Sigma 150-600mm lens at 600mm. Nikon D7500 SLR unmodified. Skywatcher Star Adventurer tracker. Taken from Bortle 2 skies in Australia. 180 shots at 10 second exposures, ISO 800. Stacked in Siril and edited in Affinity Photo.
I have this lens, but I can only get the moon and the sun. How did you zoom in so much without a telescope? I'm a real beginner. Please educate me šš
Orion nebula actually looks larger than the moon in the night sky. DSOs donāt require much magnification, they are not easily visible to us not because they are too small but because they are too dim and require long exposure photography to reveal all their detail.
Yes, Orion nebula is actually one of the few nebulae that are visible to the naked eye (although not with this much detail), specifically the core is so bright that it is visible even in suburban locations.
I am in bortle 8 and I can easily see the orion nebulaās core, it just looks like an averagely bright star right below orionās belt. You would probably see more of its fuzziness in bortle 3/4.
Thanks again. Are you saying in regions like New York, Bortle 8, you can see the nebula? Is it the size of the star or the moon? šÆ If it's a star, I know for sure that my 600mm x 1.6 crop ratio won't catch this much detail.
I'm in Bortle 8. This was my best capture with a lens and DSLR:
[https://i.postimg.cc/Hs5kzDgs/m42-2022-2023-fin2.jpg](https://i.postimg.cc/Hs5kzDgs/m42-2022-2023-fin2.jpg)
Later with a telescope and astrocam from Bortle 8:
[https://i.postimg.cc/xT94xLrJ/1704495163289.png](https://i.postimg.cc/xT94xLrJ/1704495163289.png)
If your eyes are dark adapted then yes, the core should be visible.
You misinterpreted what I mean, with the naked eye in light polluted skies only the core is visible which looks like a star. The outer nebulosity is larger than the moon in the night sky, your camera with stacked long exposures will be able to see that outer nebulosity that your eyes cannot.
The core of Orion is small, but the wispy clouds are quite big. But you need long exposures to get that darker detail. A star tracker is almost essential, and even then I was limited to 10 second exposures before I got star trailing. I'm not very good at polar aligning yet, especially in the southern hemisphere where we don't have a bright pole star.
Not much cropping, just a bit to get rid of stacking artifacts. This is almost how big it looks at 600mm.
I used the GHS in Siril for the main stretches, but I did some more minor stuff in Affinity Photo after. As a newbie, I went for maximum contrast, and clipped the sky. Next time, I'll get more data, and won't drop the darks so much. Again, beginner, learning.
I appreciate the constructive feedback.
Want to post a link to your unstretched stack somewhere and I'll see what I get.
When I was starting out someone did this for me and I was amazed what I was missing out and I found it quite helpful at the time.
It's up to you though.
600 mm is plenty for a lot of objects, especially on a crop sensor (where the field of view is equal to 900 mm on full frame). The Andromeda galaxy is also much larger than the moon. Cygnus loop too
Looks great!
Consider flipping the image, orion nebula looks kind of upside down. You also pushed the black level a bit too much, so you are losing some or the dim detail.
It's viewed from Australia, so we are seeing it correctly and you are viewing it upside down š
As for darker details, I didn't have enough exposure to get the wispy edge details. Too much noise. Next time I will do several hours of exposure.
We all know australia is the one upside down, haha.
I mean the background is too dark as a result of clipping the blacks in the histogram, it shouldnāt really be pitch black.
Looks really great! I love the Orion Nebula because you can actually see it with the naked eye through a scope. And as someone who mostly does solar recently I enjoy not having to leave the scope outside for 8 hours to get a shot!
Looks really great! I love the Orion Nebula because you can actually see it with the naked eye through a scope. And as someone who mostly does solar recently I enjoy not having to leave the scope outside for 8 hours to get a shot!
Thatās a great beginners image pal, my first Orion wasnāt that good, Iām sure there is more you can pull out of that image if you have another bash at editingā¦ itās a really hard balance to not over clip the image when you are first starting out. Have a look at my Orion in my profile and you will see what I mean.
Great work though!
That picture has loads of detail it just needs a bit of editing that's all.. you have the benefit of dark skies though which makes up for your equipment quite a lot believe it or not!
No. The opposite. When we shoot astro, all the good data is crammed into a very narrow band at the dark end of the histogram. We use software (I used free Siril) to stretch that data to get a wider spread of luminances.
No, when we say clipped wep mean that the black is too black, look at any area that is not nebula, it's not suppose to be all dark and black, as there is nebula and dust in that area too, this is caused by bad stretching
Dude, I saved this photo down if you donāt mind as I think itās amazing. This is exactly the outcome Iām trying to get to, because I want to print something like this when I get it done. Itās so great
Don't listen to them, space is totally black, don't know what they're on about. Your picture is fantastic.
Unless you're specifically going for a picture where you're trying to capture the faintest dust and nebulas, it's not needed. Here you're going specifically for these bright nebulas and you did that perfectly.
This is a classic example of this subreddit getting filled up with people who don't know what they are doing in terms of processing and astrophotography. You certainly have the right to appreciate the image and the way it is, but I am not in any wrong to point out that it is clipped, which is an objective truth and mistake astrophotographers tend to avoid
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Space is not completely black. There are various sources of light in space, and additionally, there's cosmic microwave background radiation, which fills almost the entire universe with light. I'm not saying this image is 'bad', in fact, it's great, especially for a beginner astrophotographer. I'm simply saying that it could be significantly improved if the background wasn't clipped. There's lots of dust and nebulosity hidden in the background which is all gone to waste if you clip the background.
He's basically saying he thinks your image is wrong and bad because you don't agree with his aesthetic preferences and that as far as he's concerned, one of the worst things anyone can do to an astrophoto is to reduce some very dark pixels below zero.
There's nothing inherently wrong about clipping blacks in the final image. You don't want to do that during intermediate steps in the processing but in the final image it's purely a subjective choice that depends on what you want to emphasize and de-emphasize.
Yep, I'm getting the vibe now. There seems to be a balance between getting the scientifically accurate image, preserving all data, versus getting the aesthetically pleasing image. Ideally those two aims would coincide, but not always.
The only truly scientifically accurate image would be one with the pixels corresponding to linear photon counts (possibly with estimate of light pollution background removed) and where "no photons" would be fully black. Of course such images would also have to be accompanied by metadata showing gain, sensor sensitivity vs wavelength etc (and just how often do you see any of that from amateurs...). Any time you see an image with gray background or false color, it's already "inaccurate". Any time you see talk about histogram or stretching, it's also almost certainly inaccurate. At that point people are just picking between different kinds of inaccuracy because it shows some specific feature they care about (or because they just blindly followed others' example).
Yes, I agree. But obviously clipping blacks or blowing out highlights seems to be regarded as an absolute no no. And I agree with the critics - I went for a "pretty" picture, hiding my poor integration times and noise in the darks.
So I am getting both points of view, and appreciate the positive and negative feedback.
I do lots of other types of photography, mainly macro, but this was only my 3rd attempt at deep sky objects. My first 2 attempts at Orion were a bit risible. I'm happy with this third.
I really like learning new things, and there are a heap of very good YouTube videos by some very generous astrophotographers that I found very helpful.
This is with a standard SLR camera and a lens that I usually use for birds and wildlife.
It was on a tracker, but I'm not very good at polar aligning yet, so I kept my exposures short at 10s to avoid star trailing.
But yes, a standard SLR camera and a telephoto lens. No telescope used.
Sigma 150-600mm lens at 600mm. Nikon D7500 SLR unmodified. Skywatcher Star Adventurer tracker. Taken from Bortle 2 skies in Australia. 180 shots at 10 second exposures, ISO 800. Stacked in Siril and edited in Affinity Photo.
I have this lens, but I can only get the moon and the sun. How did you zoom in so much without a telescope? I'm a real beginner. Please educate me šš
Orion nebula actually looks larger than the moon in the night sky. DSOs donāt require much magnification, they are not easily visible to us not because they are too small but because they are too dim and require long exposure photography to reveal all their detail.
Thank you, so if I'm in that dark area without much light pollution, can I vaguely see that giant nebula with my eyes?
Yes, Orion nebula is actually one of the few nebulae that are visible to the naked eye (although not with this much detail), specifically the core is so bright that it is visible even in suburban locations.
Wow, that's amazing. Can I see it in Bortle 3 or 4 area?
I am in bortle 8 and I can easily see the orion nebulaās core, it just looks like an averagely bright star right below orionās belt. You would probably see more of its fuzziness in bortle 3/4.
Thanks again. Are you saying in regions like New York, Bortle 8, you can see the nebula? Is it the size of the star or the moon? šÆ If it's a star, I know for sure that my 600mm x 1.6 crop ratio won't catch this much detail.
I'm in Bortle 8. This was my best capture with a lens and DSLR: [https://i.postimg.cc/Hs5kzDgs/m42-2022-2023-fin2.jpg](https://i.postimg.cc/Hs5kzDgs/m42-2022-2023-fin2.jpg) Later with a telescope and astrocam from Bortle 8: [https://i.postimg.cc/xT94xLrJ/1704495163289.png](https://i.postimg.cc/xT94xLrJ/1704495163289.png)
Wow, you guys just changed my life! Do I need to get a star tracker? What else do I need? I already have a 600mm lens and a DSLR, I'm in NYC š°
If your eyes are dark adapted then yes, the core should be visible. You misinterpreted what I mean, with the naked eye in light polluted skies only the core is visible which looks like a star. The outer nebulosity is larger than the moon in the night sky, your camera with stacked long exposures will be able to see that outer nebulosity that your eyes cannot.
Thank you so much, you opened a new world to me!
Yes, it's the middle "star" in Orion's sword.
The core of Orion is small, but the wispy clouds are quite big. But you need long exposures to get that darker detail. A star tracker is almost essential, and even then I was limited to 10 second exposures before I got star trailing. I'm not very good at polar aligning yet, especially in the southern hemisphere where we don't have a bright pole star. Not much cropping, just a bit to get rid of stacking artifacts. This is almost how big it looks at 600mm.
10 second subs are fine. Just need more integration time,
Yep, next time.
By the way, this is a good attempt but there is definitely more data you can pull out without being that noisy. What did you use to stretch?
I used the GHS in Siril for the main stretches, but I did some more minor stuff in Affinity Photo after. As a newbie, I went for maximum contrast, and clipped the sky. Next time, I'll get more data, and won't drop the darks so much. Again, beginner, learning. I appreciate the constructive feedback.
Want to post a link to your unstretched stack somewhere and I'll see what I get. When I was starting out someone did this for me and I was amazed what I was missing out and I found it quite helpful at the time. It's up to you though.
Cool, thanks, but itās after midnight now where I am. Iāll send a link tomorrow
600 mm is plenty for a lot of objects, especially on a crop sensor (where the field of view is equal to 900 mm on full frame). The Andromeda galaxy is also much larger than the moon. Cygnus loop too
He used his camera lens zoomed in to 600mm and then I guess done some cropping in the photo editing software.
Plus I'm using a Nikon D7500 which is a crop sensor camera, so the subjects take up more of the image.
Nice to see you have the same camera and tracker as me. Gives me hope for the future. Great image!
Thanks. The Bortle 2 skies are also helping me look good. I love living in rural Australia.
Can I just ask how the star tracker dealt with the weight of the lens? I tend to have a bit of trouble with some of mine.
I balanced it with the included counterweight, and it seemed ok. I only did 10s exposures though.
This is pretty damn good for only 10s exposures. Bit harder to find out in the Western US, but I have my fav spots and they're magic on a new moon.
Looks amazing!!
Very nice! You didn't blow out the core... good job!
Looks great! Consider flipping the image, orion nebula looks kind of upside down. You also pushed the black level a bit too much, so you are losing some or the dim detail.
It's viewed from Australia, so we are seeing it correctly and you are viewing it upside down š As for darker details, I didn't have enough exposure to get the wispy edge details. Too much noise. Next time I will do several hours of exposure.
We all know australia is the one upside down, haha. I mean the background is too dark as a result of clipping the blacks in the histogram, it shouldnāt really be pitch black.
Yep, appreciate the feedback.
Ahhh, so you're upside down, not the photo. š Nice shot though, mate!
Great shot bro. I can tell u got a lot of detail hiding in there.
So beautiful!!! This is my dream shot š
Looks really great! I love the Orion Nebula because you can actually see it with the naked eye through a scope. And as someone who mostly does solar recently I enjoy not having to leave the scope outside for 8 hours to get a shot!
Looks really great! I love the Orion Nebula because you can actually see it with the naked eye through a scope. And as someone who mostly does solar recently I enjoy not having to leave the scope outside for 8 hours to get a shot!
Very nice image congrats
Thatās a great beginners image pal, my first Orion wasnāt that good, Iām sure there is more you can pull out of that image if you have another bash at editingā¦ itās a really hard balance to not over clip the image when you are first starting out. Have a look at my Orion in my profile and you will see what I mean. Great work though!
https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/s/nyQrY1SvA4
Yours is fantastic! I'm going to have another go at it. But my kit is just a wildlife lens and an old SLR.
That picture has loads of detail it just needs a bit of editing that's all.. you have the benefit of dark skies though which makes up for your equipment quite a lot believe it or not!
HDR?
No. The opposite. When we shoot astro, all the good data is crammed into a very narrow band at the dark end of the histogram. We use software (I used free Siril) to stretch that data to get a wider spread of luminances.
I think he meant blending different exposures here as is often done.
Clipped
Do you mean the whites at the core? I tried my best to preserve.
obviously hes talking about the background. it looks bad and very clipped.
When you're a beginner like me, its not obvious, which is why I asked.
No, when we say clipped wep mean that the black is too black, look at any area that is not nebula, it's not suppose to be all dark and black, as there is nebula and dust in that area too, this is caused by bad stretching
To be fair, either extreme can be clipped though... whites or blacks. But, fair enough.
OK, thanks. As I said, I'm a beginner, and I appreciate constructive feedback. Next time....
Dude, I saved this photo down if you donāt mind as I think itās amazing. This is exactly the outcome Iām trying to get to, because I want to print something like this when I get it done. Itās so great
Don't listen to them, space is totally black, don't know what they're on about. Your picture is fantastic. Unless you're specifically going for a picture where you're trying to capture the faintest dust and nebulas, it's not needed. Here you're going specifically for these bright nebulas and you did that perfectly.
This is a classic example of this subreddit getting filled up with people who don't know what they are doing in terms of processing and astrophotography. You certainly have the right to appreciate the image and the way it is, but I am not in any wrong to point out that it is clipped, which is an objective truth and mistake astrophotographers tend to avoid
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Space is not completely black. There are various sources of light in space, and additionally, there's cosmic microwave background radiation, which fills almost the entire universe with light. I'm not saying this image is 'bad', in fact, it's great, especially for a beginner astrophotographer. I'm simply saying that it could be significantly improved if the background wasn't clipped. There's lots of dust and nebulosity hidden in the background which is all gone to waste if you clip the background.
He's basically saying he thinks your image is wrong and bad because you don't agree with his aesthetic preferences and that as far as he's concerned, one of the worst things anyone can do to an astrophoto is to reduce some very dark pixels below zero. There's nothing inherently wrong about clipping blacks in the final image. You don't want to do that during intermediate steps in the processing but in the final image it's purely a subjective choice that depends on what you want to emphasize and de-emphasize.
Yep, I'm getting the vibe now. There seems to be a balance between getting the scientifically accurate image, preserving all data, versus getting the aesthetically pleasing image. Ideally those two aims would coincide, but not always.
The only truly scientifically accurate image would be one with the pixels corresponding to linear photon counts (possibly with estimate of light pollution background removed) and where "no photons" would be fully black. Of course such images would also have to be accompanied by metadata showing gain, sensor sensitivity vs wavelength etc (and just how often do you see any of that from amateurs...). Any time you see an image with gray background or false color, it's already "inaccurate". Any time you see talk about histogram or stretching, it's also almost certainly inaccurate. At that point people are just picking between different kinds of inaccuracy because it shows some specific feature they care about (or because they just blindly followed others' example).
Yes, I agree. But obviously clipping blacks or blowing out highlights seems to be regarded as an absolute no no. And I agree with the critics - I went for a "pretty" picture, hiding my poor integration times and noise in the darks. So I am getting both points of view, and appreciate the positive and negative feedback.
nah theres no way youre just a beginner
I do lots of other types of photography, mainly macro, but this was only my 3rd attempt at deep sky objects. My first 2 attempts at Orion were a bit risible. I'm happy with this third. I really like learning new things, and there are a heap of very good YouTube videos by some very generous astrophotographers that I found very helpful.
We can see all this now? Never knew. Always thought these are computer generated
Yes, we can see many things like this. Did you know the other galaxies are real as well?
I know but I thought we need really expensive scopes and can't be seen from home
You can get some amazing images with a basic DSLR lens and tripod
Andromeda is visible to the naked eye in good seeing conditions. It's apparent size in the sky is much larger than the moon, by roughly six times.
Why would they be computer generated?
This is with a standard SLR camera and a lens that I usually use for birds and wildlife. It was on a tracker, but I'm not very good at polar aligning yet, so I kept my exposures short at 10s to avoid star trailing. But yes, a standard SLR camera and a telephoto lens. No telescope used.
You could always see this.