Astrophotography - what am I doing wrong???

[TRP]

This past week, traveled to one of the darkest areas around to try my have at astrophotography using the Laowa 7.5mm f/2, both with and without a tracking head. I wanted to capture what was directly above me, so no foreground, but the images look far from impressive to me. They just look like randomness. I even tried multiple settings (see below) in an effort to find what works. (I know some were too long and have star trails).

What did I do wrong?


ISO 3200, 15s shutter, no tracking


ISO 1600, 60s shutter, no tracking


ISO 1600, 60s shutter, using tracking head


ISO 800, 3 min shutter, using tracking head


4 Shot stack using Deep Sky Stacker: ISO 1600, 60s shutter, using tracking head

--

Welcome | greinerstudio

www.greinerstudio.com

---
Olympus O-MD E-M1 ii
Panasonic Leica 12-60 f/2.8-4
Olympus 60 f/2.8 macro
Olympus Pro 40-150 f/2.8
Pansonic Leica 100-400 f/4-6.3
Olympus 300mm f/2.8

 

[Albert Valentino]

Were they shot wide open at f/2 or stopped down?

 

[Mark9473]

This past week, traveled to one of the darkest areas around to try my have at astrophotography using the Laowa 7.5mm f/2, both with and without a tracking head. I wanted to capture what was directly above me, so no foreground, but the images look far from impressive to me. They just look like randomness. I even tried multiple settings (see below) in an effort to find what works. (I know some were too long and have star trails).

What did I do wrong?

You didn't do anything wrong, except perhaps boosted the contrast a bit too high.

I think you captured some constellations quite nicely, actually. The stretch from Orion to Perseus is quite recognizable. Pleiades, Perseus Double Cluster and Andromeda Galaxy show nicely.

I think this result is what you could expect for single exposures on a digital sensor using a sharp lens. In the past, fast film and fast lenses with spherical aberration caused the brighter stars to bloat so that they show up as much 'fatter' which is more similar to how we see things wit our eyes..

With softer processing and stacking multiple exposures on top of each other, you could bring out the Milky Way and the star colours better.

 

[TRP]

Were they shot wide open at f/2 or stopped down?

Shot wide open.

 

[Tom Axford]

They look excellent images to me. They show a very large number of stars against a dark sky. The lens looks to be excellent as the stars are fairly sharply defined even in the corners.

What did you expect when photographing stars in the sky?

 

[Okapi001]

They look excellent images to me. They show a very large number of stars against a dark sky. The lens looks to be excellent as the stars are fairly sharply defined even in the corners.

What did you expect when photographing stars in the sky?

That was my first thought, too.

 

[TRP]

They look excellent images to me. They show a very large number of stars against a dark sky. The lens looks to be excellent as the stars are fairly sharply defined even in the corners.

What did you expect when photographing stars in the sky?

I suppose I expected to see a little more definition - I guess you could say less stars but more clearly defined stars or regions. Hover, I could not find the balance in settings to achieve such. Take the shot below as an example.







I was also disappointed in the output from Deep Sky Stacker. If it improves signal to noise, look at the number of stars missing. Does that infer they are not stars at all and are noise in the single shots?



--

Welcome | greinerstudio

www.greinerstudio.com

---
Olympus O-MD E-M1 ii
Panasonic Leica 12-60 f/2.8-4
Olympus 60 f/2.8 macro
Olympus Pro 40-150 f/2.8
Pansonic Leica 100-400 f/4-6.3
Olympus 300mm f/2.8

 

[s_grins]

your first and last shots look very natural to me when on elevation 4 km at night.

 

[Albert Valentino]

Check out the first picture in this weekly m43 pictures roudup. F/1.4 at ISO 6400, 15 seconds, panorama

Loading…

www.43rumors.com

 

[Tom Axford]

They look excellent images to me. They show a very large number of stars against a dark sky. The lens looks to be excellent as the stars are fairly sharply defined even in the corners.

What did you expect when photographing stars in the sky?

I suppose I expected to see a little more definition - I guess you could say less stars but more clearly defined stars or regions. Hover, I could not find the balance in settings to achieve such. Take the shot below as an example.



I was also disappointed in the output from Deep Sky Stacker. If it improves signal to noise, look at the number of stars missing. Does that infer they are not stars at all and are noise in the single shots?

I don't know how Deep Sky Stacker works, so I cannot comment on its output.

I think you should post these shots on the Astrophotography forum where there should be people much more experienced and knowledgeable about the subject. Astrophotography is not at all straightforward and the techniques are often quite different from those familiar to other photographers.

There are also a number of magazines devoted to astronomy and they nearly all cover many aspects of astrophotography as well, both with and without a telescope. These magazines can often be a very useful source of practical information.

 

[Astrotripper]

My bet is on processing. There's probably more in those images than it shows.

The fact that at ISO 3200 at 15s there is zero noise and background is pitch black tells me that most likely huge amounts of data were thrown away.

Can you post a raw file somewhere for us to see what the camera managed to capture?

I'm pretty sure you could squeeze a lot more out of those.

--
My photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/astrotripper2000/

 

[Mark9473]

Every part of the Milky Way in that shot is much brighter than the sparse stretch of winter Milky Way you were aiming at.

--
Mark

 

[Sean Nelson]

Every part of the Milky Way in that shot is much brighter than the sparse stretch of winter Milky Way you were aiming at.

^This^. The winter Milky Way pales in comparison to the heart of the galaxy that rises above the southern horizon in the middle of summer. Any comparison between your shot and one taken in the summer is doomed to cast yours in a poor "light".

 

[TRP]

My bet is on processing. There's probably more in those images than it shows.

The fact that at ISO 3200 at 15s there is zero noise and background is pitch black tells me that most likely huge amounts of data were thrown away.

Can you post a raw file somewhere for us to see what the camera managed to capture?

I'm pretty sure you could squeeze a lot more out of those.

Below is a link to the RAW file. I was shooting with noise reduction on, so the camera was attempting to capture a dark frame and subtracting noise (if I am correct in how that works).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qz17EumTW3qTzhKxe4du4S2duw5abTm3/view?usp=sharing

I think you can download with that link...

 

[TRP]

Every part of the Milky Way in that shot is much brighter than the sparse stretch of winter Milky Way you were aiming at.

^This^. The winter Milky Way pales in comparison to the heart of the galaxy that rises above the southern horizon in the middle of summer. Any comparison between your shot and one taken in the summer is doomed to cast yours in a poor "light".

It does seem part of the issue is the time of year and "interest" in what was in the sky.

 

[Astrotripper]

My bet is on processing. There's probably more in those images than it shows.

[...]

Can you post a raw file somewhere for us to see what the camera managed to capture?

Below is a link to the RAW file. I was shooting with noise reduction on, so the camera was attempting to capture a dark frame and subtracting noise (if I am correct in how that works).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qz17EumTW3qTzhKxe4du4S2duw5abTm3/view?usp=sharing

Thanks. Here's what I got out of it:



I uploaded an XMP sidecart file for it to my Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fachia1ce2ojxdn/P1250435.ORF.xmp?dl=0

Just put in in the same folder as the RAW file and open the raw file with Darktable (free, open-source software) and you will be able to tweak it further and see exactly what I did there.

--
My photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/astrotripper2000/

 

[Treadurownpath]

Ive read in the past that the laowa 7.5 is a bad choice for astro due to having crazy vignetting wide open. These shots make it look to be a good option though? I think you just havent got the most impressive view of the milky way, but the actual shots look nice and sharp.

 

[Pete Berry]

Very nice. I was surprised at the almost total lack of color in the OP's images to show star ages, nebulae, etc. - almost as if processed as B/W's.

Pete

 

[Mark9473]

That is spectacularly much better!

Here's what I got out of it:

--
Mark

 

[TRP]

Thank you. I have tried to replicate in my software of choice (capture one) with no luck. Looks like I need to learn more about darktable.

But, glad to see it is more a limit of my post processing capability than the lens or camera.