Astroscope + DSLR = Gallery! (1 Viewer)

[Tord]

A few more from the Estuary, all with a 1.4x tc attached. First shot a ISO 400 and the other three at ISO 800.

Excellent pictures, Roy.
The color rendering is really nice. Are you applying any enhancements when processing?
/Tord

 

[Roy C]

Excellent pictures, Roy.
The color rendering is really nice. Are you applying any enhancements when processing?
/Tord

Thanks Tord, I am still learning this astroscoping stuff. My image processing is the same as I have been using for years with a normal DSLR set-up. I convert my RAWS in Canon DPP and then send to CS5 as a 16 bit tiff for finishing.
The one thing I have found with the astroscope is that the contrast is not good straight from the camera but this can easily be corrected in processing.
My normal flow is something like:
Levels
Shadows/highlights
Selective noise reduction (if required)
Selective sharpening ( I use the luminosity channel only)
Correcting the black levels
Any other colour corrections
I guess the average image takes around five minutes from RAW to jpeg.

 

[DanC.Licks]

Roy,
What does the inside of your scope look like? Contrast can be helped by flocking, esp in the focuser and extension tubes, and inside the sun shade. Any excess light bouncing around in there is going to harm the contrast.

 

[Tord]

Thanks Tord, I am still learning this astroscoping stuff. My image processing is the same as I have been using for years with a normal DSLR set-up. I convert my RAWS in Canon DPP and then send to CS5 as a 16 bit tiff for finishing.
The one thing I have found with the astroscope is that the contrast is not good straight from the camera but this can easily be corrected in processing.
My normal flow is something like:
Levels
Shadows/highlights
Selective noise reduction (if required)
Selective sharpening ( I use the luminosity channel only)
Correcting the black levels
Any other colour corrections
I guess the average image takes around five minutes from RAW to jpeg.

Roy,

I too have a feeling the contrast is somewhat lower compared to the results I get with my Zuiko lenses.

What I usually do is to process the RAWs with DXO Optics, with a similar flow as yours. I have from the default profile created a set of profiles that I apply on each of the RAWs that seem technically OK. In essence, I have one profile would use when the motif contains highly exposed parts that I want to restore/preserve and one profile I would use when the background is bright (typically skies). Each of the profiles exists in two variants, high/low, in which the effect is more or less pronounced. It takes less than 10 seconds to apply a profile on a picture and maybe up 30 seconds more to do the final tweaking, adjusting midtones, white/black point and HDR. Lastly I have defined a set of profiles to generate various outputs (TIFF/JPG).

I almost never correct the color temperature/hue/saturation or contrast.

Apologies for being slightly off-topic, interesting to share experiences.

/Tord

 

[Tord]

Roy,
What does the inside of your scope look like? Contrast can be helped by flocking, esp in the focuser and extension tubes, and inside the sun shade. Any excess light bouncing around in there is going to harm the contrast.

Hmmm... can you elaborate wht this flocking thing is about? My OTA is painted inside with some matte non-reflective black paint (by design/fabrication), shouldn't that be enough?

/Tord

 

[Roy C]

Roy,
What does the inside of your scope look like? Contrast can be helped by flocking, esp in the focuser and extension tubes, and inside the sun shade. Any excess light bouncing around in there is going to harm the contrast.

Interesting Dan, what do you use as flocking and how would it be applied to the inside if the extension tube? The hood already looks as if it has some sort of dark material applied.

 

[Paul Corfield]

Flocking paper is black, has a slight velvet feel and is virtually non reflective. Matt black paint is quite good but flocking paper is slightly better, only by about 5 or 10% though. Personally I think the biggest improvement that could be made is better internal baffles as the SW ones aren't as elaborate as some scopes.

Paul.

 

[DanC.Licks]

Paul,
what would they look like? Have you done it on a SW?

 

[Roy C]

Here is a couple of snaps from this morning. I really like the colours that the scope renders.
Both shots taken with a 1.4x tc attched. The Gadwall is 1/320 at ISO 1000 and the Moorhen 1/125 sec at ISO 800 so fairly lousy light.

 

[Paul Corfield]

Paul,
what would they look like? Have you done it on a SW?

Never really played around with the baffles in the scope. I took them all out once and photos didn't look any different. I've put them all back in now though. I've read elsewhere that you can do away with them completely and just rely on flocking the tube. This tends to be advice on astro forums but at night there's not really much stray light to filter out unlike daytime. Camera lenses don't really use much baffling apart from being flat black on the inside.

Paul.

 

[DanC.Licks]

Yeah, I can't imagine that it would make a huge difference up in the tube. Nearer the camera is a different story and as we have both seen, flocking and baffling really helps there.

 

[Roy C]

Can any of you guys tell me how you get the flocking inside an 80mm extension tube as I would really like to try this.

 

[Oskar Moilanen]

Roy: I have been looking to do that myself, but have found little info. This is a site I've found that sells flocking paper for scientific purposes: http://www.thorlabs.de/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=190
It's rather pricey though, I guess people also make use of various fabrics. Hope someone else has a bit more experience regarding this.


I finally managed to get a shot of the Coal Tit that has eluded me for so long. A really quick little bird not wanting to stay around for too long, took concentration to spot among the masses of other Tits.

 

[DanC.Licks]

Very easy. Just cut out a piece of the right size, peel off the release layer, and stick it in.

 

[Tord]

Roy: I have been looking to do that myself, but have found little info. This is a site I've found that sells flocking paper for scientific purposes: http://www.thorlabs.de/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=190
It's rather pricey though, I guess people also make use of various fabrics. Hope someone else has a bit more experience regarding this.


I finally managed to get a shot of the Coal Tit that has eluded me for so long. A really quick little bird not wanting to stay around for too long, took concentration to spot among the masses of other Tits.

Great picture, Oskar!

 

[Tord]

Yeah, I can't imagine that it would make a huge difference up in the tube. Nearer the camera is a different story and as we have both seen, flocking and baffling really helps there.

You may be right in that this is the element where to start. I wonder why a matte paint was not used in the first place when fabricating the tubes.

 

[DanC.Licks]

There is cheaper stuff to be had at the local do-it-your-self market. Just be sure to vacuum off any excess fuzz before using it.

Super shot, Oskar. You have caught on fast!

 

[cango]

I finally managed to get a shot of the Coal Tit that has eluded me for so long. A really quick little bird not wanting to stay around for too long, took concentration to spot among the masses of other Tits.

Snyggt jobbat med svartmesen!

 

[Roy C]

I finally managed to get a shot of the Coal Tit that has eluded me for so long. A really quick little bird not wanting to stay around for too long, took concentration to spot among the masses of other Tits.

Super shot Oskar - great detail

 

[Roy C]

I managed a few Goldfinch snaps yesterday. Both shot at 1/320 sec, ISO 800 and 840mm. A very bland background but some reasonable detail. I am really enjoying the extra focal length as it means a lot more birds come into range than from just 400mm.