Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
My apologies for posting this a second time on a different part of this forum but upon further inspection I think that possibly this area of the forum is more appropriate than the beginner section for this question:
I'm waiting for my scope and it will be a while until its delivered so spending time learning astronomy and thought I'd see what I can do with my current camera equipment and tried to take my very first photo! Took out my D100 (6 megapixel high quality Nikon DSLR) put on a large lense (forget which one, but approx. 125-400 zoom). Went out on very clear night (in suburbs) 3/4 moon (Feb.18, 2004). Put camera on tripod, aimed at moon, went to 400mm, focused using auto-focus, it locked in and I took a lot of shots at varying shutter speeds and aperatures (I used autofocus because I just had LASIK surgery and my eyes are not yet "locked in"). What I don't understand is why things are not crisp. My shutter speeds are very fast and I can't imagine Earth's movement is affecting it. I tried to use my cable release but unfortunately it broke! Is that what is causing the blur (no cable release or self-timer) or is atmosphere or tripod (its a semi-pro Bogen tripod) or is it something else I don't understand? I tried to manipulate the photo in photoshop playing with grey scale and every other parameter I could find (including sharpness filters which I don't like usually and consider band-aids) and would be curious what thoughts you folks have. I've attached the photo. It's awful! I'm embarassed. Help! I'll see if I can attach two photos, one manipulated in PS, one not. Reduced size of photos considerably (low res JPEG) for web consumption. Thoughts? - Steve
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
and here's unmanipulated shot...
edited, please keep images to 800x600, thanks
Edited by xenoaxle (02/20/05 09:28 AM)
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
hehe at least crop out the HUGE black area
|
c131frdave
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 4376
|
|
Well, if the big image is what you started with, it's badly pixelated. Not sure why the Nikon would do that! And it is way out of focus. So you sharpened a pixelated pic and either adjusted the levels, or the brightness/contrast. No amount of processing will help an image with bad data in it.
Rry focusing again. It should be pretty easy to focus. If you have a motorized focus, turn it manually all the way (infinity) and then bump it back a hair. Infinity will be out of focus for night shots, so you have to turn it back a couple of degrees. Also, check what kind of compression you are using in the camera. It looks like you have it in very bad quality mode.
Or, you compressed the picture too much in PS. Is the second picture an unmodified verion straight out of the camera?
--------------------
Tak NJP
Various sizes and shapes of formed glass
|
c131frdave
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 4376
|
|
Dude! You've got a gigantic picture and it is only 87kb? You've got your .jpg compression way too low quality. I never go below 9 when saving to .jpg. If the file is too big, change the image size.
Hope this helps! 
--------------------
Tak NJP
Various sizes and shapes of formed glass
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
cr131frdave: First, thank you for your help. Let me explain.
1. This is not straight out of the camera in terms of compression because this site will not accept large files. But otherwise it is unmanipulated. The shot is in Nikon's "Fine" mode which are large (3008 x 2000 pixels - 10 x 6 at 300 dpi) JPG files. The camera is a 6 megapixel unit that end up being about 11-12 megabytes each. Why it is out of focus I don't know. I'll try infinity and manual focus plus auto timer next time. Question for you - why is it not focused at infinity??
Also, I will next time save the image size smaller and not compress so much. Thanks for the advice. Remember - I'm begining everyone don't hurt me!!!
Thanks a lot for your advice.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Ok, here's the same (or similar) shot which was created with the Nikon in "fine" JPG mode (as indicated int the last thread from me (specifics there re file quality and size - high quality) and then cropped and saved as JPG "12". I understand of course that I could have started in Tiff mode or RAW in my camera for even better quality, but I don't think that was the issue. Now I think the issue was simply focus caused by using the autofocus and not using the self-timer. Agreed? I think the quality is probably fine?
One last thing re focus: even if I use the self-timer the camera has a physical shutter (its a "real" SLR, though digital) and you can heard the "thud" of the shutter and the mirror flopping. Won't that cause vibration?
Thanks for your help. Has been cloudy since that night and can't wait to go out again?
Please keep your images to 800x600 and less than 100k. Thanks.
Edited by Grizz (02/23/05 05:42 AM)
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
why does my picture (the last thread) in photoshop show up as a very tiny size (I cropped it that way) yet when I upload it to this site it shows up (visually) as huge (of course same file size. Need to learn PS better i guess!
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
It is of course best to use "best quality" in any camera (obviously) and that is what you folks suggested. But I have a question: RAW uncompressed is Nikon's highest quality. RAW though can (according to the manual) only be interpreted and manipulated directly by Nikon's software (which I was not initially impressed with though I can take another look). I'd prefer to use Photoshop. I'm able with "Graphic Converter" to convert the RAW file to a PS file which then shows up in photo shop as an enormous PS file (the more pixels the better, right?). So, is this a good thing to do or should I do something else with RAW? I've just read in MacWorld more info about RAW but need to re-read to apply correctly.
Thanks for your help. - Steve
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
MBMPro-
I am guessing from your use of "Graphic Converter" that you are using a Mac (and from your mentioning of "MacWorld").
RAW is the best thing to shoot with. It gives much more color info, and is by far, the best quality. Photoshop CS can open most (including the Nikon) RAW formats, and Photoshop 7.0 can with the "raw" plugin that should be available from Adobe's website.
As for your size issues, my guess is that you were zoomed out in photoshop. Double click the magnification tool to see a 100% view.
And, when saving a jpeg, there is very little reason to save over a 10 on the jpeg slider, especially if you are posting it. There is negligble data loss from 10-12, but the 12 saves a file that is 2-3x larger.
|
Rat8bug
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/07/05
Posts: 1713
Loc: Michigan
|
|
Well, being a Nikon D70 DSLR user, I have some $.02 input. When shooting the moon, it is best to expose using RAW format and use a remote to trip shutter. If you are using auto-focus, then setting metering to spot should provide more accuracy. On the D70 there is a manual focus led in the viewfinder to denote if one is focused in manual mode. I always shoot moon in manual mode. This shot of the moon was taken with a Nikon D70, Kenko Telepro 300 1.4x TC, attached to a 400mm, f/5 telescope. The RAW image was converted to a 16-bit TIFF using PSP 9.01, then processed, then saved as JPG. This is an ISO 200, 1/125 sec shot. You can read more about the 400mm telescope at:
http://www.barrie-tao.com/vixen80ss.html
Ciao...Barry 
--------------------
Nikon D40/D50/D70 DSLR
WO 105mm Triplet APO
WO Zenithstar 66SD APO (Black 'n Blue)
WO 8 x 45mm APO Bino
UO 20 x 80mm Bino
Vixen 80SS Refractor
Orion 127mm Apex Maksutov
Vixen GP-DX with Skysensor 2000
SBIG STV and e-finder
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
RAT8BUG : Thank you so much for your detailed and specific information
Question: first, your shot is beautiful - great job. When analyzing the shot using "terrestrial" baselines I would (if I was a pro photographer) say its not crisp enough (I'm a serious amateur photographer). But my guess is that this is close to the limit of astrophotography or is it? I have noticed crisper shots of celestial objects and see HUGE variety in crispness from one shot of Saturn (for instance) to another. And it isn't always the guys with the coolest scopes getting the best shots in terms of crispness. What is the key factor in crispness (assuming one is focusing properly): atmospheric conditions, know how, equipment, lack of vibration of camera or surface camera is on??). Thanks for your thoughts.
Lastly, can you define a Kenko Telepro 300 1.4x TC. And PSP is photoshop (but what is the last P?). I have photoshop 7.0.1 for the Mac.
|
c131frdave
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 4376
|
|
MBMPro,
Hey buddy. You're second presentation is much better. All you have to work on is focus. More later.
In Photoshop, when you load the big 11-12mb file, it will scale the picture to fit on your screen. When you change the image size, the picture is still at the same scale. Press cnt+ to zoom in. Don't forget to drag the picture window to a larger view. A normal post on this formum is around 600X400 pixles or so. If you get the size down to this, you can save it to .jpg with a pretty high quality setting.
SLRs with motorized focusing have a setting beyond infinity ro some reason. Call it infinity plus one. If you are a math major, and you know infinity plus one is still infinity, please just go with it.  Anyway, I don't know why this is true, but it has something to do with the amount of light coming through the lens during the day vs. night, etc. Anyway, if you bump back your focus off infinity, you should get better results.
Finally, that last picture you posted is quite good! It's a little fuzzy, yeah, but it is MUCH better than a lot of posts I see on this site. Really. I most certainly wouldn't be emabarrased by it- not by a long shot. Your focus is just a hair off, and you are shooting through a standard grade camera lens. It doesn't get much better than what you produced! Great job! 
--------------------
Tak NJP
Various sizes and shapes of formed glass
|
c131frdave
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/17/05
Posts: 4376
|
|
Look at this:
This was taken the same day as yours, with a $6000 rig- 11" SCT XLT with computerized focusing and clear skies onto a Digital Rebel. Now put your picture side by side. Mine is better but not THAT much better. Give yourself some credit! Wonderful job!
--------------------
Tak NJP
Various sizes and shapes of formed glass
|
Chris Graham
mmmm...Haggis
Reged: 04/01/04
Posts: 4886
Loc: Stirling, Scotland
|
|
Ahh well if we are all doing it, i'll post a shot too
--------------------
-Skywatcher 8" Reflector on HEQ5 with Skyscan
-Orion ED80 Refractor
-70mm Guidescope/grab and go scope
-Canon EOS 350D
-Toucam Pro 2
Astronomy & Veggies
|
Strgazr27
Reged: 10/04/04
Posts: 7104
Loc: StonyHill Observatory
|
|
Digital Rebel, 12" LX200, F/6.3 manually focused......
--------------------
Bobby
http://www.strgazr27.zenfolio.com
|
Rat8bug
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/07/05
Posts: 1713
Loc: Michigan
|
|
Well, there is a lot of variability in shooting astro. My lunar shot was taken in semi-fog conditions. I could have spent more time in the processing exercise. Also, I could have did some more unsharp-masking to sharpen things up a big. But I am one that don't like to go overboard on the sharpening thing. In fact, sometimes one has to purposely blur an image to make it esthetically pleasing. It's a subjective call IMO. PSP is Paint Shop Pro. A step-child of Photoshop. Terrestial imaging and astro-imaging are different. When shooting stars, there is the sea of atmosphere one has to image through, and you must have a good tracking mount to nullify the motion of the earth. Then you must have the patience of Job to process those images. It's tasking but fun...that is why I'm in the hobby.
http://www.barrie-tao.com/astro_photo.html
Ciao...Barry
--------------------
Nikon D40/D50/D70 DSLR
WO 105mm Triplet APO
WO Zenithstar 66SD APO (Black 'n Blue)
WO 8 x 45mm APO Bino
UO 20 x 80mm Bino
Vixen 80SS Refractor
Orion 127mm Apex Maksutov
Vixen GP-DX with Skysensor 2000
SBIG STV and e-finder
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie no more
Reged: 04/30/03
Posts: 30716
Loc: NE Ohio
|
|
Quote:
why does my picture (the last thread) in photoshop show up as a very tiny size (I cropped it that way) yet when I upload it to this site it shows up (visually) as huge (of course same file size. Need to learn PS better i guess!
To see how large an image will appear here, select "View", then "actual pixels" in Photoshop. The image size should be set to no larger than 800X600 - that's not the same as choosing a small file size.
--------------------
John C
Battle Cry of Reno
http://www.wadsworthobservatory.com
My Cloudy Nights gallery
AT12RC
AT65EDQ
QSI683WSG-8
Roper Scientific Quantix 6303E "project" camera
mystery EQ mount on the way
|
Charles
Post Laureate
Reged: 06/12/03
Posts: 4111
Loc: Enterprise, AL
|
|
In Photoshop click Image/Imagesize and then adgust the image to be 800 by 600 or less. The save the file and it will come out nicely on CN.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
c31FRDAVE: That is very kind of you. I'm not sure I'm that proud YET, but I will eventually be able (i hope) to post things that are stellar. This forum has been incredible in the quality of the information and the kindness of the people. Thanks for your encouragement - its means a great deal to me - I can't wait for the clouds to clear now - thanks again!!!!!
Edited by MBMPro (02/20/05 10:41 PM)
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
