Basic Astro Photography

jgs001

Brian Cox
Messages
12,646
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok I thought I'd write this up, as it's been discussed several times. So, here's a quick guide for getting started with Astro Photography. The full blown deep sky imaging requires a lot of expensive and heavy equipment to do properly, unless you're like me and make do with cheaper stuff and push it as hard as it'll take, and sometimes beyond, of course :D.

All you need for this is a Camera and a Tripod. I've done these with my Z2 and the 450d. The Z2 sensor is really too small and the ISO handling not good enough, but it works nonetheless.

You want to use a wideish lens. I typically use the 18mm end of the 450d kit. Set the lens aperture to wide open, forget about the sweet spot, you are looking to gather as much light as possible, if you want to get as many stars as possible in the end picture. Set the ISO to the highest you can, that the camera will be able to control the noise reasomably on, for the consumer Canon this appears to be ideal at 800. Set the Shutter to 30 seconds, this appears to give the ideal exposure time at 18mm, before star trailing becomes noticeable (it'll be there, but it's likely to be so small, you won't see it). Make sure you are set to shoot in RAW, then take at least 10 exposures at these settings, as the number of individual shots increases, the more detail you get, but... the more the resulting image will be affected by field rotation (appears as smearing in the top right and lower left corners). I'd recommend using mirror lockup and a remote or the camera self timer (I've used both).

Once you have captured the image frames (Lights), you need to then capture some Dark frames. These are exactly the same exposure settings, so 30 seconds at ISO800 in the same temperature conditions (don't take the camera in) but with the lens cap on. Go for 5. These are used in the stacking process to remove sensor noise and hot pixels. This is the equivalent of having in camera long exposure noise reduction turned on but allows you to spend more time capturing light frames, as the exposure time for each frame doubles if you turn it on in camera.

Load all the images, lights and darks into Deep Sky Stacker using the appropriate option when you load them in. These are called subs (or sub frames). Then click Register, taking the defaults and allow DSS to stack after registration. There are a lot of options in here, and it takes quite a bit of time to work them all out, but the defaults will get you going. Once the stack is finished, DSS will load the resulting file and it'll look possibly quite odd. This is DSS carrying out it's own algorithms to stretch the data and pull out the detail. This does work, but requires some playing around and experimenting, and to be honest, is not the easiest thing to do. So for now, save the image, and select the embed adjustments but don't apply option.

Load up the TIF in your editing package, and prefer for some fun... This is where things get tricky. You need to now use curves (or levels for those who don't have a curves tool, there's a filter for Elements Widows that provides curves) to stretch the histogram. You're looking to change it from an almost vertical bar on the left hand side to a broad shape.

This is the sort of thing you are looking to do (I'm not very experienced at this bit as yet, and it takes me a lot of messing to get to a result I'm happy with, I'm sure there are people here who'd be able to make a far better job of this step in much shorter time)...

But basically you are looking to apply curves something like these. Not necessarily in this order or severity, maybe stronger curves would work better, it depends on what details are in your image, but it gives the general idea.

curves1-1.jpg


curves2-1.jpg


curves3-1.jpg


curve.jpg


When you have finished this, you should get a reasonable resulting image. Here's a couple I did in exactly this way in August (the moon was down, and the skies were pretty dark).

jupiterinmw.jpg


cygnusmw.jpg


I hope this is helpful to someone.
 
Awsome!

Cheers John, I'll deff be bookmarking this to have a play with when I get time.

Rob
 
:clap: What an absolute marvel ..... i am so looking forward to trying this on the next clear night.

Thx John (y)
 
Great explanation, many thanks. Well worth bookmarking.
 
Glad you all felt it useful, good luck, and I'll look forward to the results.

I appear to have some stars too (y)
 
Wow, this is so interesting. If only I wasn't stuck in a city for most of the time!
 
Someone give John a badge.

I think I'll be giving this a try next time I'm up in the Lakes or somewhere else with dark skies.
 
Good luck. Toto, I'd try it and see what happens...
 
I've tried this a few times but I always end up a bit let down :/

At the moment I have tried wit 34 shots I took in deat valley, problem is it runs ouut of memory (RAM I assume) before it's finished... :(
 
Great tutorial there mate very well explained not to complicated well done going to have to try this soon (y)

Sean
 
Excellent John. Will give me something else to do apart from moon shots :)

Paul
 
Indeed, a great post. I tried this once and got some rubbish, noisy and polluted images so I didnt bother again.

I shall try again following your post. Just a shame I live in a city centre where the sky is permanently orange! The fens are down the road though with big sky's so I may take a trip out sometime.

Cheers again
 
Good luck all.

Amp34, I used to do this with only 1Gb of RAM. I stacked 154 light frames, 15 darks, 15 flats and 15 flats darks, all 450d RAW files (some 15Mb each). DSS is pretty good at memory management. is it possible you hit an issue with disk space as the stack process will use a lot of space for temporary files.
 
I was (am) using 34 tiffs/jpegs (tried both, both times came up with a memory problem) and told it to keep temporary files on a disk with 500GB free so I don't get it either, unless it's still trying to store it in C: which has only about 5GB free. It doens;t come up with not enough memory at the beginning, which it did before i switched to the other drive so I don't know. I'm currently running it with 24 frames, I'll go up in a second and see how it's going.

Using 2GB of RAM BTW, I managed to do the same thing before with the RAW files but it came out rubbish, which is why i am trying with pre processed tiffs.
 
Did it just look a bit rubbish on screen ? If so, save with the changes embedded but not applied. The DSS adjustments take some getting used to and often look somewhat werid. If you've converted the RAW's to TIF's I guess the file sizes are significantly bigger so it may well be a memory issue.
 
The Tiffs's are 28.8Mb each so yeah they are quite a bit bigger than the RAW's but the Jpegs are only about 12, so hardly any different. It ran out of memory again, so i've chopped off another 14 light frames, leaving 5 dark frames and 10 light frames, lets see if it can come with that.

It's very odd, as I said it coped easily before, I may have the tiff lying around somewhere, I may have another look at it.

I don't think it was too much different to yours, but maybe I was expecting a lot more visible milky way due to seeing other shots using DSS.
 
Once DSS has finished, then you need to stretch the histogram with curves to pull out the detail and real faint stars that are in the image.
 
Right, i've just got back and looked at it and.... no memory message this time, but all the image cam out as is a load of vertical lines on the page, definately not stars! :LOL: I'll see if I can find the original star shot.

It's trying to save the shot at the moment, i think I may have broken it...

Might give DSS a reinstall before I have another go. :LOL:

Think I may have found a possible solution. If you set it to anything other than "Average" instead of taking up just 106mb it will take up 8.7 GB, still doesn't explain why it ran out of memory...

Trying with the RAW's again to see what happens now, just another 15 mins to go...

EDIT 2: well it got right to the end and bam, out of memory...
 
this is weird as i have been looking at pictures on the nasa site recently like this incredible photo

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070508.html

and was wondering how the hell it was done, now i know!, next time i am in a dark place i will definitely be attempting this (y)
 
My shot of Death valley will be nowhere near as good as that... :LOL:

Reinstalled on the 500GB drive and ran it again, and it works, just waiting for it to load all the image up before I have a play again.

Right: finally...

3183931614_156ab899a2_o.jpg


Maybe a little over the top with the curves?

Going to try it with the tiffs now to see if that was the problem with that. :LOL:
 
That's a lovely shot of the Milky Way Amp. That APOD shot looks like it was done with an All Sky Camera rig (Some form of curved mirror)
 
That's a lovely shot of the Milky Way Amp. That APOD shot looks like it was done with an All Sky Camera rig (Some form of curved mirror)

it says on the page

The above 360-degree full-sky panorama is a composite of 30 images taken two years ago in Racetrack Playa
 
Oops, cheers cannockwolf, should have red it more carefully ;)
 
John
Thank you:) Thank you:) Thank you:)!!! This is just what I have been looking for, I have been trying to tak pictures like this and have failed a great deal!! I have searched high and low and its taken a long time to find any information about how best to set about taking images like this with just standard/ basic equipment and not spending £000's I think my biggest mistake was to search in the Landscapes forum!! Dohh!!
Any way I had tracked down Deep Sky Stacker and have plans to use it in the next few weeks ( I am in northern Sweden so it should be the best location for this sort of shot) and finding this tutorial is just spot on. I cant thank you enough.
This was as good as I have done so far
ursa_major_at_the_galtis_edit_1_small.jpg

(has been posted in Landscapes)

I know this is not a star scape but I was pleased with the result of stars in the sky and since then I have wanted to improve on it. (from where I started!!) I still like having a forground so I guess a bit of PP will creat the final picture I'm after. I'll try to post a result up here soon but its a bit cloudy at the moment.
Thanks once again, fantastic pictures by the way!! I'll be keeping an eye on your future posts, these pics rule!!:woot:
 
You're more than welcome. I shall look forward to your results. I remember seeing that one when you posted it originally, you've got some good stars in there for a single image without trailing. Thanks for the comments on the images to (y)
 
OK so I said a few days ago that I was going to have a go at one of there night sky stacking photos. Well since then its either been too warm for a clear sky (sounds odd I know but long story!!!!) or its been over cast or foggy. However tonight has been clear and I have had a go, it was far too cold to stay out too long but I think I have everything (Light and Dark frames are in anyway!!) but as the pub is open tonight! (again long story) we are off for a jar or two so the processing will have to wait untill tomorrow. I'll post the result, good or bad then. Wish me luck!!!!
 
Ok so I have a result which is sort of what I had in mind but I am having a bit of trouble saving it as a JPG so I can get it on here!! All I can save it as is a JPEG2000 file which is not a formate I have seen before (new to Photoshop) and it leaves it with a file extension of JPF. Any ideas as it is ready to go on here!
 
Ok so I have found another way (but I still dont know why I cant save the pic like I have done in the past!!) anyway what do you think. I have only had a bit of a go at PP because I am new to Photoshop (elements 6) though I dd down load the Curves plug-in.
Do you think this is in the right direction?? Because I'm not convinsed its any better than the standard 30 sec picture!?!?!? have I followed the proces correctly?? Who knows ;)
any and all feed back welcome!!! :)
MasterFlat_ISO800_effort2_m.jpg
 
load the jpf into ps and resave as a jpg?
 
OK so here is a single 30 second pic for ref. What do you think?!?!
to stack or not to stack that is the question!!!
DSC_2489mini.jpg

Any preferance??
 
That's a good start. Looks like a shot of Perseus, up to Cassioepeia. You've got signs of the double cluster and Kemble's cascade showing there. It looks like you could pull more out of the data with a further stretch in curves. I had a quick play.

MasterFlat_ISO800_effort2_m.jpg
 
brilliant idea, i shall have a go tonight but as i am at uni i will probs get too much ambient, i shall try again at home where its dark
 
If i wanted to get exposures as good as this

Linky

would i be able to in Britain or would it only be possible in the darkest of places

He did it like this

Dan Ransom replied 11 months ago
Hi Andrea,

Thanks for the comment. The exposure is 30 seconds, ISO 3200, 15mm fisheye, 2.8. It has a strong contrast curve applied in post. Foreground light is provided by two of us loons running around with headlamps on, and one flashlight on Chimney Rock.

Exposure was just done by trial and error. I used ISO 3200 to prevent motion blur. Any longer than 30 seconds and the stars lose their shape. It took a team of three to make the image, between the headlamps, composition, and flashlight. Trial and error to get the light to look good in the foreground, and some local enhancement to the pillar in photoshop finished it off.
 
That's a beauty. I don't think out sky conditions are good enough to get captures like that.
 
i was wondering if that would be the case :(
 
I wonder if he was using any filters?

I think there are filters especially for astro shots, not sure what they are and what they do though, although I would be interested in maybe getting one or two.
 
There are a whole variety of filters, for boosting contrast, specific narrow band filters light pollution filters and general colour filters. They tend to come in Astro specific sizes designed to screw into the ep barrels. There are a couple of EOS clip in filters, I think Astronomik make them.
 
Back
Top