Processing is my weak spot. Learned a lot from this. I like the fact that you clearly stated what buttons you were pressing. This is the sort of information that I need to understand and know how to use.You explain it very well to this newbie. Glad that I have found your site.
I'll agree with several of the other posts. This is probably the best and most useful video I've found on how to edit astro images. I've been frustrated for the past year or so, taking what I thought were decent images only to fall short in in post. This gave me some extremely useful tips on how to tease out some finer details in my images. I especially liked that it was assumed that we all have a fairly good level of understanding of our equipment and photoshop. There's nothing worse than finding a "photoshop basics" video when what I was looking for was this. Thanks!!!!!!!!
Thank you so much for this video. I was able to understand some basics of astrophotography (can dump the images I've made up to now and start over...) and that post-processing is important and what possibilities are there. I can't wait to watch your other videos.
génial cette chaine, enfin quelqu'un qui explique ce qu'il fait , étapes par étapes pendant le traitement d'image, bravo, continu comme ca, +1 abonnement
Great video! Simple, quick and professional. You have a new subscriber! It would be highly appreciated if for future you put a link to download the raw data so we can practice and compare our results with yours.
@@deltaastrophotography my kit is very small. A prime 50, 18-55, and the aforementioned telephoto. Some day I might get more, but I also wonder about getting a better camera, which might need its own collection of lenses.
without that gradient extermanator this is kinda hard to do. when I try to select color range spots in the galaxy it ends up picking tiny spots or alot of the corners. I'm trying to see if starnet will help. not discouraged at all, just a couple weeks in. I'm watching and following a lot of you RU-vidrs guides. just trying to find my flow I like.
I shot Jupiter with a full frame camera at 600 mm. I was not successful in stacking in Sequator or even PS. Any suggestions? I did not use a tracking device. thanks in advance.
Shooting planets is an entirely different animal! What most people do is use a telescope with at least a thousand to 2,000mm and shoot a video. Then they load the video into a program called Autostakkert. It stacks each individual frame to get a high quality image!
Very good video.. I am in the process of learning photoshop, as of now just using Lightroom on mobile to edit photos. Would be nice if you can make a good Photoshop tutorial for editing Astro photos, step by step.
Awesome video man I was just wondering if there is a way of geting adobe photoshop for free cuzz I know you need to pay for subscription 😂 I a begginer in astrophotography and this video is awesome 😀🙌🏼
Thanks! I'm not sure if there is a legal way to find it for free. ;) I'm sure there is some free software out there does similar things. I pay $10 a month for the Photoshop and Lightroom bundle. Not a bad deal considering you always get the latest version! I use both of them constantly!
Darktable is a free download that is a good place to explore. It has powerful features and is pretty intuitive to figure things out. I think it's meant to copy Lightroom's features for the most part. I found GIMP way to complicated when I started out but Darktable helped me a lot...
this was my first ever telephoto lens ever. as soon as i got it and took about 20 shots i sold it right away. (the poor sap that got it i am sure did the same) this is the worst lens i have ever seen.
Just started astrophotography and learning the ins and outs of my star-tracker. I have been enjoying your videos, they are super helpful in post-processing. Thank you!
I've watched countless videos on photoshop processing and yours the hands the best. this is the first video i've seen of yours, you have a new subscriber. thanks man.
Awesome, dude! Can you share the settings you used for the light frame? My light frames are just too bad. I used 200mm f/5.6 (maximum aperture of my DSO lens). The exposure was in the limit, but still it wasn't good. Deep sky stacker wasn't able to use more than 1 light frame.
But what if, you took 30 images in black and white, with a red filter, then another 30 in B&W with green filter, then finally a set of 30 images with blue filter, combine them all, into one hell of a RGB image, I know for still photography this actually works wonders for colour range.
Sequator is great for nightscapes. It can freeze the ground while stacking the stars. It's ok for basic deep sky stacking. DSS on the other hand is a full-featured deep sky stacking program. It really just depends on what style you're going for.
Yes! Both of those cameras have crop sensors making your target a little more zoomed in than my full frame 6D. I actually started shooting a lot of my deep sky targets with a T5i!
@@deltaastrophotography Thats encouraging, Im watching all your series and trying to take everything in while I wait for a few things to arrive so that I can attempt to apply these techniques for myself. I think I need to shop for an intervalometer for my cannon/s. Do you have a recommendation? -Cheers
I guess without cameras we would never guessed the spiral structure of it, because in the 8" telescope it looks like a fuzzy smudge with the star in the center - like your first picture.
Interesting coincidence. I was watching RU-vid videos yesterday on Edwin Hubble. Apparently he could see the spiral arms of galaxies through his telescope even before people knew they were galaxies. He would try to draw what he saw. This helped lead him to the discovery of galaxies as they were just thought of as nebulae at the time.
@@deltaastrophotography Probably he had very trained eyes. Like my husband who is longtime amateur astronomer and sees much more details in the ocular of his new 8" telescope (always had only 90mm one) with 'Oh! Wow!', where I, as a beginner with unrealistic Hubble quality expectations, see just a blurry spot :).
Which camera did you use with that lens and what shutter speed and ISO did you use? I have an old Canon 650d (t4i) with that 75-300mm kit lens. But I’m thinking of getting a cheap lens adapter to use this lens on my old Sony a7s. I do have a little MoveShootMove tracker as well.
Oh man! It's been a while so don't quite remember the exact camera settings. I used a Canon 6D so it was a full frame sensor. That t4i is going to get you more zoomed in and it's probably even better than my full frame camera! I'm not too familiar with the Sony cameras so I can't give you advice there. If you want you can hit me up on Instagram and we can talk and I can look up my exact camera settings from that night
@@deltaastrophotography … thanks. I think I found everything on another video of yours which I just watched. You taped up the lens at 200mm (that was funny - haha), then you used ISO 1600, aperture f/5, and a shutter speed of 60 seconds with your Star Tracker. I’ll give it a go over the weekend … and I’ll take the duct tape to keep that lens at 200mm! Duct Tape, turning “no, no, no,” into “mmm, mmm, mmm” since 1946 😁👍🏼
@@lancealbon46it might be better to use electrical tape because duct tape can kind of leave a little bit of adhesive on your lens! I found that out the hard way 😂
Good video. Only thing i would suggest is when you use grad exterminator select the inverse of the galaxy. Russell told me it helps to prevent the faint neb signals and galaxy being taken into consideration when it is doing calculations to flatten the gradient. Great plugin!
JUST MY OPINION: As an astrophotographer myself (intermediate level), I feel qualified to mention this: There is "Astrophotography", and then there is "Computer Graphic Art Design" (CGAD).
In my opinion there's absolutely nothing dishonest about this process. A camera has very poor dynamic range compared to the human eye. In order to reveal the faint details of a galaxy or nebula, this is almost a necessary process. To see these faint details without processing you would have to blow out stars or cores of the Galaxy. It's like trying to photograph the surface details of the moon at night while also trying to get details of your foreground without the aid of any man-made lighting. It's something your eye can plainly see but a camera can't pick it up at all. Also certain cameras and lenses leave distortions and artifacts that need correcting in order to view something closer to reality. Processing is not only important for the casual viewer to see what's actually out there, but it's important for scientific research to study what's out there. Now when people go and start radically altering colors, I can see where that might be slightly dishonest, but at that point it's just a matter of taste.
