here's the start of the transit in infrared light
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2800 Image Height 2800 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:05:09 22:33:38 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 950 Image Height 950
>>2835395
Here's my attempt in visible light.
>>2835593
And the start of the transit.
very cloudy here, I had like 10 minutes to take my scope out and take this :/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 6D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3985 Image Height 2657 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpcm Vertical Resolution 240 dpcm Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:05:10 20:07:12 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2835629
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 6D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3985 Image Height 2657 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpcm Vertical Resolution 240 dpcm Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:05:10 20:09:04 Exposure Time 1/50 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2835629
Nice
>>2835622
>Focus could've been better
Yes, I was a bit disappointed. It was really hot and there are lots of buildings all around. Focusing in liveview and the sky was "boiling".
Messier 13
>>2837542
>ass
Yes. Yes it is indeed.
how do people take long exposures of the starry night sky but the foreground is completely black?
>>2840112
No moon out, no lights anywhere nearby, dead of night
That's about it
Took some photos of Jupiter and its moons then mashed them together in gimp.
>>2841928
Nice. What did you use?
>>2841932
D5100 and a Maksutov 'scope.
Took some photos of the Moon then mashed together in Paint Shop Pro (V7.04 lol) this time.
My laptop is shite so psp runs better than gimp for bigger files and mosaics.
>>2843068
does your camera have a telescope attached to it?
>>2843133
>does your camera have a telescope attached to it?
Yes but I think it's the other way round.
>>2843175
>awww yis
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 750 Image Height 563 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:19 18:00:58 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 750 Image Height 563
>>2843185
C14?
>>2843197
C11. The 14 is heavy enough to deter me from using it.
>>2843201
You should build an observatory, set a pier in concrete for the C14 'n' stuff. Tell the missus you're just building a shed to put stuff in lol.
>>2843185
photos from that sucker?
All I have right now, retrieved from email. Eclipse in 2015.
Used a reducer. Can't remember which body I used.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2843253
Pretty good except for the highlight clipping.
>>2843257
Yeah, it is bad. What monitor are you using though? I find every image on /p/ looks better opened in a new tab or browsing in tomorrow style.
>>2843268
My monitor is calibrated, don't know the model though. The is pretty obvious though.
Starting to turn red.
Have whole transition including blood moon, but this is all I can find atm.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2843308
That looks like a better exposure but is the moon all you have available? Even crappy superzoom digicams can do good moon shots.
Deep sky or a cluster or something?
>>2843328
Of course I do, Anon. They are all on SSDs in another city though. This is all I have, from my email.
Sky was very shitty that night, as well.
>>2843256
>How many photos were stacked together to make >>2841928 (You) ?
Funny thing was that I took loads of photos that were "correctly" exposed but the ones with the most information were grossly underexposed and pushed to the limit (the ones from initial setup).
Six photos were used for that stack. Here's the best/worse one (200 iso, 1/125 sec, f1:28) pushed to fook.
The seeing was shite (through a high powered eyepiece I could only make out the main equitorial bands apart from fleeting moments).
>>2843387
>Six photos
Oh, and plus three for the moons.
>>2843253
Not being funny but that is a brave editing/aesthetic choice.
>>2843393
>Is your mak also 90mm like the other anon?
No, 140mm. I've got a 90mm Synta/Celestron too, they're great.
Have you guys ever considered buying an imaging device dedicated for astrophotography? Like one of these http://www.andor.com/scientific-cameras/apogee-camera-range/alta-ccd-series
I'm sure that's way out of price range for most people and it's also useless as an actual camera unlike a dslr body which can you can use for other stuff. But the astro images must be better.
>>2846789
I'd love a dedicated cooled ccd camera. The cameras are very expensive along with all the other stuff I'd need to upgrade to use it properly (I'm a poorfag).
The abilities of cameras like the one you linked to are amazing and the images you can record with them. Astronomy can turn into a very expensive hobby. Even a "modest" observatory set up for imaging could easily cost tens of thousands of pounds/euros/dollars.
Where I live has lots of light pollution so I concentrate on solar system objects. Been thinking again about getting a planetary cam (glorified webcam) for image stacking, they're pretty cheap.
