Andromeda Galaxy

Grumpy_one

This image is a compilation of 32 exposures using a program called Deepskystacker, an astrophoto software. The images are stacked and the software averages out 4 types of photos: dark frame, light frame, flat and bias. If you're interested, you can go to the web site and see how this process is done, go to "user manual". The file that the Deepskystacker spit out was a 61 meg tiff file. I pp'd in PS and converted to JPG. The images were taken with my Canon 20D, 70-200 coupled with a the 1.4 tc for a total of 280mm, mounted on a GPDX telescope mount. This was done in my backyard. The main photos or "light frame" were 10, 30sec exposures at f5 and ISO800. This is my real first attempt at astrophotography. More to come later.

Some information about what you're looking at. This is Andromeda Galaxy (M31) accompanied with two other galaxies, M110 and M32. Andromeda Galaxy is 2.9 light years away, 150,000 light years across with a mass 1.2 trillion times that of our sun. Enjoy

Eia

I dont understand some of the verbiage but what I can understand is interesting...and the photo is fantastiK!!!

bryanj87

That is really cool.

Nikolai

Grumpy_one wrote:

This image is a compilation of 32 exposures using a program called Deepskystacker, an astrophoto software. The images are stacked and the software averages out 4 types of photos: dark frame, light frame, flat and bias. If you're interested, you can go to the web site and see how this process is done, go to "user manual". The file that the Deepskystacker spit out was a 61 meg tiff file. I pp'd in PS and converted to JPG. The images were taken with my Canon 20D, 70-200 coupled with a the 1.4 tc for a total of 280mm, mounted on a GPDX telescope mount. This was done in my backyard. The main photos or "light frame" were 10, 30sec exposures at f5 and ISO800. This is my real first attempt at astrophotography. More to come later.
Some information about what you're looking at. This is Andromeda Galaxy (M31) accompanied with two other galaxies, M110 and M32. Andromeda Galaxy is 2.9 light years away, 150,000 light years across with a mass 1.2 trillion times that of our sun. Enjoy

Wow! I can't believe one can get this type of images from one's backyard nowadays. Can you see the Jupiter and Saturn moons, too?

jeffreaux2

The blacks are plugged and highlights blown......


Just kidding... ......

It's an excellent image along with very useful info. I sometimes view through an 8" dobsonian that a friend owns...but...live viewing is nothing compared to stacked photos like this.

ian408

Very nice. Andy and I were talking about the ability to shoot a background shot just before sunset and then merge it with a long exposure/stacked exposure of the sky behind the subject.

Have you done any of a nebula?

David_S85

Beautiful shot combination there. Really stunning that amateur astronomy has come far enough to be able to do this without umpteen-bizillion dollars of equipment. Very glad you posted this and, yes, please post more of these as soon as you can!!!

I think you meant to say that M31 is 2.6 million light years distant.

DoctorIt

David_S85 wrote:

Beautiful shot combination there. Really stunning that amateur astronomy has come far enough to be able to do this without umpteen-bizillion dollars of equipment.

Galileo would be pretty floored, eh?

Great stuff!

Nikolai

I reread the first post and now I got a question: you said you mounted it on the telescope mount, but was there any other involved, like the telescope itself? Or was this shot simply taken with 1.4 + 70-200?

DeathToDigital

Nikolai wrote:

I reread the first post and now I got a question: you said you mounted it on the telescope mount, but was there any other involved, like the telescope itself? Or was this shot simply taken with 1.4 + 70-200?

Good question!

DJ-S1

Fantastic results! I have a small scope and I dream of taking the time to try what you have done here. Maybe when the kids are older - thanks for providing inspiration!

Grumpy_one

Nikolai wrote:

I reread the first post and now I got a question: you said you mounted it on the telescope mount, but was there any other involved, like the telescope itself? Or was this shot simply taken with 1.4 + 70-200?

This was shot with just the camera. While it was mounted on top of the telescope, the telescope was not used for any of the imaging. I planned on taking a pic of the set up, but 1 am came fast. And as far as a combination shot, this is not a combination vs the same image, shot multiple times and then stacked in the astrophoto software. Not quite sure what was meant by combination. Oh and yes, 2.9 million, I'll correct that in the original post, thanks!

Maestro

Very interesting image. I do have a question though. The yellow color, was that added or is that the way the image was produced in camera? It's not distracting to me but I am just wondering.

cmason

Outstanding shot...I was wondering, how did you sight for this shot? Did you sight with the telescope and then align the camera to the telescope? Or do you have a astro-computer that aligned it for you?

pyry

Nicely done, but why is it green?

anyway!

ian408

I used to hang out in some dark places on occasion. Most of the folks who image seem to piggy back the camera on the telescope.

I've been toying with the idea of getting a Losmandy G-11 or G-8 equatorial mount. I haven't done much about it but only because I've been busy with other stuff. Plus, I'd like to look into other mounts.

Nikolai

Grumpy_one wrote:

This was shot with just the camera. While it was mounted on top of the telescope, the telescope was not used for any of the imaging. I planned on taking a pic of the set up, but 1 am came fast. And as far as a combination shot, this is not a combination vs the same image, shot multiple times and then stacked in the astrophoto software. Not quite sure what was meant by combination. Oh and yes, 2.9 million, I'll correct that in the original post, thanks!

OMG. So this was taken with JUST 1.4x200mm=240mm? Which means if I use my 1.4x400mm=640mm and the free DSS software you've mentioned I can get the same (provided I figure out where to look, lol;-)? Or the said telescope mount provides some sort of magic (like tracking) than cannot be reached via conventional CF tripod + ballhead combo? Can you elaborate on that please? I *really* love what you got , but I always thought you need to have a huge telescopic glass and computerized mounting to get anywhere close...

Richard

Stellar.

ian408

Nikolai wrote:

OMG. So this was taken with JUST 1.4x200mm=240mm? Which means if I use my 1.4x400mm=640mm and the free DSS software you've mentioned I can get the same (provided I figure out where to look, lol;-)? Or the said telescope mount provides some sort of magic (like tracking) than cannot be reached via conventional CF tripod + ballhead combo? Can you elaborate on that please? I *really* love what you got , but I always thought you need to have a huge telescopic glass and computerized mounting to get anywhere close...

You need a good tracking mount to keep the telescope/camera aligned. There's significant movement of objects in the sky over even 20s. So unless you want star trails, you need the mount

Nikolai

ian408 wrote:

You need a good tracking mount to keep the telescope/camera aligned. There's significant movement of objects in the sky over even 20s. So unless you want star trails, you need the mount

Damn.. I was afraid of that..:bash Oh well, back to my models...

Grumpy_one

ian408 wrote:

You need a good tracking mount to keep the telescope/camera aligned. There's significant movement of objects in the sky over even 20s. So unless you want star trails, you need the mount

Yup. I used a GPDX mount which has motors that will track. With a good polar alignment, longer exposures are possible. I need to get an illuminated double cross hair eyepiece to do a drift alignment. Coming soon.

ian408

Grumpy_one wrote:

Yup. I used a GPDX mount which has motors that will track. With a good polar alignment, longer exposures are possible. I need to get an illuminated double cross hair eyepiece to do a drift alignment. Coming soon.

I have one I got from Orion (there's a retail outlet near me). Works pretty well.

Grumpy_one

ian408 wrote:

Very nice. Andy and I were talking about the ability to shoot a background shot just before sunset and then merge it with a long exposure/stacked exposure of the sky behind the subject.

Have you done any of a nebula?

M42 (Orion nebula) would be my first choice, wont be in a good part of the sky until Feb or so. I'd like to archive M3 which is a star cluster, unfortunately for me, it's towards the west where the downtown lights are. I'd have to find a dark spot. Now that I've got this one down pretty good, more to come for certain. M31 is the closest galaxy and probably easiest to find. In a good dark spot you can see it with a naked eye. You can certainly see it with binoculars. Cheers.

Grumpy_one

Maestro wrote:

Very interesting image. I do have a question though. The yellow color, was that added or is that the way the image was produced in camera? It's not distracting to me but I am just wondering.

I had to play with it in PS. No masks or brush or anything like that was used. Only adjustments like levels, curves, color balance, brightness/contrast, and selective color. It was tough to get the colors to come out. But if did not come out of the camera like that. It was there, just had to make it come out.

Grumpy_one

Ok, here is the set up I used


Here is one of the 30 sec exposures of 32 that were used to make this image.

Nikolai

Grumpy_one wrote:

Ok, here is the set up I used

Thanks for sharing!
Wow, your 30 sec frame is clear!
You don't have much light pollution in your backyard, do you!

erson83

Nikolai wrote:

Damn.. I was afraid of that..:bash Oh well, back to my models...

Not a bad back up!

ian408

One of the bit pain parts of viewing is setting up the tracking mount.

Any tips on making the process easier?

Grumpy_one

ian408 wrote:

One of the bit pain parts of viewing is setting up the tracking mount.

Any tips on making the process easier?

Not sure what you mean by easier. I did the easiest polar alignment for this image i.e. just using the polar scope. I plan to do a more accurate alignment using the drift method. I need an illuminated reticle, it's on my wish list. Let me know if I can expand further. Cheers

Grumpy_one

Nikolai wrote:

Thanks for sharing!
Wow, your 30 sec frame is clear!
You don't have much light pollution in your backyard, do you!

Actually yes. Comparatively speaking anyway. I live in a pretty urban development, city lights, street lamps, porch lights, you name it. This shot was done towards the east, away from the downtown lights of Portland (west). So that helped. I'll try to figure out just how much of the sky is actually in this image, not much. Light pollution comes into play for DSO or Deep Sky Objects. This happens to be the closest galaxy and pretty bright compared to other stuff in the sky. I'd have to go to a real dark spot to get good pics of nebula's and other gas forms. Planets aren't effected by light pollution as well. I plan to try Jupiter soon. It'll be a small white disk with a couple of bands going across. Lots on my plate right now! Stay tuned. Cheers

ian408

Grumpy_one wrote:

Not sure what you mean by easier. I did the easiest polar alignment for this image i.e. just using the polar scope. I plan to do a more accurate alignment using the drift method. I need an illuminated reticle, it's on my wish list. Let me know if I can expand further. Cheers

That's pretty much what I've done. Maybe it's the drift method I'm missing? I've never done anything to adjust for that.