January 25, 2015, 05:56:20 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - wearle

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
16
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 29, 2014, 09:32:34 PM »
To all,

Here's a wide-field image of the Rosette and Cone Nebula region.  This was taken with a modified Canon 5D2 and a Canon 200mm f/2.0L stopped down to f/4.0.  It is an integration of 16 four-minute exposures.  It was calibrated using six dark frames, twenty biases, and twenty flats.  All calibration and processing was done in PixInsight.

Thanks for looking,

Wade

17
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 29, 2014, 09:29:47 PM »

Have you ever thought of narrow band imaging? Especially with the 3nm filters we have these days, you can even image DURING the full moon, and still get high SNR results that produce beautiful grayscale results (H-a only) or mapped images (S-II, H-a & O-III). I live under moderately light polluted skies. I was originally thinking about using an LPR, but I think now that I'm going to go all in for 3nm narrow band filters (although they are rather expensive...about $500-$700 each) so I can do more imaging from my home.

Not much you can do about cloud cover, but since you can image during the entire lunar cycle, you get a lot more cuddle time with your scope. ;)

I do image in H-alpha, but only with my CCD camera. 

I have a 5nm H-alpha filter.  Keep in mind, the 3nm H-alpha filter blocks out the N2 spectrum so your results will look a little different than most narrowband H-alpha filters which are wide enough to capture N2.

You still lose contrast when imaging during "moon-up" even with narrowband filters.  The effect just isn't as pronounced.  Because of this, I generally do not image while the Moon is up. 

It takes me about 90 minutes driving time to get to my dark site so I'm probably too picky when it comes to transparency.   I could probably double my trips if I wasn't so picky.  :(

Wade

18
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 28, 2014, 11:28:39 PM »

Very impressive. I've been looking to get that lens myself for this purpose (among others). From your description, I'm guessing it's a pretty dark site?

Thanks! 

It's a very dark site.  I measured it last Summer, and it was approaching 22.0 visual magnitudes per square arc-second.  The only problem is eastern Oregon.  It's rarely clear in the Winter.  The Summer is generally clear, but then your contending with smoke-filled skies from wildfires.  :(  When things do work out, I get about 6-8 opportunities a year during the New Moon window.

Wade

19
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 28, 2014, 01:02:28 AM »
Amazing.  Do you have a website?  I'd love to see more of your work.  TFS.
Thanks! 

I have two websites.  One is old, and I haven't updated it in a long time; however, it does allow viewing of higher resolution versions of my astrophotography images.

http://www.northwest-landscapes.com/

My new site has the most up-to-date images and includes the older material, but you can't view any images higher than 960 pixels in the long dimension.

http://thomaswearlephotography.smugmug.com/

Wade

20
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 28, 2014, 12:55:59 AM »
How do you like PixInsight? I'm getting into deep sky AP now, and am in the process of buying a mount and software. I was planning to use something like Nebulosity or maybe BackyardEOS for control software, PHD for guiding, and Photoshop for processing. But Pixinsight seems pretty popular these days.
I believe PixInsight is one of the best astrophotography processing software packages out there.  I've been using it since the PixInsight LE days.  There is a steep learning curve; however, the PixInsight Forum is an awesome place to learn it and support is second to none. 

Wade

21
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 27, 2014, 08:49:14 PM »
To all,

Here's a wide-field image of the North America Nebula.  This was taken with a modified Canon 5D2 and a Canon 200mm f/2.0L stopped down to f/4.0.  It is an integration of 24 four-minute exposures.  It was calibrated using six dark frames, twenty biases, and twenty flats.  All calibration and processing was done in PixInsight.

Thanks for looking,

Wade

22
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 27, 2014, 04:36:19 PM »
Thanks very much, that is mind-blowing!!  Do you mind if I print one for myself?

Thanks, there is definitely enough stars in the image to be mind-blowing.  :)

I would prefer you not to make a print from my image.  If you would like a print, I can make you one at a very reasonable cost, and it would look a lot better than what could be achieved with the jpeg version.  You can contact me privately if you like.

Wade

23
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: January 27, 2014, 12:17:43 PM »
Nice job!  I see the sun dogs but not a sun halo...

I've never seen double sundogs on a setting sun before...this is very interesting!
Thanks!

The Sun halo is almost hidden.  You can see the inner darkening of the circle below the sun with only a hint of a "brighter" circle.  It is definitely marginal.

Wade

24
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 27, 2014, 12:14:36 PM »

Wonderful! It just blows me away how many stars there are near and in the galactic core. The density is stunning!

So, with a modified 5D2, I assume that means the UV/IR cutoff filter (and maybe low pass filter) were removed?
Thanks!

You should check out the link to the higher resolution version I just posted.

I purchased the camera from Astro Hutech with Option T.  It includes a more astro-friendly bandpass filter.  It works very well for astrophotography.  You can still use it as a regular camera too if you create a custom white balance.

Wade

25
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 27, 2014, 12:09:13 PM »

Lovely, makes me wonder what a higher rez version of your image (or part of it) would look like...
Thanks!

Here's a link to a higher resolution image of the Galactic Dark Horse Nebula.

http://www.northwest-landscapes.com/images/deepsky/wide-field/big_E_5d2_200mm_1600x2400.jpg

Wade

26
Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape
« on: January 27, 2014, 02:09:33 AM »
To all,

Here's an image I took near sunset on Emigrant Hill, east of Pendleton, Oregon.  I noticed the Sundogs while taking the images, but did not see the Sun halo until after processing.  Fog and low cloud had already enveloped much of the foothills.  This is an HDR image combining four separate images.  Hopefully, it doesn't look too unnatural.  :)

Thanks for looking,

Wade

27
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 27, 2014, 02:04:15 AM »
To all,

Here's a wide-field image of the Galactic Dark Horse Nebula.  Numerous dark nebula come together to form a horse if rotate clock-wise 90 degrees.  This was taken with a modified Canon 5D2 and a Canon 200mm f/2.0L stopped down to f/4.0.  It is an integration of 25 four-minute exposures.  It was calibrated using six dark frames, twenty biases, and twenty flats.  All calibration and processing was done in PixInsight.

Thanks for looking,

Wade

28
Lenses / Re: TS-E 24mm Poor Performance - Take 2
« on: January 17, 2014, 10:03:59 PM »
To all,

I would like to include one more image.  This was stopped down to f/8.0 which is supposed to be the sweet spot of the lens.  The left side is still really soft (i.e. out of focus).

http://www.northwest-landscapes.com/images/testing/ts-e_24mm_non-shifted_f8.jpg

Thanks for looking,

Wade

29
Lenses / TS-E 24mm Poor Performance - Take 2
« on: January 17, 2014, 09:56:25 PM »
To all,

I appreciate all your comments in the last post.   

I went back to the hill and took some daylight images.  Please, take a close look at the image below, especially the left-hand side.  I focused on the road near the center.  This would be considered infinity which is what the lens was indicating.  The lens has both the tilt and shift at the zero position.    There was no wind.  I used a sturdy tripod and a remote release.  Thoroughly looking over the image, I would have to say this is the worst performing lens I've ever seen.  Only a small area around the center is focused.  The left had side is horrendously out of focus.  At these distances, everything should be in sharp focus, except perhaps the closest few feet.  As mentioned before, focusing at infinity at f/4.0 with a 24mm should yield a plane of sharp focus from 16 feet to infinity.

I would love to here your comments based on this new image.

Emigrant hill non-shifted TS-E 24mm
http://www.northwest-landscapes.com/images/testing/ts-e_24mm_non-shifted2.jpg

Perhaps a lens element or two is out of alignment.  I don't know, but something is definitely wrong with it.

Thanks,

Wade

30
Lenses / Re: TS-E 24mm Poor Performance
« on: January 17, 2014, 03:15:21 PM »
To all,

Thanks, I appreciate all your comments. 

I don't have a problem with the coma, it seems well corrected.  The problem I have is the softness (i.e. lack of sharp focus) outside the "sweet spot".  This lens' sweet spot seems to only be about a 20mm circle at best.  I would figure a lens that covers 67mm should do significantly better.  If you look closely at the ts-e_24mm_non-shifted_purchased_fixed.jpg image (i.e. the fourth link from the top), you will find almost the whole image is soft, except in a very small area near the center.  I focused at infinity so the image should be quite sharp from 16 feet to infinity using a 24mm lens.  The picture quality in the foreground (i.e. the hill side) is horrible.  It just seems very strange this lens is so soft.  I'll take more examples over the weekend, including star pictures to send to the Canon repair center in the Northeast.  Hopefully, they will look at them.  :)

Thanks,

Wade

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5