Official Digi Cam Pic Thread!

[Tyr-Sog]

[logical]

Need some action shots on the bike.

[OverclockN']

These shots you've been taking are amazing. What's your setup for capturing these images?

[logical]

Hollywood Sign Pano from the drone. DJIs software for stitching could use some work though.

[wangFu]

Bought a cheap ring flash to pair with the tamron, went around the neigbourhood looking for bugs at night.
Focusing could be better, all of these are hand held, have a hard time focusing manual with my poor eyesight.

[Mahjik]

I dig all kinds of photos, except for ones of spiders....

[wangFu]

I dig all kinds of photos, except for ones of spiders....

It's amazing how many spiders you see at night in a short walk, just pointed the focus assist lamp to any dark corner and there was a spider

[Mahjik]

[Lazy8s]

I dig all kinds of photos, except for ones of spiders....

I'm loving the Widow lol.

Great shots. My camera just got dusted off...time to get started.

[RFtinkerer]

These shots you've been taking are amazing. What's your setup for capturing these images?

Sorry, didn't see this for the past months.

Camera: Canon 70D

Telescope: https://www.telescope.com/catalog/pr...col4-prodtitle

...acts as a 610 mm f4 lens. I used to shoot mainly with a 70-200mm f4L, but upgraded to this last year.

Mount: Celestron CG-5

Autoguider: Orion SSAG with 50 mm guide scope.

Laptop running BackyardEOS: https://www.otelescope.com/files/fil...kyardeos-3116/

Processing: Pixinsight https://pixinsight.com/ and Photoshop, mainly.

Additional: Patience and anger management when things go awry...which is pretty much always.

[Dave]

[Mahjik]

[dodger]

I like how the rainbow is framed by the trees.

[Mahjik]

That was definitely lucky (timing and positioning).

[Mahjik]

[Doozer]

[pax]

Hiroshima and some Japanese volcano?

[Doozer]

Hiroshima and some Japanese volcano?

Hiroshima Atomic dome, Kelimutu volcano in Flores, Indonesia and Mayon volcano in the Philippines

[Tyr-Sog]

I just bought a used Nikon DF.
Always wanted one for some reason.
Now I have one. In black

[Mahjik]

I just bought a used Nikon DF.
Always wanted one for some reason.
Now I have one. In black

Looking forward to seeing from photos from you with it.. I'm sure they will be good, but the camera itself is an absolute stunner! Congrats!

[Tyr-Sog]

Looking forward to seeing from photos from you with it.. I'm sure they will be good, but the camera itself is an absolute stunner! Congrats!

Thanks man. I've been cameraless for awhile now so I'm looking forward to
being able to get out and shoot again. I could have gotten anything really but decided on used and to stick with a budget this time around. I just don't have the time to shoot and don't want to spend gobs of $$$'s again on gear.
With the budget I set I could have gotten a used D810(shot for a year), D750, or even a D500 again. All far more advanced then the 2013 released DF.
I know it's limitations with it's AF(same as D7000/D600, i shoot both) which will mostly be in lower light situations.
16mp many consider a limitation but lets be honest here, it's an awesome 16mp with the D4 sensor(some say even modified for the better) with clairty and certain magic to its rendering.

Yes, I'm really looking forward to shooting this camera. Now I just need so glass. I may dive in to the older MF stuff

[Lazy8s]

Looking forward to seeing from photos from you with it.. I'm sure they will be good, but the camera itself is an absolute stunner! Congrats!

Same here! I have zero shoot time this year...

[Mahjik]

16mp many consider a limitation but lets be honest here, it's an awesome 16mp with the D4 sensor(some say even modified for the better) with clairty and certain magic to its rendering.

I used to shoot with a Minolta 7D which was 6.1mp... To be honest, some of my better photos were with that camera.

[RFtinkerer]

I was curious to see what you all thought of this...interpretation...of Barnard's Loop, the Orion's Belt area. This was shot with a Rokinon 135 f2 and QSI 583wsg monochrome CCD, using different filters. What I did was used red, green, and blue channel data and then hydrogen alpha narrowband for additional dust, emissions and set it for luminance as well for smaller stars and the ripply patterns in the dust. Dust areas are orange...naturally a dark orange color, while the hydrogen alpha emssions are a deep red, then I shifted those kind of funky. Truthfully, I've been tired of trying to duplicate the natural look and kind of like the results. My wife loves them, but other astrophotographers are more purists so they hate it.



Good, bad, just ugly?

[logical]

From a non-astronomer, a certainly looks cool and like something from space.

I just find it weird that there has to be an interpretation and you cant really replicate its normal look just by taking the picture. Of course we are talking about space photography and I get why but a 1 to 1 accurate picture would be cool.

Are all deep space pictures just interpretations of what they think something should look like?

[RFtinkerer]

There's major discussion about this, and reasons why not to do true color. The problem is intepretation. What really is red? Green? It's just electromagnetic radiation. Your brain is processing images for a white balance, different under different lighting conditions, note the shift as you go from one environment to another. Companies spend millions trying to do it for DSLRs, cameras. I included not only red, green, blue channels in the composite but also narrowband Ha data...that is not natural, but adds the fluctuating detail. A lot of shots are done from narrowband Ha, SII, OIII, and put in a false color to emphasize structure. Reference the following article:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...the.night.sky/

This is Orion, in 'true color', from Roger Clark's DSLR shot (sideways from the prior mosaic).



This is a wider shot I processed from the 9 panel mosaic, more representative but still with reduced size stars and an emphasis on nebular structure:



I could get it close by only using the red, green, and blue channels and shift around, specifically lower reds and keeping the stars big. I personally don't like the more natural image.

It ain't as God intended, is it? I just like processing to make stuff pretty, in my opinion, or funky as in the prior case.

[RFtinkerer]

Okay, I was curious to see if I could get closer to true color and Roger Clark's image by not using the Ha data and then just a histogram stretch, curving the hue lightness to approximate my thoughts on the sensitivity of the human eye, using the PhotometricCalibration sequence in Pixinsight. Here are the results:



The point spread function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_spread_function) of the stars is smaller due to the larger effective aperture of the 9 panel mosaic with the 135 mm f2 compared to Roger Clark's lens, but closer to the image and true color, I think.

[necropimp]

couldn't resist taking a pic of this thing after it came in for new tires last week



the way the fading light and the lighting from the building/lot worked with the exposure gave it a vintage advertising photo vibe IMO

[logical]

There's major discussion about this, and reasons why not to do true color. The problem is intepretation. What really is red? Green? It's just electromagnetic radiation. Your brain is processing images for a white balance, different under different lighting conditions, note the shift as you go from one environment to another. Companies spend millions trying to do it for DSLRs, cameras. I included not only red, green, blue channels in the composite but also narrowband Ha data...that is not natural, but adds the fluctuating detail. A lot of shots are done from narrowband Ha, SII, OIII, and put in a false color to emphasize structure. Reference the following article:

I dont know much of anything about how the brain and our eyes interpret colors but I do know how the general population tend to see them as. When DSLRs interpret and process pictures they tend to try to make them as we see them. A red apple is red in the picture(general hue of it changes based on processing) but red still stays a red. DSLRs dont turn a red apple into green. With these space photos it just seems to be that they are interpreted to be most pleasing or cool to look at.

What I want to know is if we were placed in front of something far away in space could we replicate what we saw in person through these deep spaces photos?

Then again just thinking about it the scale of the picture is so big that humans wouldnt be able to see it. Maybe we would just see nothing and there are no colors at all at the scale we can actually see with our own eyes.

Space is too damn complicated

couldn't resist taking a pic of this thing after it came in for new tires last week



the way the fading light and the lighting from the building/lot worked with the exposure gave it a vintage advertising photo vibe IMO

Tell him to find a proper parking spot

[RFtinkerer]

Oh...you are correct, white is white, red is red, white balance doesn't do anything under realistic lighting conditions. OR DOES IT?!?!? This is one my waterfall photos shot in Canon RAW, where the left is set to 'daylight balanced', then I switched it to 'tungsten', which is incandescent lighting indoors. No other setting was changed between the two before export, no exaggerations here. Flourescents get funky too...



Space isn't the only weird thing with lighting...

Seeing color for nebula is so darn difficult. Generally the most you can see in bright ones is a greenish hue, such as in the Orion nebula, because the oxygen III emissions are actually strong enough to stimulate your comparatively sensitive green color receptors. But, in long exposures, even set to 'daylight balance' on the DSLR you get dominant reds, blues, because it exposes differently. So it's not the same. You can get something you can say is close, like Roger Clark's published true color images. I just...don't like them. It's art at some point, you know?

Edit: Looking further, this might be more helpful around the Orion nebula: http://clarkvision.com/articles/colo...rstellar.dust/



Kind of want revise my prior image, but who knows. Still a pain.

[necropimp]

Tell him to find a proper parking spot

that is a proper parking spot for completed customer vehicles, i parked it there

[Tyr-Sog]

Haven't really had the chance to use the Df but caught this rainfall over a soccer-field yesterday.

I only havr the 50 1.8G right now.

It wasn't on my radar(yet anyways) but my newly inquired immaculate nikkor 300 2.8 VRii is on the way.

Both my kids play soccer and my GF's 3 sons play soccer. Two in travel and 1 in college. So I'll be shooting a **** ton of it. If the Df can't keep up I may sell it and buy a D4. I think I'll be fine though as I was never one to spray and prey shots. I usually time my shots with single clicks.

[Tyr-Sog]

I was curious to see what you all thought of this...interpretation...of Barnard's Loop, the Orion's Belt area. This was shot with a Rokinon 135 f2 and QSI 583wsg monochrome CCD, using different filters. What I did was used red, green, and blue channel data and then hydrogen alpha narrowband for additional dust, emissions and set it for luminance as well for smaller stars and the ripply patterns in the dust. Dust areas are orange...naturally a dark orange color, while the hydrogen alpha emssions are a deep red, then I shifted those kind of funky. Truthfully, I've been tired of trying to duplicate the natural look and kind of like the results. My wife loves them, but other astrophotographers are more purists so they hate it.



Good, bad, just ugly?

It's amazing seeing the wide shots and seeing how much is just going on. Usually we just see the orion nebula, horse head, or some other section but to see it all going on is just stunning.

I'd like to get the Df under some dark skys soon.

[lmchv]

A couple of pics from my trip to Cuzco.

Machu Picchu!

[Tyr-Sog]

awesome!

[Tyr-Sog]

Some Halloween shots, nothing special. All quick snaps as we walked on a crowded street.

All with the 50 1.8g

iso 12800

iso 12800

iso 9000

iso 8000

iso 1800

[Tyr-Sog]

[Mahjik]

Nice!


Using the new lens?

[Tyr-Sog]

Nice!


Using the new lens?

Yes the new one

[Mahjik]

Yes the new one

Ugh... You are making me want to go out and find a new lens...