered to be the starting point for budding astrophotographers, there's nothing wrong with them but people soon move on from there. I strongly suggest anyone interested to go look at the original thread to get a better idea of what amateurs can achieve.
I was also surprised to see one of my entries in this showcase....defenately not the best picture i submitted. Although i am glad to see one of my pictures here, nut would also had participated more DSO's.
Hi. Startrails take time and effort to collect and post-produce but are still fun for me. The key is a good foreground for interest and hopefully interaction of some description. My amateur ones athttps://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmarriottsydney/sets/72157636635320805/For some amazing shots of startrails and nightscapes try Lincoln Harrisonhttp://www.lincolnharrison.com/EnjoyDavid.
so out of all these, only one would I consider the be "astro-photography" which is a challenging discipline in it's own right.
the rest i consider nightscapes. it's a shame that only one DSO made it on this list, as photographing DSO's is a technological challenge , extreme patience and time far exceeding that of the regular nightscape photograph.
the miilky way shots are a form of astrophotography, but I agree, it isn't the (much harder) specialized telescope astrophotography people think of seeing enlarge stars and nebula. I don't have a tracking telescope, nor have the patience/skills to photo stack tons of 40min exposures together. I like the astronomy group on flickr as well as nasa photostream.
In our night photography workshops, we've been using the term "Astrolandscape" for a while no to describe images like these. Astrophotography images are devoid of the landscape in the foreground.
I agree as a 45+ year astrophotographer only #3 and #8 qualify as far as I am concerned. Not to mention I was doing as good as #8 as a junior high school student in 1963 with an RV-6, Practika 35mm, and Plus-X film.Every astro-imager has to start somewhere but calling these exceptional (except #3 which is decent) would tend to call into question the experience of the person choosing them.
Astrolandscape - I like that, and suits it for sure.
Some images are used only for that reason, show some stars (trails?), some more successfully than others, however some show a lack of care in its composition.There for me four or five very interesting images.
Noob question: those photos with long exposure (i.e. photos #10 and #11) shouldn't have resulted in star trails?
No because they were shot with super wide angle lenses, hence the rotation of the earth during the short exposure (30s/60s) is too little to introduce star trails for that viewing angle.
I'd never have thought of THAT. Thanks for your explanation.
With a 14mm lens, you can get away with star trails even at 30s. But I am skeptical for 60s (pic #10).
Some photogs use a barn door star tracker to eliminate trails http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-a-Motorized-Barn-Door-Tracker/Probably need to composite two images: one for stars, one for the landscape
re: shot #10:60s should only blur the stars (it does) on such a WA shot, not have noticeably long star-trails. star-trails get noticeable as short dashes at 180s or more. shot appears to be caught either at moon-dusk or moon-dawn (before sunset/sunrise)
I am tired of pictures of star trails.
agree.star-trails belie shortcomings of still needing longer exposures of cameras faring poorly at higher ISOs so lower ISOs are used instead (pp stacking cheats not permitted)
sensor development should be pushed so bright starry blue-sky moonlit earth landscapes can be single exposed for stills at under 4s, under 1s, etc, with ultra-clean noiseless high ISOs (even with smaller aperture diameters, say 3mm, etc, not always wide open). it would then lend itself more readily to landscape portraitures under the night starry moonlit skies
am I the only one doing such outdoor astro-lunar earth landscape (self)portraits wishing for shorter exposure times. ideally, FLASHLESS? I hate trying to stand still for so long in the dark of night and risk looking "goggly-eyed" staring too long at a camera somewhere on a tripod in the nightshadows ... even delay flah doesn't help for ones facial expression either ...
...plus non-flash (no strobes) unblurry clear nocturnal wildlife/bif under unblurred starry blue-sky moonlit night landscapes would be an entirely new realm opened up to explore photographically in hi-MP stills, timelapses, etc (not just lower res conventional 'darkish' videos (A7s?))
Sdaniella:I'd like to see some of these "outdoor astro-lunar earth landscape (self)potraits".
:) caught ur attention did I?I mean outdoor starry-skied moonlit NIGHT earth glassy-still reflecting lake forest landscape by our cottage boat dock ... self-portraiture ...
One is in my gallery, but my gaze is 'goggly' from waiting for both a long exposure, and NO flash-fill (to overcome moon-shadows)plus I stood on a floating moored dock ... had to stand as still as possible in such a way:a) not lose my balance/bearings in the dark and fall into the deep lakeb) not waver so as to cause any ripples in the water from rocking the dockc) not move so as to blur myself under moonlight (one can see my blurry sunhat ... er moonhat I was wearing)
+ experimented w/hdr software, too ...
another, was hours later during moonset behind me backlit with flash-fill USED (looks almost like a sunset, except stars can be seen in the skies) and reflected in the lake ... long exposure 'goggly-eye' gaze included
if the exposures were vastly shorter ... yay, I wish
Yep, and I'm surprised that DPReview didn't reach for something higher here. Star trails are gorgeous but when they are the only thing going in a photograph - the main thing - we're left with a feeling of disappointment. One of the things we've been teaching in our night photography workshops to use star trails as a secondary or tertiary element - a supporting element. The image must be about something else and the star trails (or galaxy, or star points) must not overwhelm.
my hope, when opportunity presents itself, is to do Wide-Angle 'galaxy' filled blue sky scenic calm moonlit reflecting lake forest night landscape (self or group)portraits ... maybe bonus aurora borealis glowing along, too!!! would have to be shorter exposure (of course) as well as reasonable dof, say 3-4mm aperture diameters , not too shallow ... especially if subject person is relatively close ... fills the composition, not standing too afar off.
If you are tired, look elsewhere. I like them.
WOW - great shots. thanks for showcasing their work. They deserve it.https://www.flickr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets/
I find amateurs' images more appealing than the pro ones that DPR posts sometimes. Maybe because I am an amateur myself?
Wow. Great eye candy. Thank you image makers. Thank you technology.
"3m Coudé Refractor"
It would be news to me if such an instrument existed. I think this is a reflector, not a refractor.
it is a refractor. It is 3m focal length. Diameter is 28.5 cm.
Oh...most scopes are specified by aperture, and 3m sounded like well beyond the biggest one ever built.
Yes and yes! We traditionally associate the name Coudé (French for elbow) with large Cassegrain reflector telescopes, but there are refractor implementations, too. The main advantage of a Coudé focus is a stationary eyepiece at the lower end of the polar axis, making it easier to mount a camera...but then field rotation must be taken into account and corrected for. With modern, computer-driven Alti-azimuth mounts, the Coudé focus is aligned with the altitude bearing.
Nice images all of them, but in my opinion it's a bit of a pity that just one deep space object was selected... Check out the forum thread people, and the Astrophotography Talk Forum in general, as there's some hugely talented (and determined!) people hanging out there. Also, as I have been finding out over the past few months, they're always welcoming and helpfull towards newbies.
Great!Nice variety of shots.
Definitely dark sky shots.Cities are ok for "through the telescope shots" but, wide angle deep sky are difficult owing to constantly increasing light pollution. Dark sky naked-eye magnitude limits are about 6 (dimmest star visible) but in cities, it can be as low as 2. For all the talk of energy savings, we still live under things like 1960's-style streetlights that send 1/2 their light up into the sky, instead of onto the roads.
Yep, very true.
Very nice pictures.Unfortunately there is too much light pollution in the area I live to see the milky way.