My progress at AstrophotographySubmitted by steliosmudda t3_zv6dbl in space
_insomagent t1_j1nkpbs wrote
Astrophotography is sadly one of those hobbies where it’s not so much skill but how much you spend that makes the biggest differences.
I would love to be proven wrong…
steliosmudda OP t1_j1nmw7j wrote
I would like to prove you wrong.
Astrophotography is pretty mich about skill. A beginner can take a crappy image with a the same setup that an advanced astrophotographer can take a great image with.
Because a lot of it comes down to image processing and acquisition techniques. But like 90% of it is image processing. I don’t know if you have experience in AP but processing is really hard to get right. I read three books about it and watched countless yt videos. Still I feel like I have a lot to learn
Of course the more you spend, the more you’re going to get out of your gear. It’s like that in almost every hobby. But even with modest/bad gear, you’ll get awesome results if you excel at processing. And your images will be terrible if you suck at processing. Also you’ll have to learn how to max out the performance you’ll get from the gear you bought.
I will share an example, where I processed the same data, taken with the same gear, around 5 months apart.
Some people, like Trevor Jones, have much much better gear than me but I still continue to produce better images than them. As I said, it all comes down to processing and making it the most out of the data you’ve got.
But of course, the more money you’ll spend on AP, the more you’ll get out of your investment. I only have a 6“ scope under severely light polluted skies. But if I had a 1m scope under Chile quality skies, it’d be a different story. The data would improve but on the other side: if I do better processing than them, I’m still going to produce better images than them.
_insomagent t1_j1nnw3o wrote
I can’t tell which is the before and which is the after on the sample you provided. Neither is objectively better, it’s just a matter of taste.
And sorry, but to be blunt Trevor Jones has many photos which I consider much better than the example you provided.
As a final note, just the mount alone for your setup costs over 1.5 grand.
Line---- t1_j1nx5ae wrote
The fact that you think these two images are anywhere near the same quality is conclusive proof that any opinions you have on Astrophotography as whole are likely completely worthless.
_insomagent t1_j1o4cyc wrote
I’m not talking about the images in this post. The images in this post are taken with vastly different equipment. I am referring to images OP linked in the comment above. The images in his comment are a much more subjective matter of taste. More red=better image? Really? There's no contrast in the second one. It looks blown out.
steliosmudda OP t1_j1peyzg wrote
u/Line—— has a point. The color is closer to what it’d really look like and there are more details and faint nebulosity visible in the second image of the wizard nebula.
Note to self: Don’t post to r/space anymore
DalisaurusSex t1_j1qk11l wrote
Keep posting and ignore the ignorant, negative folks! This post is great and I very much enjoyed seeing the comparison and progress you've made.
steliosmudda OP t1_j1quc99 wrote
Thanks :)
I’ve found posting on r/space much less fun than posting my images to r/astronomy. I guess bigger subreddit = more people = more self declared experts (like the user who left a comment saying they „did some color grading for me“. Got a good laugh out of this one though)
steliosmudda OP t1_j1npdn0 wrote
Doesn’t the second one look way better than the first one to you?
Trevor takes some good images but he also has darker skies than mine. Plus if you have a full res image of his and try to zoom in, you’ll realize that his images aren’t that good.
He’s very focused on social media and his images are meant to fit that. So his images look good on Instagram, but wouldn’t have success on Astrobin. Any astrophotographer will be able to tell but I guess if you have no idea how these images are actually taken then it’s a lost cause.
Edit because I didn’t see: yes my mount was expensive but the mount is the single most important piece of equipment in AP. My mount isn’t even that exotic if you’d know other astronophotographers.
_insomagent t1_j1o7eeg wrote
> Edit because I didn’t see: yes my mount was expensive but the mount is the single most important piece of equipment in AP. My mount isn’t even that exotic if you’d know other astronophotographers.
Funny, I thought the single most important piece of equipment is the astrophotographer's skill. /s
Pharisaeus t1_j1nvqet wrote
> 90% of it is image processing
While your work looks really nice, I somehow doubt you're writing your own processing pipelines instead of using software someone else has written for that purpose, so majority of the processing is not really "your" work (except for trying to fine-tune parameters). But I might be completely wrong, and you are developing astronomical image processing software yourself.
Line---- t1_j1nwwpb wrote
So your saying… if you learn to play the flute, well actually you’ve done nothing, because I doubt you built that flute with your bare hands.
Pharisaeus t1_j1nxfew wrote
A completely failed analogy, since I'm not saying someone has to build the camera with their bare hands.
Imagine you bough a flute and also a robot which is playing this flute. And you're essentially choosing the music sheets, tuning the instrument and picking the right place to play the music. This is pretty much what is happening here.
Line---- t1_j1og6kw wrote
Analogies are usually exaggerated to prove a point. While mine isn’t 1:1, I still don’t think you are correct.
I don’t see how using someone else’s program means this image is “not their work”. He used a tool, to do a job. It takes skills to use that tool.
Yes, anyone can theoretically learn how to do things like this, but anyone can also learn how to play the flute.
Building on your adjustment to my analogy, I’d say that maybe rather than having a robot play the music you have selected, this would be more like writing the music yourself. Not something anyone can do with ease.
TurChunkin t1_j1o5wkq wrote
Unless you actually have the ability to produce an image like this from start to finish, you're just guessing. Your attempt at the robot analogy is failed, because you *don't actually know* how to create an image like this, you're just assuming that if you spent the money, you could do it too because *it's just as easy as telling a robot to do it.*
_insomagent t1_j1o750z wrote
I don't know why people think astrophotography processing is difficult. The hardest part of astrophotography is obtaining the money required to acquire a guided mount with minimal bearing play, decent apochromatic scope, autoguider, software for said autoguider.
Anybody can learn how to adjust curves in Photoshop or run a script that uses somebody else's algorithm to make stars look smaller. I'd love to hear a counterpoint to this.
MineTorA t1_j1pco4l wrote
It's immediately obvious that you have no idea what goes into the processing of astrophotos. It's not just running scripts and adjusting curves. It's not worth the time writing out a "counterpoint", people who have dedicated thousands of hours have told you it's not a simple matter. If you don't believe it, give it a try, JWST data is available for free.
_insomagent t1_j1ptjxc wrote
I have an "entry level" setup that cost me around $2000.
Your photos are great.
I saw your setup, pretty good stuff. Equipment you used, and the price points:
TS-Optics Photoline 80mm APO Triplet ($800)
QHY 163M ($1199)
SkyWatcher EQ6-R Pro ($2000)
ZWO ASI 120MM ($134)
ZWO EAF ($248)
ZWO EFW ($269)
Optolong 7nm Ha, 6.5nm Oiii, 6.5nm Sii filters ($720 for a 3 piece kit)
So you spent... around $5,370 to take these stunning photos. That's not even taking into account what you spent on software, which is more than likely equal in value.
I could show you the images I captured with my $2,000 setup, but they aren't great, and of course my wife wasn't happy with how much I spent on this hobby. However, I'm not going to do that, because of course you're going to shit all over it with your $10,000 setup. I'm so frustrated with this talking point about "processing" skill, I'm going to download some raw data, and show you just how easy this shit is.
Take a look here:
https://astrobackyard.com/astrophotography-image-processing-challenge/
Without looking at the end of Trevor Jones' blog page, tell me which one is done by him and which one is me fucking around in GIMP for 30 minutes. https://imgur.com/a/bOTVx5g
When you're ready, scroll to the end of Trevor Jones' blog post and see if your guess was correct.
Pharisaeus t1_j1o772x wrote
> because you don't actually know how to create an image like this,
I actually do. I happened to write astronomical data processing software, although for telescopes orders of magnitude bigger than what OP is using here. Anyway, OP said himself that 90% of it is image processing this is why I asked if he actually is the author of this "image processing" he's referring to. Because it's not a manual process, just as making hundreds of photos for stacking or taking calibrations is also not a manual process either - you literally buy a special robot to track the target on the sky for you.
Of course it involves spending time and having the skills to setup all of this, and clearly OP got some really nice results, I'm not denying that! But let's be clear on which parts of the process require skill and which require money.
MineTorA t1_j1pda2j wrote
You honestly just sound like you're butthurt that people using software instead of writing it are getting credit. What kind of inane gatekeeping nonsense are you peddling? Processing astrophotos is an art, and the software we use are the tools. Photography is an expensive art yes, and astrophotography can be more expensive still, but you can spend ten grand on a setup and never produce more than a blur if you don't know how to use the equipment and software. Meanwhile someone with the know-how can use an unmodified DSLR with a kit lens and barn door tracker and get great results. Why do we have to "write the imaging processor"?
Pharisaeus t1_j1pqvag wrote
> Why do we have to "write the imaging processor"?
You don't. It was OP himself who said processing is 90% of the work and skill, but in reality majority of processing is done automatically.
TurChunkin t1_j1oejvj wrote
Ok, I will stand corrected!
sCeege t1_j1o0r2b wrote
I think that vaguely describes modern digital photography, not just Astro. Modern cameras gives us so much capabilities that it's lowering the barrier of entry (for technique) to take great photos, and better(expensive) gear can ease the setup and tolerances for mistakes. This is also true in a lot of hobbies.
I'm unsure if i can ease your sadness/bitterness that brought you to that line of thinking, but I think you should enjoy a hobby for yourself, not necessarily for comparison with others. I'm grateful to live in an Era where someone can easily order parts to assemble a rig that could take pictures that could be mistaken for one taken at an observatory.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments