c/astronomy-photos

Last week I found out my 'stacked' astro photos had a hidden flaw for 3 years

I started stacking back in 2021 and always thought my nebula shots looked a little fuzzy. Last week I ran my old data through a new calibration frame workflow and realised I'd been using the wrong bias frames the whole time. My M42 from 3 years ago suddenly looks crisp and detailed. Has anyone else dug up old data and fixed it with better processing?

Saw that deep field photo from Webb and I think it's overrated

I was at a coffee shop on Main Street last week and overheard two guys raving about that James Webb deep field image with all those distant galaxies. They were calling it the greatest photo ever taken. I've studied that image for a good 15 minutes and honestly, I think Hubble's Ultra Deep Field from 2004 is way more impressive. That image was a 10 year project and showed us things we never even imagined. The new Webb photo just feels like a higher resolution version of something we already had. Does anyone else feel like the hype is way bigger than what the actual photo shows?

Spent 2 hours rotating a single photo of the Pleiades because I forgot to set the white balance in camera

Shot M45 on Tuesday with my Canon T7i and couldn't figure out why the stars looked green until I realized I had it on auto white balance the whole time. Has anyone else wasted a whole night on something this simple?

Why does nobody mention dust motes when talking about astrophotography?

I spent an hour stacking 30 frames of the Orion Nebula last night and kept getting these weird streaks. Turns out it was dust on my sensor, not some fuzzy deep space object. A quick sensor cleaning and the difference was night and day. Anyone else fight with dust more than light pollution?

The Hubble Deep Field photo hit me harder than I expected

I was looking up the specs on the original Hubble Deep Field image from 1995 and found out that it captured over 3,000 galaxies in a patch of sky the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length. That blew my mind because I always thought it was just a cool picture, not something that tiny. I found the details on NASA's site under some old press release. Has anyone else looked into how much of the universe is actually in those deep field shots?

PSA: I just learned that the Andromeda Galaxy is actually 2.5 million light years away

Saw that stat on a NASA site while looking at some photos last night and it blew my mind lol. I always figured it was way closer since you can see it with the naked eye on a clear night. Anyone else get surprised by how far stuff actually is when you look up distances?

I'll take a grainy phone shot over a perfect telescope image any day

Everyone raves about those crisp Hubble-level stacked photos, but I picked my Pixel 7's messy moon pic from last August for the contest because it actually felt like I was there seeing it with my own eyes. Has anyone else submitted a "bad" photo just because it captured the moment better?

Had to choose between a star tracker and a better lens for my astro setup

I've been shooting night skies for about two years now with just a basic DSLR and kit lens. Finally saved up enough to make an upgrade, but I could only afford one thing. I spent two weeks going back and forth between a sky tracker for longer exposures, or a fast wide angle lens like an f/2.8. The tracker would let me stack and get cleaner images of nebulae, but the lens would help me capture wider Milky Way shots right now. I went with the lens because I mostly shoot landscapes with the stars in the frame, not deep space targets. First night out I got a shot of the Milky Way core over a lake near my town that was way sharper than anything I've done before. Still wondering if I made the right call though or if the tracker would have opened up more options. Anyone else been stuck between these two choices?

Finally got a clear shot of the Andromeda Galaxy after switching to a star tracker mount

I spent about 6 months trying to photograph Andromeda with just my DSLR on a tripod. Getting maybe 2 second exposures before star trailing kicked in. Last month I picked up a used Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer for $250 on Craigslist. First night out with it I got 30 second subs that were tack sharp. Stacked 60 of them in DeepSkyStacker and the detail in the dust lanes blew me away. Has anyone else noticed a huge jump in image quality after switching to tracking?

Tried stacking my camera shots with free software and ended up with what looks like a blurry picture of a ghost

Spent three hours aligning 200 frames of the Orion Nebula only to realize I forgot to turn off the tracking error correction and now it just looks like a fuzzy blob from a horror movie, has anyone else had a processing tool completely wreck their best data set?

Rant: My deep sky shot got ruined by a single passing airplane last weekend

I drove 2 hours out to a dark site near Kernville last Saturday to finally get a clean Andromeda shot. Set up my rig at 9 PM, got everything aligned after maybe 45 minutes. Then at 1 AM during my 300th sub exposure, a plane flies right through the frame with its strobe lights blinking. That single frame ruined the whole stack because the light streak was so bright it messed up my background calibration. I spent like 3 hours trying to mask it out in processing but the gradient was just too bad. Has anyone found a solid method to salvage stacks when a single frame has a bright plane trail?

Last week my tracking mount failed during a 3-hour Orion nebula capture

I was set up at Cherry Springs State Park, the sky was perfect, no moon. Got about 45 minutes into my exposure sequence when my Star Adventurer just stopped tracking. Dead battery, I think. I didn't bring a spare (rookie mistake). I ended up just taking single shots on a fixed tripod for the rest of the night. The widefield shots of the Milky Way turned out okay, but I'm kicking myself over the lost nebula data. Anyone else have a mount die on them mid-session and find a quick fix?

Spent 3 hours stacking my Cassiopeia shot before I noticed the stars were trailing

I spent three whole nights imaging Cassiopeia last week only to realize my polar alignment was off by a tiny amount. Took me an hour to figure out why the stars looked like little footballs in every frame. Has anyone else wasted a full session because of a simple alignment mistake?

Got my first clear shot of the Andromeda Galaxy last Tuesday

Been trying for 2 months with my old Celestron and a phone mount. Finally got a night where the moon wasn't washing everything out at the lake near my house. Only got about 20 frames before the neighbor's dog started barking at my tripod. Has anyone else had a random clear night that just lined up perfectly?

Rant: spent $200 on a used telescope and got nothing but clouds for 3 weeks straight

Picked up a used 8 inch Dobsonian off Craigslist for $200. Figured it was a steal for getting into astrophotography. Three weeks of solid overcast skies later and I've just been staring at the thing in my living room. Anyone else drop cash on a scope only to have the weather turn against you?

Took me 3 attempts to finally capture a clean Orion Nebula core shot

I kept seeing these gorgeous astrophotography posts where the Orion Nebula had that bright core still looking crisp, not blown out white. But every time I tried, my stack would come out with a big white blob where the core should be. I figured I just needed better gear or darker skies. Then I noticed something after going through my raw files: other beginners were also posting those blown out core shots and calling it a win. The secret? I finally tried shooting separate short exposures just for the core, like 30 seconds at ISO 800 instead of my usual 2 minute ones. My latest stack merged those short exposures with the longer ones using a simple layer mask in GIMP, and boom, the core actually has detail now. Has anyone else figured out a trick for preserving nebula cores without spending money on an expensive filter?

My neighbor's stitched image came out with weird artifacts... check your stacking software

I was over at Dave's place last night looking at his Andromeda photo and he had these weird curved lines running through every frame. Turns out he was using a free stacking program from 2018 that nobody updates anymore. Has anyone else run into older software introducing ghost artifacts in their deep sky shots?

That 20 second exposure tip I heard at a truck stop diner actually works

Had to choose between a $50 tripod and a $300 one for my star trail shots

I went cheap last month and spent 3 hours watching my camera wobble in the wind. Now I'm saving up for the good one after my Andromeda photo came out looking like a blurry mess. Anyone else regret skimping on a tripod early on?

That purple nebula photo everyone was sharing? I thought it was fake until I saw the raw data

My buddy kept posting this wild shot of the Rosette Nebula and I swore it was AI or some heavy filters. He finally sent me the unedited stacked frames from his backyard setup outside Phoenix. It was just 2 hours of exposure through a cheap DSLR and a half-broken tracker - the color was actually there in the data the whole time. Now I'm researching how to get those hydrogen alpha bands myself, but I'm worried my light pollution will ruin it. Anyone else had a skeptical moment that got flipped by seeing the raw process?

Finally got a decent shot of the Orion Nebula from my backyard in Boise after six months of trying.

Serious question, did anyone else see that weird green satellite flare over Phoenix last Thursday?

I was out with my new 8-inch Dobsonian trying to get a clean shot of M13 and it streaked right through the frame at 9:47 PM local time. Has anyone else had a good photo ruined by unexpected orbital debris lately?

PSA: I stacked 50 photos of the Andromeda Galaxy and it cleared up the noise a lot

My single shots from my backyard in Phoenix were always too grainy. I tried stacking fifty 30-second exposures using free software called DeepSkyStacker. Has anyone else found a good number of frames to use for galaxies?

A guy at the star party in Flagstaff said my photo of the Orion Nebula looked like a 'cosmic jellyfish' and now I can't unsee it

My old DSLR versus a dedicated astronomy camera for deep sky shots

I spent years using my trusty Canon Rebel T6 for astrophotography, thinking more megapixels meant better pictures. Last month, I finally got a used ZWO ASI224MC astronomy camera for about $300. The difference is night and day, literally. With the DSLR, I fought so much noise and heat in the sensor, even on a cool night. The ZWO camera is cooled, so the images are way cleaner. I could capture the Orion Nebula in half the time with more detail. But some folks say a modified DSLR is still better for wide-field shots of the Milky Way. Which setup do you think gives more bang for your buck for someone starting out in deep sky imaging?