# Astrophotography



## fort384 (Jun 22, 2014)

Hi all, new to the forum, would just like to share some of my astrophotography adventures with you.  I also do some macro photography and enjoy reading and viewing others's work.  Here are some of my recent works:






The Elephant's Trunk Nebula - SBIG STF-8300 Mono CCD Camera





The Horsehead Nebula - Canon 1100D





The Great Nebula in Orion - Canon 1100D





Bode's & Cigar Galaxies - SBIG STF-8300 Mono CCD Camera


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jun 22, 2014)

Can I get some help cleaning my jaw and all this drool off the floor? The Horsehead is absolutely incredible. The Great Nebula is also unbelievable. Wow.


----------



## fort384 (Jun 22, 2014)

Thanks, here are a few more recents:





M51: The Whirlpool Galaxy - SBIG STF-8300 Mono CCD in RGB






NGC 7635: The Bubble Nebula - SBIG STF-8300 Mono CCD in RGB + Hydrogen Alpha 





Sharpless 2-86 - SBIG STF-8300 Mono CCD, False Color Hydrogen Alpha + RGB stars


----------



## tevo (Jun 23, 2014)

Holy crap. Nice.

Do you use an LLRGB process or do you not need to? What's your telescope/tracking setup?


----------



## fort384 (Jun 23, 2014)

It depends on the target - I rarely take straight luminance frames though as is the case with the elephants trunk I will add Ha in as a modified luminance layer of sorts if the target warrants. 

Currently I use an explore scientific 127mm apochromatic triplet carbon fiber refractor which is essentially a very nice 952mm prime lens at f/7.5. With this glass I get no detectable chromatic aberration. 

The main camera is a Santa Barbara Instruments Group thermoelectrically cooled Mono CCD with an electronic filter wheel mounted between it and the scope. However I also image with a no frills Canon 1100D from time to time. 

Installed on the imaging scope is a Moonlite Focuser which is driven by a high resolution 35,000+ step stepper motor that automatically adjusts focus per the filter I am imaging through and the ambient temperature. 

It all rides atop a Sirius EQ-G German equatorial mount. A second 50mm guidescope is piggybacked on the 127 that has a mono CCD camera attached and is only used to provide tracking updates to the mount based on the position of a selected "guide star". This system sends corrections to the mount any time the guide star moves more than a quarter of a pixel on the CCD chip of the guide camera. 

Most of these images are hours and hours of integrated subframes at between 8-10 minutes each. It generally takes all night or multiple nights to produce enough data for a single image.  Without proper tracking stars start to streak in as little as 5 seconds depending on the location of the target in relation to the celestial pole, so proper tracking and guiding are as crucial as the main optical tube assembly to the final outcome. 

All of it sits atop a concrete pier embedded 5ft into the ground with about 3 tons of concrete and rebar. The whole system is driven by a myriad of software and hardware that is piped underground to my man cave/observatory control room 50 feet away.


----------



## Raj_55555 (Jun 23, 2014)

I didn't get a word you said, but wow!!  Just wow!!:hail: 
 How much do these gears cost? I mean the specialty stuff.. Is there a tutorial somewhere I can read? I know I can google, but I was wondering if you had a favorite..


----------



## fokker (Jun 23, 2014)

Holy crap.


----------



## fokker (Jun 23, 2014)

Sorry, what I meant to say was "Amazing photos and an incredible sounding setup."


----------



## IzzieK (Jun 23, 2014)

fokker said:


> Sorry, what I meant to say was "Amazing photos and an incredible sounding setup."



Yeah...sounds like something I cannot afford even if I dream about it.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 23, 2014)

Fort384, welcome to the forum.  To my fellow TPF members, these are excellent examples of what good equipment and even more important, knowledge of processing, can reveal of the skies above us.  There has been a revolution in "amateur" astrophoto processing that has resulted in  images made equal to what can be achieved by much larger professional equipment.  Some astro photos have at least 24 hours or more of exposure, but hundreds of hours of processing which bring out the detail.  Part of this is due to the faintness of the objects (it takes a lot of time to collect enough photons to get a decent image), and part due to the processing that compresses what is perhaps a dynamic range of 20+ stops into the image. 

Fort384, do you have a site where you have displayed your images before?  They are inspiring and pretty awesome.  There are several other TPF members who have serious astronomy gear, but I don't remember them posting images like yours.  Thank you.


----------



## fort384 (Jun 23, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> I didn't get a word you said, but wow!!  Just wow!!:hail:
> How much do these gears cost? I mean the specialty stuff.. Is there a tutorial somewhere I can read? I know I can google, but I was wondering if you had a favorite..



There is a modest investment, but it really is all relative.  The current setup has somewhere around $10-11K invested with all the hardware and associated software. I am hopeful that we will have a significant upgrade to our mount in the next few months, and it will be a sizable investment. There are a lot of tutorials out there that are helpful... youtube features some great videos, and there are hundreds of useful websites.  The advent of technology and the internet has made astrophotography much more accessible.  From a processing standpoint, Doug German has some great video tutorials for  beginners using Photoshop.  More advanced software like PixInsight is made much easier with the tutorials at Harry's Astroshed.  Gary Honis has some amazing features on DSLR use in astrophotography.  

Really, some neat stuff can be achieved with just a tripod and a remote shutter release using a widefield lens on any DSLR.  That's where I started.





pgriz said:


> Fort384, welcome to the forum.  To my fellow TPF members, these are excellent examples of what good equipment and even more important, knowledge of processing, can reveal of the skies above us.  There has been a revolution in "amateur" astrophoto processing that has resulted in  images made equal to what can be achieved by much larger professional equipment.  Some astro photos have at least 24 hours or more of exposure, but hundreds of hours of processing which bring out the detail.  Part of this is due to the faintness of the objects (it takes a lot of time to collect enough photons to get a decent image), and part due to the processing that compresses what is perhaps a dynamic range of 20+ stops into the image.
> 
> Fort384, do you have a site where you have displayed your images before?  They are inspiring and pretty awesome.  There are several other TPF members who have serious astronomy gear, but I don't remember them posting images like yours.  Thank you.



You are correct that processing is just as important as the setup and collection of data.  I started off with Photoshop, but now do most of my post in PixInsight, with some finishing touches added in Photoshop occasionally. There are a lot of techniques and work flow is important... it is easy to overdo it and have to start all over again.  I am still learning, especially with PixInsight, which is quite powerful but also kind of cumbersome and much different than processing in Photoshop. 

There is a lot of software employed during actual imaging runs as well.  The control room allows for some good visibility on all of it - 




_Control room during a typical imaging run_

All of the work I have done is featured on our website: Claustonberry Observatory - Marengo Illinois USA - Astrophotography - Claustonberry Observatory

It has many good examples of the evolution of progress in both processing skill and gear.  The early pictures are still neat to look at, but do not hold a candle to the most recent stuff produced. 


Thanks all for the kind words and I look forward to seeing a lot of great work on this site - having looked around a bit last night, I can see there are some really great photographers that reside here!


----------



## sscarmack (Jun 23, 2014)

I'm speechless!


----------



## Pav10566 (Jun 23, 2014)

Magnificent ! I observe the skies above us as well and I know how difficult it is to take pictures of what you can see. Congratulations ...really...impressive


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 23, 2014)

Fantastic photos.

That's like my dream setup .. until then I just carry around my miniscule ETX-125.  I'm still stuck in the "start" mode  lol


----------



## Raj_55555 (Jun 23, 2014)

fort384 said:


> I can see there are some really great photographers that reside here!


Literally, and rent free too 
I went through your site, and it was an instant bookmark stuff. TBH I've never even heard of widefield lenses, everyday I come across something new on this forum. Google takes me to some ophthalmologists website though, but I'll dig up something..


----------



## fort384 (Jun 23, 2014)

Sorry we colloquially refer to it as wide field in astrophotography but the more common photographic term would be wide angle. Some really neat views of the Milky Way and night sky can be had with a short, fast, prime lens, or even a stock lens with your DSLR.


----------



## fort384 (Jun 23, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> Fantastic photos.  That's like my dream setup .. until then I just carry around my miniscule ETX-125.  I'm still stuck in the "start" mode  lol



Hey that's a nice scope. It was the first "serious" scope I owned but it is not well suited to photographic work. I saw some great visual through it though.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 23, 2014)

fort384 said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Fantastic photos.  That's like my dream setup .. until then I just carry around my miniscule ETX-125.  I'm still stuck in the "start" mode  lol
> ...



I started out with a etx-90 UHTC years ago.  Then I sold it and bought the 125 (used for the same price I sold the 90 for).  It's about all I can afford as the next "jump" up for some good stuff is just way too much $$$.

I use my dslr on it off the back, straight through as I think the mirror adds some distortion even though I have to counterbalance it.  But it is what it is and it's fun when I use it.

When I hit the lottery, I'll upgrade.


----------



## fort384 (Jun 23, 2014)

Nice. Yeah it is hard to get flat all the way to the edge of the field - one of the reasons I prefer refractors with field flatteners in the imaging train. I have never photographed through an SCT though the longer focal lengths are attractive and there are impressive examples out there. I would imagine the next scope I purchase will be a 12 or 14" SCT as I am about at the limit of what is practical with a high quality refractor. You get much above 5" on a refractor and the cost, weight, and awkwardness start to skyrocket exponentially.  That is a couple years away though. For now lots more to capture with the 127 APO.


----------



## Ironlegs (Jun 23, 2014)

Beautiful pictures, i always loved astrophotography


----------



## MikeFlorendo (Jun 23, 2014)

fort384 said:


> It depends on the target - I rarely take straight luminance frames though as is the case with the elephants trunk I will add Ha in as a modified luminance layer of sorts if the target warrants.
> 
> Currently I use an explore scientific 127mm apochromatic triplet carbon fiber refractor which is essentially a very nice 952mm prime lens at f/7.5. With this glass I get no detectable chromatic aberration.
> 
> ...




Well I guess I'm not going out tonight with my point and shoot!  

Insane shots!  How could anyone even start to critique?  Here you go that star in the very right hand top is out of focus. ~shrugs my shoulder~  Seriously though they are very beautiful shots.  I am curious as to what they look like pre post since it appears you put lots of hours into them?  I have always been the guy who has to look behind the curtain.


----------



## fort384 (Jun 23, 2014)

There are generally around 100 frames that compose a single image (usually 5+ GB of data)... individual sub exposure light frames are combined with bias frames to substract inherent noise, dark frames to subtract thermal noise, and flat frames to provide even illumination across a field.  I would post an individual light frame, but they are 32 bit FITS images that would appear as nothing more than a black frame on a normal monitor without performing a massive stretch on the image. Of course it would also be black and white, and only represent one color channel (or a narrowband in the case of an image through the Hydrogen Alpha 7NM filter). Let me know if you want to play with one - I'll upload to dropbox and send you a link (let me know which image as well).  They won't open in Photoshop, however... you'd need to convert to 16 bit first.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 23, 2014)

Wow! Welcome to the forum! I can't wait to hear what you have to teach us! Thanks for joining, and sharing your work.


----------



## MikeFlorendo (Jun 23, 2014)

fort384 said:


> There are generally around 100 frames that compose a single image (usually 5+ GB of data)... individual sub exposure light frames are combined with bias frames to substract inherent noise, dark frames to subtract thermal noise, and flat frames to provide even illumination across a field. I would post an individual light frame, but they are 32 bit FITS images that would appear as nothing more than a black frame on a normal monitor without performing a massive stretch on the image. Of course it would also be black and white, and only represent one color channel (or a narrowband in the case of an image through the Hydrogen Alpha 7NM filter). Let me know if you want to play with one - I'll upload to dropbox and send you a link (let me know which image as well). They won't open in Photoshop, however... you'd need to convert to 16 bit first.




I really appreciate the offer but as I was posting my wife walked in and I showed here your shots and she said "how the hell did he take those?" I gave her the lame dumbed down concrete pedestal, crazy computerized tripod and hours and hours of patience explanation.  She gave me that look like don't even think about it!  So I probably shouldn't even start to play with it.


----------



## Scottuk (Jun 25, 2014)

Stunning. My hat off to you sir. You have a passion, you've invested and look at the product. Fair play. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fort384 (Jun 27, 2014)

Thanks Scott and all. Glad you liked them.


----------



## fort384 (Jul 4, 2014)

Finally, after weeks of clouds, I was able to add to the portfolio last night:  M16, the Eagle Nebula, in false color Hydrogen Alpha with RGB star field.

The Eagle Nebula was made famous by the Hubble Telescope "Pillars of Creation" photo.  My resolution is not quite as good, but still a pleasing image.  







The image contains roughly 130 individual frames (bias, dark, flat, and light frames) and contains roughly 3 hours of shutter time through 4 filters: Hydrogen Alpha, and R,G,B.

Thanks for looking!


----------



## pgriz (Jul 4, 2014)

That is just superb.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 4, 2014)

Awesome photos.  Very nice site and video there.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jul 4, 2014)

Dude. Seriously. Wow.


----------



## TCampbell (Jul 4, 2014)

I meant to reply last week when you posted these...  REALLY wonderful captures and thanks for posting these!

I realize you didn't call attention to them... but I also very much enjoyed the Running Man nebula with the Orion Nebula... and the Flame with the Horse Head.


----------



## fort384 (Jul 4, 2014)

Thanks - those are definitely two of my favorites. I can't wait for them to come back around this fall so I can capture them with the new SBIG CCD camera.


----------



## Wingryder (Jul 4, 2014)

Excellent work sir!  I tried to jump into astrophotography back in the '90s with a home built webcam and an unguided C8.  It is a full time job with no paycheck.  I was never able to get anything I was happy with but got a few "meh" planetaries (Jupiter, Saturn and Mars).  It is such a huge commitment of time, effort, talent and equipment to get images like yours.  I have a deep respect for all you guys doing astrophotography at this level.  I still have my old C8... But I added a 12" Dob last year... So no astrophotography for me, but I am enjoying the night sky through the eyepiece like never before.  

Hats off to you.  Please keep posting your stuff.  Astrophotography is a wonderful addiction.  It is worth spending some effort with just a tripod and DSLR under the night sky... Celestial events happen more frequently than people think and many are highly noteworthy (ie, solar/lunar eclipses, planetary/lunar conjunctions, comets, asteroids, meteor showers, etc...).  The more skilled photographers out there at night the better.


----------

