4 ms·

I'm continually amazed at the detail people are able to pull out of backyard telescopes. Some of the nebula shots look like Hubble pictures.

Gimpei 5y ago
Agreed these are spectacular. A lot of these pictures are very wide frame shots, so Hubble level magnification isn't really necessary. Instead you need a good camera, mount, atmospheric conditions, and some serious Photoshop chops. I tried to get into astrophotography a while back and was amazed by it's complexity!
dheera 5y ago
So the Hubble is good at extracting huge amounts of detail from small objects in the night sky, but what most people don't know is that the sky is also filled with nearby (in astronomical terms) objects that are HUGE, and fairly easy to capture with backyard equipment. For example, Andromeda is 6 times the visual size of the moon, the Rosette nebula is over twice the visual size of the moon, and so on. The only reason you don't see them that way is that they are too dim. I've been doing a project to capture them in context of landscapes to rectify this misconception. We would be able to see things like this if only our eyes were more sensitive. All of my images were taken with DSLR lenses, not even a telescope. https://www.instagram.com/dheeranet/ https://www.instagram.com/dheeranet/
- theelous3 5y ago
  yo, your shots are gorgeous! Thank you for this. Do you have them anywhere that isn't ig?
  - dheera 5y ago
    Yes! https://dheera.net/photos/calnight/ https://dheera.net/photos/calnight/
    - theelous3 5y ago
      Even better. Keep it up!
- cyberpunk 5y ago
  Wow those are really pretty. If it’s not too much to ask, could you briefly outline what’s involved in making such beautiful images? What kinda gear? Are you adding colour and things post?
  - dheera 5y ago
    Gear: - Normal DSLR camera with the IR filter taken out and a different (~700nm cutoff) IR filter put in -- you don't need this for broadband objects like galaxies but for emission nebulae that have a lot of 656nm light, it helps a lot. For some emission nebulae I use an dual-narrowband (H-alpha and O-III lines) filter. - Some pretty normal camera lenses. Actually mostly 30-40 year old manual focus lenses that are built much better than today's plastic crap and easier to focus properly. I highly recommend the Nikkor ED Ai-S 180/2.8 and Nikkor ED Ai-S IF 300/4.5 if you want a couple of winners. - A sturdy tripod that won't vibrate in the wind. Heavier the better. None of that carbon fiber BS. Steel is good. Video camera tripods work well. - Tracking mount, such as an iOptron Skyguider Pro in my case. All of the images I take are as close to natural color as I can make them, since landscapes in false color aren't exactly good looking. Most Hubble images on the other hand are false-color, and for a good reason: The Hydrogen and Sulfur lines both fall in the red, so in order to be able to visually distinguish the chemical processes they assign S to red, H to green, O to blue. This is commonly called the "Hubble palette". In my case O spans green-blue and S/H are both in the red, and although you can't really distinguish S from H in my pictures, but that's how they would look if our eyes were more sensitive.
    - cyberpunk 5y ago
      thank you so much :)

Gimpei 5y ago

Agreed these are spectacular. A lot of these pictures are very wide frame shots, so Hubble level magnification isn't really necessary. Instead you need a good camera, mount, atmospheric conditions, and some serious Photoshop chops. I tried to get into astrophotography a while back and was amazed by it's complexity!

dheera 5y ago

So the Hubble is good at extracting huge amounts of detail from small objects in the night sky, but what most people don't know is that the sky is also filled with nearby (in astronomical terms) objects that are HUGE, and fairly easy to capture with backyard equipment. For example, Andromeda is 6 times the visual size of the moon, the Rosette nebula is over twice the visual size of the moon, and so on. The only reason you don't see them that way is that they are too dim. I've been doing a project to capture them in context of landscapes to rectify this misconception. We would be able to see things like this if only our eyes were more sensitive. All of my images were taken with DSLR lenses, not even a telescope. https://www.instagram.com/dheeranet/ https://www.instagram.com/dheeranet/

theelous3 5y ago
yo, your shots are gorgeous! Thank you for this. Do you have them anywhere that isn't ig?
- dheera 5y ago
  Yes! https://dheera.net/photos/calnight/ https://dheera.net/photos/calnight/
  - theelous3 5y ago
    Even better. Keep it up!
cyberpunk 5y ago
Wow those are really pretty. If it’s not too much to ask, could you briefly outline what’s involved in making such beautiful images? What kinda gear? Are you adding colour and things post?
- dheera 5y ago
  Gear: - Normal DSLR camera with the IR filter taken out and a different (~700nm cutoff) IR filter put in -- you don't need this for broadband objects like galaxies but for emission nebulae that have a lot of 656nm light, it helps a lot. For some emission nebulae I use an dual-narrowband (H-alpha and O-III lines) filter. - Some pretty normal camera lenses. Actually mostly 30-40 year old manual focus lenses that are built much better than today's plastic crap and easier to focus properly. I highly recommend the Nikkor ED Ai-S 180/2.8 and Nikkor ED Ai-S IF 300/4.5 if you want a couple of winners. - A sturdy tripod that won't vibrate in the wind. Heavier the better. None of that carbon fiber BS. Steel is good. Video camera tripods work well. - Tracking mount, such as an iOptron Skyguider Pro in my case. All of the images I take are as close to natural color as I can make them, since landscapes in false color aren't exactly good looking. Most Hubble images on the other hand are false-color, and for a good reason: The Hydrogen and Sulfur lines both fall in the red, so in order to be able to visually distinguish the chemical processes they assign S to red, H to green, O to blue. This is commonly called the "Hubble palette". In my case O spans green-blue and S/H are both in the red, and although you can't really distinguish S from H in my pictures, but that's how they would look if our eyes were more sensitive.
  - cyberpunk 5y ago
    thank you so much :)