CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

This is with the AVX Mount and my inexpensive Celestron 4" Refractor.
Sorry about the CA error. I was thinking about using the 2x Barlow but it gets even worse then.
Nikon D800E
f/9.3
1000mm
ISO 50
1/60 sec
Craig

Moon

(Download)

Whirlpool Galaxy One More Time

(Download)

Albuqshutterbug Loc: Albuquerque NM

Dude, really nice shots.
:thumbup: :thumbup:

northcoast42 Loc: Puget Sound, Washington

Really nice shots Craig. Love the Whirlpool galaxy. Looks like you captured another galaxy toward the bottom of the image. :thumbup:

GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA

Great job!!!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

GT

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Thank you Jim.
Craig

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Thank you John, and yes I did get a bonus galaxy and I have no idea which it is???
Craig

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Hi GT, thank you for all the thumbs up.
Craig

chazz4623 Loc: Prairieville, La

WOW! great shots. Since I'm still a newbie, I get at least one or two dumb questions before being pummeled (I hope). With the equipment the same except using a D5300 (I just bought), about how large could I go with a wall print such as the two beautiful ones you posted Craig? Would 3'x5' be possible and still be as impressive as these (or fairly close). I'm sort of determined to capture a moon shot and get it printed that size. The whirlpool would be a real bonus. Just my fantasy, after you get thru laughing. :-)

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Your D5300 is a 24M pixel camera producing a 6000 x 4000 pixel image. To blow this up to 5 feet on the long axis means you are going to have 100 pixels per inch. Looking at the image up close, you would be able to make out the pixelization. It is possible to run an image through SW that can increase the number of pixels by guessing at the invented pixels. For the most part, it works as advertised and can make this image go from 100 pixels per inch to 200 pixels per inch. But keep in mind that you now have a 12000 x 8000 pixel image. And in this image, 3/4 of the pixels have been guessed at (through sophisticated algorithms of course).

If the image had been cropped, which is not uncommon, then the pixel problem is exasperated some more.

Chances are that the image would look reasonably well. But be prepared for some surprise artifacts in the result.

Now there is another option. Some SW, Photoshop can do it (a lot of work) or PhotoAcute can do it (very little work) take multiple pictures of the same object and to then process the images into a higher resolution image. Since the moon is moving, each image is actually taken with a different perspective and when enough shots are accumulated, detail that would be between pixels is captured and it puts it together into a higher resolution image. It works really well.

Be aware that PhotoAcute has stopped enhancing the product. This means also that they are no longer producing new camera/lens profiles that deal with the inherent distortions produced by those combinations. It is a top notch program, but apparently they didn't sell enough copies.

dlmorris Loc: Loma Linda, Ca

Not bad at all, especially the Galaxy shot. You can get a CA filter that does help, though I haven't tried mine for photography. Orion used to sell them, and maybe still does.

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Hello Chazz. First of all thank you very much and no one at the Astro Forum will ever pummel you. And a welcome aboard from all us. Second you picked the wrong person to ask about creating posters. I only do 8x10s. I think what Jim is saying is it would be very difficult to produce a 36" x 60" poster, unless you are willing to stand way back, of a shot like mine that was taken with a mere 4" telescope and heavily cropped. Here are two shots, not cropped, one taken with a 4" telescope and the second with an 8". I'm pretty sure an 6" or larger scope would give you a much better chance at a large poster. Jim did an excellent job of answering the question as to the software needed. Thank you Jim. And Chazz just go out in the backyard with a tripod, the widest lens you have and shoot some 20 sec 6400 ISO shots of the night sky. And watch the wonders of the Universe appear.
Craig

4" Telescope


8" Telescope

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Hello DL, thank you very much for the complement. I have an OIII filter that I have never tried on the Moon, maybe???
Craig

GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Get out and shoot!
oh, yeah, and have fun :-)

GT

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Chazz, when you take a 20 sec shot, it will be very eashed out. But you can process that image and produce magic. In Photoshop (and others that have the same features), you go to Adjust Levels and Adjust Curves and use those tools to what is called Stretch the image. Stretch is referring to making darks blacker and lights whiter. The result is incredible sensitivity. Its not unusual to see stars with a telephoto lens to the 15th magnitude.

Practice on Polaris. It doesn't move very fast.

And recently, I submitted a post on removing star trails with Focus Magic.

GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA

Ain't that the truth!
It is absolutely amazing what you can discover in an image that at first look looks like a milky waste of time!

GT