Hey guys, I want to get into astro photography, all I got is gimp, could someone find or give me a step by step way to edit it the right way? I'm new to photography so I might not get all the terms you'll use. Looking it up yields nothing for me except making a fake star background.
read the sticky
pump up clarity and saturation
adjust temp and tint to show colours you like
use exposure to find the lighting you like
reset the clarity and saturation then fine tune it from there.
post up 1000px longest edge.
Thanks mah man, sorry bout the rules
>>2697266
Really dude?
Really?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=edit+your+astrophotography%2C+gimp
Also:
>Gimp
Please don't mind the laughter, I promise, we're laughing at something else that isn't you...
Here's a pic of mine, not to interesting, but I guess I should post one atleast according to the sticky
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model Canon PowerShot SX520 HS Equipment Make Canon Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2015:11:04 14:44:41 Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Exposure Time 1/400 sec ISO Speed Rating 400 F-Number f/4.0 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Color Space Information sRGB Metering Mode Pattern Exposure Bias 0 EV Image Height 3456 Image Width 4608 Focal Length 9.14 mm Scene Capture Type Standard Flash No Flash, Compulsory Rendering Normal White Balance Auto Exposure Mode Auto Image Number 103-0916
>>2697563
Works fine, I would use Photoshop but it came as a disk with the camera and I don't have a computer anymore.
>>2697266
You need a stable tripod and a fast lens and a long exposure with moderate iso. Your lens needs to have as low f2.0 or a wide aperature. so preferably After that find a location you like and set up the tripod focus towards infinity and take a long exposure with an iso from 200-1000. Also you will be ideally shooting in an area with no light pollution you can find pirated versions of Ps on the internet.... Also Play with the shadows and highlights slider in adjustments.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:09:07 10:33:26 Exposure Time 20 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance Infinity Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 4272 Image Height 2848 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2697572
Didn't mean to use the full size apologies
>>2697572
Thanks man, helps
You can get DxO 8 for free.
Capture one express is free for sony cameras.
Took this (shit) with A7II, 40mm 1.4, capture one.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Width 1000 Image Height 667
>>2697572
some nasty corner focus with that lens
>>2697561
yeah dude post up how your edit turned out.
>>2697266
Just pirate Lightroom for god's sake
>>2697928
Didint do it just yet
>>2697563
dude, you might think bashing gimp would let you look very profesionel and shit, but the opposite is the case. you're just unintentionally showing, that you have no clue about post-processing and are dependant on famous yet expensive software, which offers you muh fancy make-evryting-look-good sliders, which you never will understand what they are actually doing.
so, please .. just .. stop it. I can't stand that cringe ... ok?
>>2698188
its not like you are auditing the fuck code for gimp, dont try to act tough.
there is a reason photoshop is an INDUSTRY STANDARD, and its not because people give a flying fuck whether its open source or not
>>2698188
>which offers you muh fancy make-evryting-look-good sliders, which you never will understand what they are actually doing.
What?
While there's a few people here right now, in gimp again, is there a way to make a single thing in focus and the rest out? I can do the one way I'm not sure how to explain it, I just can't choose what's in focus. I can make like half it in focus and the rest not but not somthing specific
>>2697563
Nobody is laughing, Anon.
>>2698202
Make a blur layer and mask it away from your intended "sharp" subject?
I don't use Gimp, but I assume you can do masking and selections.
>>2698203
People who aren't faggots using shitty as Linux are laughing. Adding extra steps and complication into your daily process to achieve results that are at best the same, and much more likely, worse, isn't some noble endeavor. It's stupid, and being proud of it is stupid.
>>2698204
Thanks
>>2698206
Fair warning, the look you're going for is most likely going to be very cheap and fake looking, and you're going to get some shit for it. Blur in post processing is no substitute for getting your separation right in camera using your aperture, and faking it convincingly is nearly impossible. Not that you shouldn't try, or shouldn't enjoy it, just be ready for the response.
>>2698207
My cameras on the cheap side, so aperture does not change as far to look like I would want it
ive attempted this twice but failed miserably. my major issue was my trupod was being a piece of shit on both occasions and made me aware i need to get a new one, but other hings i could have helped:
1. just general exposure settings. my lens focal length is 35mm (fixed prime, rx1) and the aperture is 2. so i leave it wide open... and then what? expose for 10 seconds? 30 seconds? then what about ISO? how do you measure exposure when the scene has literally no light beyond the stars? if im going to stack the shots anyway would it be better just to take ten 400 ISO shots as opposed to five 800 ISO shots?
2. composition. how do you compose a scene when its completely dark? i guess the obvious answer is to compose before it gets dark but is there a better alternative? ideally i would choose not to wait two hours for the shot (when I don't need to).
>>2698336
also would be interested in getting feedback on "light painting", as ive seen a few people do successfully here but the concept alludes me
>>2698340
>Grab camera
>Grab tripod
>Grab torch
>Set long exposure
>Shine torch on your subject for length of exposure set
It's piss easy, watch some youtube videos
Attempted the Orion's nebula
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi
>>2698216
That's a matter of the lens. A 50mm/1.8 lens will be relatively cheap and will usually give you decent-looking and far-out-of-focus bokeh.
Op here's some sweet sweet juicy tips.
Remember the earth spins, so take 600 / focal length to get a shutter speed that won't make star trails. (If crop find out what the focal length actually is by doing crop factor * focal length for your effective focal length.
Now just point that shit in the sky and walla.
Light polution will dick your pics real good so it's best to find a location with like darkskyfinder(Google light polution maps) but you can still get decent shit with some polution.
If you don't own fast lenses you can use deepskystacker(I believe this is the name of software) it will take your shots and stack them to bring out celestrial objects. That orions nebula pic was taken in my yard with an old nikon f3.8 70-200 lens I took 120 2 second exposures at like 25680 iso or whatever it is. So even if you have so so equipment it's still possible to get decent stuff.
