I NEED HELP photographing the International Space Station

It'd be a damned sight faster to focus on the moon, if it's about! :)

Yes. Unfortunately the moon hasn't been visible from my back garden on the last few evenings. But it should be tonight, if it isn't cloudy.
 
stewart - you've got a sigmonster in stock haven't you ? - try that with a converter :LOL:
I can do better than that - I have a Canon 800mm prime. (Same focal length as the Sigmonster, but better optics and easier to handle.) However I think I need to work on my technique first. If I'm having trouble tracking the ISS at 1000mm, I'd have no chance at 1600mm!
 
I can do better than that - I have a Canon 800mm prime. (Same focal length as the Sigmonster, but better optics and easier to handle.) However I think I need to work on my technique first. If I'm having trouble tracking the ISS at 1000mm, I'd have no chance at 1600mm!

Go on you know you want to...800 plus a couple of 2x :D though that would be murder to try and track :LOL:
 
Thanks. I'd already done that myself, as it happens. I knew I had to pre-focus, and from my back garden I had the choice of objects several hundred metres away or several light years away; DOFMaster told me that the latter would be correct.

I think my problem might have been that I simply didn't focus on the star very accurately. Next time I'll try to get the star centred in the frame, lock down the tripod head (assuming I can do that without moving it), and focus using 10x live view. Does that sound like a good idea?

Live view, 10x zoom, manual focus.
Shoot bright object, zoom in massively, check.

While I can't find the results now, that is how I got a passable shot of the ISS a while back. Also got a jupiter with a couple of moons this way.
 
Richard, the only problems with that are that most zooms vary in focus with focal length and the 800 is a prime...

I found that tracking the ISS at 720mm wasn't too bad, it was picking it up in the first place! I did manage to pick it up at about 100mm and keep on track while zooming in as long as possible but the lens isn't good enough and the resolution of the sensor isn't enough to give more than a few white pixels against a dark background.
 
Richard, the only problems with that are that most zooms vary in focus with focal length and the 800 is a prime...

I found that tracking the ISS at 720mm wasn't too bad, it was picking it up in the first place! I did manage to pick it up at about 100mm and keep on track while zooming in as long as possible but the lens isn't good enough and the resolution of the sensor isn't enough to give more than a few white pixels against a dark background.

I believe Richard was referring to 10x magnification in live view.
 
But he goes on to say "zoom in massively".
 
Richard, the only problems with that are that most zooms vary in focus with focal length and the 800 is a prime...
I believe Richard was referring to 10x magnification in live view.
But he goes on to say "zoom in massively".

Here's what I think he meant. My interpretation is highlighted.
Live view, 10x zoom in live view, manual focus.
Shoot bright object, zoom in massively when reviewing image on camera LCD, check.
 
Hell, I'm only a recent convert to live view (IMO, the implementation on the D700 was a little clumsy; the D800's a lot better!) let alone focussing using it!

Personally, given Stewart's available hardware, I would use the longest zoom I had in stock coupled to the highest pixel density body I could beg/borrow/steal, possibly in front of a telecom, the rig mounted on a good gimbal head. I would pick up the ISS at the shorter end then track it and zoom in. It's a bright enough target for AF to lock onto (hell, even my bridge managed that task once I'd got it in the cross hairs!) so I would trust that to do that part of the job. Since a full overhead pass is up to about 4 minutes long, I would keep shooting and praying (yup, good old machine gunning!). I would be in M mode and I reckon 1/1000th @ f/8 should be a decent compromise between freezing the inevitable shakes (both subject and camera) and diffraction softness and an ISO to suit. If the weather was playing ball, I would use one pass (or part of it) as a test run to ensure the optimal exposure.

However, given my more limited kit, I'll probably just set up a film body (if I remember where the RFs are!) with the widest lens on, loaded with 400 print film and leave the shutter open for the full pass! TBH, I might even hope a few planes go overhead during the pass - IMO they add some interest to a star field with a streak across it! After all, I'm not a pro so any images I produce only have to please ME!!!
 
Made another mess of it this evening. Focus was spot on on the moon set the settings right, forgot to change the lens to MF and then lost when I instinctively back button focused.

At least I worked out where it's brightest so I can try at ISO and how to set up the tripod so I can track across the sky.

Looks like 1 more go tomorrow as after the the magnitude drops from -3.3 to -2.7 then like a stone after that.
 
Stewart & Matt got what I meant.

Must type slower, and make sentences make sense :)
 
That's fantastic, never knew you could get a shot of that unless you were in space.
Really would like to see some photos of this.

Thanks.
 
So now I need some more help.

At the third attempt, I managed to get the gear sorted out to a reasonable extent. I used a 500mm f/4 with a 1.4x extender, I used the newly-risen moon to get my focus spot-on, and I made sure the friction in the tripod head was set just right to allow me to pan reasonably smoothly.

And I got some images. Not great ones, and I'll do better next time the ISS is around (I'll use the same technique but with a longer lens), but I'm quite pleased. Here's a sequence of 22 shots captured at 6 fps as the ISS went overhead:

ISS_2013-08-16.jpg


These are basically unprocessed. I can improve them if I sharpen them up dramatically. But I have another idea.

IN PRINCIPLE it seems to me I ought to be able to combine these 22 images to produce one image which has more detail in it. Like astro guys do with faint deep-sky targets, perhaps. Trouble is, I know nothing about how to do that. Is it possible / sensible? What software would I use?
 
Stew, you're referring to stacking mate, there's quite a few free apps about on the interwebs ;)
 
I was under the impression that stacking was principally to increase exposure thus capturing faint objects, since the ISS is well illuminated I don't think it is going to help, you need a longer lens or else get closer :D
 
You're right Ken, He could stack them but they're all quite similar so I don't think it will make a difference :(
 
Stew, you're referring to stacking mate

I was under the impression that stacking was principally to increase exposure thus capturing faint objects, since the ISS is well illuminated I don't think it is going to help

Hmmm. Can anybody else shed light on this?

Here's what I'm hoping to achieve. Although the ISS is bright, I'm looking at it through a lot of air and I'm concerned that atmospheric turbulence may be degrading the images slightly. But if that's happening then it will affect each frame differently, so some sort of averaging process might extract details that are lost in any individual image.

The concept I have in mind is like speckle imaging (Wikipedia article here) which is used for astro photograhpy. I guess that must use some sort of image stacking process, so it probably won't hurt to download DeepSkyStacker or something similar and give it a whirl...
 
Give it a try Stewart, by looking at the images you can see slight differences etc. As for the atmos turbulence, you'll know too well about how annoying it can be, even looking at the moon through a 500mm lens will show it causing aberrations at the edges etc!
 
OK, last night I downloaded DeepSkyStacker and gave it a try.

I couldn't get it to work. It couldn't register (align) the images because it didn't think there were any stars in them.

I've tried layering two or three images manually, and it looks like layering and averaging might pull out some more detail - but aligning them manually is extremely difficult and I doubt I could do that for all 22 images. Any suggestions for software which can automatically align images which don't contain stars?
 
photoshop can focus stack
 
Hi,

Have you tried emailing Damian Peach? His email address is on his web site - there is nothing this guy doesn't know about stacking images - also he is very approachable and helpful. He is also APOY !
Hope this helps
James
 
photoshop can focus stack
Which versions? I have a not-current version of PS and a not-current version if PSE, and neither of them can do it. Obviously I could upgrade, but it doesn't feel worth buying the newest version just for this.
 
Registax4 allows manual alignment of images in a stack if this helps at all - it's a free astronomy stacking software - later versions are automatic and can't be manually aligned - I have seen super images of the ISS done with this software.
James
 
Which versions? I have a not-current version of PS and a not-current version if PSE, and neither of them can do it. Obviously I could upgrade, but it doesn't feel worth buying the newest version just for this.

CS5 and later does focus stacking.
 
Registax4 allows manual alignment of images in a stack if this helps at all - it's a free astronomy stacking software - later versions are automatic and can't be manually aligned - I have seen super images of the ISS done with this software.
James

Try Registax. Its another astronomy stacker, and Ive used it for the Moon before now.

Thanks guys. I'll try it.
 
Stewart, if you can zip those images in a single file and email them to me Ill see what I can do in Registax ?
Thanks very much for the offer. That's very kind. If I get time tonight or over the weekend, I'll download Registax and give it a try. If I don't get time, or if I can't make it work, I'll get back to you.
 
If you look at the link I put in post #26 he used registax. It's amazing what the astro guys do with a few 100 fuzzy images and some how get 1 sharp (ish) final.
 
Back
Top