3 replies to this topic

[nebulens]

Hey all, brand new member here. I've always been interested by astrophotography and more recently, have been wanting more (better?) results for my Astroscape Panoramas.

This quickly precipitated into a full-blown obsession with wide-field and deep sky object imaging, and I guess I've officially been bitten by the astro bug. 

Anyways, before investing in a scope and everything else that goes along with deep-sky imaging, I've decided to act only on my astroscape urges until I feel comfortable using tracking mounts and understanding all the nomenclature. 

 

In that effort, I've been following milky way photo contests for the past couple years. And now to the bulk of my post.. 

 

One of my favorite newly-commended photographers, Uros Fink, has a video of his milky way panorama rig on youtube: https://www.youtube....h?v=6I-8Cm1L2i8
He mentions that he has gotten favorable results using one camera for H-alpha and another camera for "RGB". 

As far as I know, an H-alpha camera should be able to capture anything the so-called "RGB" camera and more. 
So my question is: What would be the point of using two cameras, one modded and one not, to capture milky way images for astroscapes?

 

I have been in touch with Uros, so I will eventually ask him directly why he chose to use two cameras. But I wanted to gain some additional input from this outstanding forum. 

 

And since we're at the beginning of Northern Hemisphere's galactic core season, I would love to see some images of everyone's setups for milky way astroscapes!

[erictheastrojunkie]

Normally you use two cameras to double the acquisition data per unit time/exposure, it's why people run multi-scope rigs so they can collect much more data in as little time as possible. The way Uros is utilizing it is a little bit different though, he's using one camera to capture ONLY h-alpha data and one camera to capture RGB data, then he's blending in the h-alpha data to the RGB data to enhance those areas of the emission nebula. IMO I think the "fad" in nightscape imaging of adding additional h-alpha only data generates a vastly over-edited image that looks wildly unnatural. And I say this as someone who was among the early adopters of using tracking mounts for nightscape imaging and really pushing the editing pretty hard 10ish years ago. 

 

My setups/rigs have evolved tremendously over the years, I'm currently using a MSM Nomad paired with a Sigma Fp and the Sigma Contemporary lenses (35mm and 65mm) for my nightscape imaging, I've done my absolute best to scale down my setup for portability while maximizing image quality with mid-focal (or "standard") length lenses. There was another thread recently where I shared a lot of my thoughts in terms of imaging with tracking mounts and doing Milky Way panoramas, the complexities, techniques, many of the rigs I've assembled over the years, etc. You can see my posts in that thread here:

https://www.cloudyni...els/?p=14068654

 

Just know there are a lot of ways to skin the cat in this hobby, it's easy to go off the deep end in terms of complexity, and nothing beats practicing. I've really found that making things as simple and efficient as possible reduces the likelihood of me making mistakes, reduces the complexity of editing, and increases my joy of not only being out under the stars and taking pictures, but producing a high quality final image I'm ecstatic to share with other people. 

[nebulens]

Hey Eric, I have really appreciated all your posts for the past few weeks that I've been snooping around before actually making an account and posting. Thank you for the very detailed response- I like your work, like your realism, and love what you did with the auxiliary lighting in Escalante. All of it inspiring. I've certainly seen multiscope rigs for DSO and understand the reasoning behind using them, but that's why I was a little confused about Uros' setup- it seems redundant to use one camera for H-alpha and the other for RGB, when afaik- an H-alpha converted camera will still collect RGB data. It's funny you mention Evan in that thread you posted, I follow him as well. I suppose using two cameras for milky way is no different than using filters to gather various wavelengths and then colorizing B&W images to taste. I completely agree with you that the nightscape images with excessive Ha data don't look great, but I also am sometimes left wanting more from the sky when the foreground is particularly weak. As I type this, I guess the best part of using two cameras at similar focal lengths for milky way shots is the added benefit of control over how much Ha to include in the end result, which is appealing. 

 

I quickly realized that the rabbit hole is deep, so I'm trying to future-proof my setup for my specific use case without going overboard... it's a tricky tightrope to walk. As for minimizing setups for simplicity, I'm still reasonably young and often serve as the packmule on outings, so I'm ok with carrying a bit more gear to create stellar (pun half-intended) results. Your comment about nothing beating practicing is duly noted. I do try to utilize the right tools in the field so as to minimize my editing requirements. I will be in White Pocket and Lake Powell for two weeks in July, so part of the reason I'm trying to figure all this out now is so I have some time to practice the setup. And thanks again for posting that other thread, it's an excellent resource and I plan to do a more thorough read-through today. 

 

I guess we can close this topic, as I've answered my own question with the help of your input: using two cameras offers an additional level of control, so that sky images are not totally inundated with H-alpha effects, which can look too unrealistic and distracts from the image as a whole. Looking forward to being a part of this community. 

 

[Mike W]

Check out the website "Nebula Photos"