Looks shopped.


Oh, it is.

HDR is an abomination unto the Lord and should be smoten to the lowest depths.

Cool, but it doesn't look much like an onion.

Huh, I blew one of these out my left nostril this morning. Chewy and nutty.

My less than stellar Orion photo (I slipped on the focus, yet it looks.... kinda.. neat?).

I read that as the "Omarion Nebula".

Lady Indica: He overshopped the starbursts and it kinda detracts from the image value for me. =\

I don't mind enhancement so you can better see contrasts and the like, but don't add for fark's sake.

/my god its full of pixels


The starbursts are diffraction spikes from the "spider" which holds the secondary mirror.

Lady Indica: common sense is an oxymoron: Lady Indica: He overshopped the starbursts and it kinda detracts from the image value for me. =\

I don't mind enhancement so you can better see contrasts and the like, but don't add for fark's sake.

/my god its full of pixels


The starbursts are diffraction spikes from the "spider" which holds the secondary mirror.

[www.rocketroberts.com image 563x500]

Oh thanks for explaining! Didn't know that. :) So are the pics I've seen that do not have it so prominent, are they shopping to reduce them and make them look more 'natural' (or what we'd expect to see)? If you happen to know.

/yay learned something today


It depends on the type of telescope. Some scopes include a correcting lens at the front of the tube, and the secondary mirror is attached to it, so there are no diffraction spikes:




There are also spiders with curved vanes, which spread the diffraction more evenly:

Quite the lack of scat considering that it is a photograph taken by a German.

Seen it.

Schlong Uzi: [thewarrenreport.com image 350x350]
Seen it.

Full point.

The best part was when the Dodge Ram came out of the nebula.

Schlong Uzi: [thewarrenreport.com image 350x350]

Seen it.

I came in here to complain about not being able to see the attack ships on fire, but I see that reference has already been covered.

vsavatar: I read that as the "Omarion Nebula".

That's cool, as long as you prayed for it.

common sense is an oxymoron

The starbursts are diffraction spikes from the "spider" which holds the secondary mirror.

This is a fark thread, get your actual knowledge of the subject out of here.

Altair: you know who else was an amateur German  astronomer?

Johannes Kepler?

common sense is an oxymoron: Lady Indica: He overshopped the starbursts and it kinda detracts from the image value for me. =\

I don't mind enhancement so you can better see contrasts and the like, but don't add for fark's sake.

/my god its full of pixels


The starbursts are diffraction spikes from the "spider" which holds the secondary mirror.

[www.rocketroberts.com image 563x500]

To add, the effect is called Fraunhofer diffraction (don't worry, I had to look it up).  You'll get the same effect if you use a small aperture with bright lights in regular still photography.

Also, for those cursing HDR, there's really not a whole lot of other options when you have very dark blacks and very bright whites in the same photograph.  If you compensate for one, you lose on the other.  If you try to make the best of both, you lose detail on both ends.  Really, it makes for the best "true" representation of reality as many cameras don't have the dynamic range of the human eye.  While people do get carried away with post-processing, HDR isn't really one of those tools that actively tries to deceive you.

In light of this I don't think people should call him an amateur anymore ... just sayin'

Wow, that is much nicer than the last thing I saw captured on film by a German amateur

Sauce for the goose, the odds will be even!

Needs more lens flare.

Altair: you know who else was an amateur German  astronomer?

William Herschel?

Glockenspiel Hero: common sense is an oxymoron:

[www.rocketroberts.com image 563x500]

Hey, cool, a Criterion Dynascope.  That was my Dad's primary telescope when I was growing up- he gave it to me when they moved out of their house.  I still have it- I recently replaced the focuser, rebuilt the clock drive to put some new cork in the clutch and cleaned the mirrors.

I took this photo of Saturn with it a few years back using a converted webcam.  Not bad for a 40-year-old 6" telescope and a $50 camera.  The ability of modern software to tease out signal from noise is freaking astonishing- every individual frame of this image is a mess, but overall they stack to something pretty nice.




Nice indeed!

Compare that to this pre-CCD image from either Palomar or Mt. Wilson (image credit is both via CalTech):

I was stoked to pick up great moon shots with my android Incredible II HTC hand held hovering above the MA9mm eyepiece of a Meade EXT-60... which make Saturn look like a little fuzzy frito-lay logo... nebula.

wow, just wow.

Meh. Photoshop ruined it.

Altair: you know who else was an amateur German  astronomer?

Hans Pööpenfresser?

GypsyJoker: Altair: you know who else was an amateur German  astronomer?

William Herschel?

August Ferdinand Möbius?

Glockenspiel Hero: common sense is an oxymoron:

[www.rocketroberts.com image 563x500]

Hey, cool, a Criterion Dynascope.  That was my Dad's primary telescope when I was growing up- he gave it to me when they moved out of their house.  I still have it- I recently replaced the focuser, rebuilt the clock drive to put some new cork in the clutch and cleaned the mirrors.

I took this photo of Saturn with it a few years back using a converted webcam.  Not bad for a 40-year-old 6" telescope and a $50 camera.  The ability of modern software to tease out signal from noise is freaking astonishing- every individual frame of this image is a mess, but overall they stack to something pretty nice.

[gettysburgcollegeitt.com image 640x480]

pfft..you can't even see Cassini...crappy camera dude.

FTA The image was processed with CCDStack, PixInsight and Photoshop.


yawn

Glockenspiel Hero: common sense is an oxymoron:

[www.rocketroberts.com image 563x500]

Hey, cool, a Criterion Dynascope.  That was my Dad's primary telescope when I was growing up- he gave it to me when they moved out of their house.  I still have it- I recently replaced the focuser, rebuilt the clock drive to put some new cork in the clutch and cleaned the mirrors.

I took this photo of Saturn with it a few years back using a converted webcam.  Not bad for a 40-year-old 6" telescope and a $50 camera.  The ability of modern software to tease out signal from noise is freaking astonishing- every individual frame of this image is a mess, but overall they stack to something pretty nice.

[gettysburgcollegeitt.com image 640x480]

That is seriously amazing.  That is actually Saturn!

/i farking love science.

gaspode: I would like to see a few more details of exactly what he is up to with the captures/filters and equipment, and exactly how dark his site is. At the moment I am suspicious that a shiat-ton of processing is going on there because that is a LOT of subtle nebula detail for a 12 inch newt in a backyard.

There's pretty much always a shiat-ton of processing with any astro photography.

Any deep-sky object is going to be made from 100's if not 1000's of individual exposures.

For instance, compare these two shots (linked because too large):
http://skywatching.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/m31-single-image1.png

http://skywatching.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/m31-andromeda-0110201 11 .png

The first is a single exposure of M31.  The second is the result of approx 50 exposures stacked together, no other processing other then brightness tweaking.

That's from a 200mm Newtonian, in my firends back garden, and in no way are we a dark sky site.

Here is the same nebula from the Article with my friends setup.  This was one of the first stacked shots he did, which is why the colours are so messed up :-)
http://skywatching.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/m42-orion-nebula-0110 20 111.png