c/astronomy-photos

PSA: That $39 'astronomy filter' from Amazon ruined my whole night

Bought a cheap UHC filter off Amazon for 39 bucks and it turned every nebula photo into a blurry green mess. Anybody else waste money on those knockoff filters?

That $300 telescope mount taught me a tough lesson

I dropped $300 on a lightweight star tracker mount last year thinking it would save me setup time at dark sites. Turns out, it wobbles like crazy even in a light breeze at places like Joshua Tree. My 2 minute exposures came out all streaky and useless. Anyone else get burned by a mount that promised portability over stability?

That old guy at the observatory showed me how to stack photos in 5 minutes

I was at a public viewing night at Griffith Park a couple months back and this older fella saw me struggling with my laptop. He leaned over and said "you're overthinking it, just use the free software and stack 15 frames instead of 3." I'd been fighting with blurry shots of Andromeda for weeks, thinking I needed a thousand dollar camera. Twenty minutes later I had a picture that actually showed the dust lanes clear as day. Has anyone else had a random stranger completely change how you shoot?

Nearly ruined an hour long exposure because of dew

I was out at Cherry Springs State Park in Pennsylvania last month trying to get the Milky Way. About 45 minutes into a 60 minute exposure, I checked my camera and the lens was completely fogged up. I had a dew heater in my bag but I thought I wouldn't need it since it was only August. Now I keep one on the lens no matter how warm it is. Anyone else forget about dew until it's too late?

Spent $120 on a star tracker mount and it totally changed my astrophotography

I was getting so frustrated with blurry shots of the Milky Way at a dark sky site in West Texas. Every photo I took at 30 seconds had star trails no matter how steady my tripod was. So I saved up and bought a used iOptron SkyGuider Pro for $120 from a guy on Craigslist. After I figured out the polar alignment, my first 2 minute exposure came out crystal clear. Has anyone else had good luck with a budget tracker for deep sky shots?

My friend said use a UV cut filter for moon shots, I thought he was wrong

Last month my buddy Mark kept insisting I put a UV cut filter on my telescope for photographing the moon. I told him the moon is bright enough and filters just mess with the image. Well I finally tried it on a full moon night two weeks ago. Man was I wrong. The UV cut filter actually made the edges way sharper and reduced that blue haze I always got. I had been blaming my cheap camera for soft pictures but it was the light scattering all along. Has anyone else had a similar experience where a simple filter changed your photos that much?

Overheard an astrophotography vet say 'stop fighting the histogram' and it clicked

I was at a local star party near Flagstaff last weekend and one of the old-timers was explaining why my Andromeda shots looked so blown out. He said I was cranking exposure time instead of watching where my peak landed on the histogram. Took me about 20 minutes to re-learn how to use my camera's live view, but my next 30-second frame had way more detail in the core. Has anyone else had a 'wait, that's how it works' moment with something simple like that?

Vent: I used to hate those star trail photos everyone posts

For like 2 years I thought star trails were the laziest astro photo out there. Just a bunch of lines, no real skill. Then I tried stacking 300 frames from my backyard in Phoenix last July. Took me 4 hours of shooting and another hour in Photoshop to blend them right. That's when I realized how much work goes into getting those circles clean. Anyone else change their mind on a type of astro shot after actually trying it?

Park Ranger told me a new way to see nebula photos and it clicked

I was hiking near Mount Rainier last weekend and stopped to chat with a park ranger about the astronomy display they had. He pointed out that in most photos of the Orion Nebula, the pink areas aren't really pink in space, they're just hydrogen glowing at a specific wavelength. I always thought the colors were natural, like a sunset, so hearing that it's more like a false color map made me rethink how I look at every astronomy picture now. Has anyone else gotten their head around how they assign colors to those deep space shots?

Last week I finally understood why my astro photos looked so flat compared to others

I've been taking pictures of the night sky for about 5 years now, mostly with a DSLR and a tracking mount. Last Tuesday I was out at a dark site near Flagstaff, Arizona, and I got a really clear shot of the Andromeda Galaxy. I loaded it into my editing software like usual and started stretching the histogram, but it still looked dull and washed out. I've tried reading tutorials online but nothing clicked. Then I remembered a guy at a star party last month mentioned using a gradient removal tool before stretching. I gave it a try and the difference was huge. The galaxy popped out with so much more detail. Has anyone else struggled with this and found a step that changed everything for them?

That old 8-inch Dob I bought from a stranger 3 years ago still beats my fancy camera setup

I was digging through old photos last week and found a shot of Jupiter I took with that telescope from my neighbor's backyard... it had three cloud bands and one of its moons clearly visible. Last month I dropped $600 on a tracking mount and a new lens, but the images still don't have that same raw clarity. Three years ago I didn't know what collimation was, and now I spend more time tweaking software than actually looking up. Has anyone else found that their best shots came from the simplest gear?

Looking at old photos from 3 years ago...

I was digging through my hard drive last week and found some shots I took at Cherry Springs State Park back in July 2021. The Milky Way looked way different through my old 6-inch reflector compared to the new rig I have now... has anyone else gone back and seen how their processing style totally changed over just a few years?

Old guy at the dark sky site showed me his single exposure of Andromeda and it blew my stacked images out of the water

I was out at a dark sky spot near Moab last summer, just me and my gear trying to get a decent shot of the Milky Way. Couple hours in, an older dude walks over with this beat up Canon and a tripod that looked like it survived a war. He asked to see my screen and I showed him my 30 stacked frames of Andromeda I spent all night processing back home. He just nodded and pulled up a single 2 minute exposure he took that same night. The detail in the dust lanes was sharper than anything I ever got with stacking. Got me really confused until he showed me he was using an old school coma corrector and some kind of homemade light pollution filter. He did not say much, just told me gear does not matter as much as knowing the sky. Walked off before I could even ask his name. Anyone else get humbled by some random stranger at a viewing spot who made your setup look like toys?

Talking to a park ranger changed how I look at star photos

I was out near Joshua Tree last weekend trying to get a milky way shot, and a ranger walked up during my setup. He said something like "you know, most people forget the foreground tells the bigger story." It hit me because I've been so obsessed with the sky detail that I never thought about what's in front of the lens. Now I'm going back next month to try shooting with more dirt and rocks in the frame. Has anyone else had a random stranger completely shift your photography approach?

Counted 47 satellites in one photo last night

Was looking at a stacked Milky Way shot I took. Realized there were 47 satellite streaks in it. Makes me wonder how much light pollution we don't even notice.

Stacked vs tracked astrophotography which way is better

I been going back and forth on this for months now. On one side you got stacking in software like DSS or Siril which aligns and averages like 100 frames to cut noise. On the other side you got tracking where you use a mount to follow the sky so you can take longer single exposures. I tried taking 300 untracked 2 second subs of Andromeda last week vs 30 tracked 60 second subs and the tracked ones looked way sharper even with way fewer frames. But my tracker cost me $400 and the stacking software was free. Is the money worth it for a beginner or should people just stack more frames instead of buying gear? What do you guys think works best for getting clean images on a budget?

Had an older guy at a Star Party show me how to stack photos on a cheap laptop

I went to a local astronomy club meetup last month out in the desert near Tucson. I was struggling with a blurry shot of the Andromeda galaxy on my old DSLR. This retired engineer walked over and spent 20 minutes showing me free software called DeepSkyStacker. He said 'you don't need fancy gear, just patience and the right tools.' I tried it at home and got a crisp image after stacking 45 frames. That single interaction saved me from buying a $500 tracker I didn't need. Has anyone else had a random stranger at an event teach you something that completely changed your approach?

That viral photo of the Milky Way over the desert felt fake to me

I read a thread in here yesterday where everyone was praising this shot of the Milky Way over some dunes in Arizona. Someone said it was the most natural astro image they'd seen all year. But the stars were way too sharp and the colors looked boosted even for a stacked image. I checked the exif data and the guy used a tracking mount plus a star reduction filter on a full moon night. That's not natural, that's heavy processing. Why do people call that "real" when it's been altered this much?

My first stacked photo of Andromeda - 6 months of tiny improvements

I've been messing with astrophotography since last spring with just a DSLR and a tripod. For months my Andromeda shots looked like a blurry smudge with maybe a hint of the core. I tried stacking in DeepSkyStacker but kept getting garbage results because my frames were all misaligned. Then about 3 weeks ago I finally figured out how to polar align properly and took 45 thirty second exposures in one night. The difference after stacking those is night and day. I can actually see the dust lanes and the galaxy looks like a real thing instead of a fuzzy blob. It took me like 6 months of tiny fixes to get there. Anyone else spend way too long on a single target before getting something decent?

Swapped my old 8-inch Dob for a 6-inch refractor last month and wow what a difference in my moon shots

I finally checked my camera sensor after six years of astro shots

Pulled up a flat frame last night and saw a dust donut the size of Jupiter right in the middle of every single nebula photo I've taken since 2018, and I'm kicking myself for not cleaning it sooner, anyone else ever ignore sensor dust for way too long?

My moon shots were all blurry for 2 years. Found out why yesterday.

I've been into astrophotography for a while. Always wondered why my moon photos looked soft. Thought it was my cheap telescope or just bad seeing conditions. Turns out I was focusing on the wrong part of the moon. The edge, not the terminator line where shadows define craters. A guy on Cloudy Nights pointed it out from one of my pics. Anyone else make dumb focusing mistakes for way too long?

The Veil Nebula detail I caught in my own photo surprised me

I was processing a stack of 30 frames I took last month of the Veil Nebula and noticed this tiny knot of gas I never saw in anyone else's widefield shots. It turned out to be a Herbig-Haro object, which I only found after cross-referencing with the SIMBAD database. Has anyone else stumbled across a detail in their own astro photos that made you double check your gear?

Stacking 20 frames of the moon with free software beat my $200 camera app every time

Everyone told me I needed Sequator or DeepSkyStacker to stack lunar shots, but I got better results using the free trial of RegiStax on a single 2-minute capture. Has anyone else found a cheap free tool that out-performs the paid stuff in a weird way?

Serious question, why does every newbie call every nebula a galaxy?

I was at a meetup last week and this guy pointed at a photo of the Orion Nebula and said 'great galaxy shot.' I get it, they look similar on small screens, but it's messing with the comments section. Anyone else notice this or am I the only one who cares?