4 ms·

It would not surprise me if half the images are "photoshopped" by merging one image with another. The only one that looks real is the Buck Moon.

by z3t4 5y ago

weego 5y ago
That's just the nature of astronomy photography. Often hundreds of photos are stiched to make the final image. For some subjects and shots it's the only possible way it can work.
xondono 5y ago
It’s likely that some of them are constructed through “stacking”. The technique is easy to pull off, with software built for that specific purpose. You take your N long exposures, and then have the program map the movement of stars around you during those (if you do 20 30s exposures, you’ve spent ~10 minutes on it, so the stars will have shifted). Then the program corrects that motion and sums the images. It’s a cheaper and easier way to “simulate” a longer exposure, that would require a tracking system otherwise.
- bobbylarrybobby 5y ago
  This is neat: some Pentax cameras that have GPS, a compass, and most importantly a sensor attached to small motors that allow it to move inside the camera (normally used for in-body image stabilization), also can compensate for the movement of stars in a photo by rotating the sensor to keep the stars stationary relative to the camera. The GPS is needed to tell how the stars overhead will actually rotate. I assume that this means that anything stationary on the earth will be blurred instead, but still very cool.
  - xondono 5y ago
    Yes, part of the “art” of stacking is choosing a location where you can easily create a mask that covers the sky but not the ground to avoid blurry artifacts, and then blending the two sections seamlessly.
ekianjo 5y ago
yeah stacking is not photography anymore tbh. its more editing than anuthing else and the sky looks nothing like these pictures if you do not use such techniques.
- sativallday 5y ago
  Most images of galaxies and nebulae are accomplished by post-techniques.
- tomduncalf 5y ago
  My understanding is that the same is true of images from Hubble etc, they are false coloured etc., so I don’t really see this as a big issue in this case

It would not surprise me if half the images are "photoshopped" by merging one image with another. The only one that looks real is the Buck Moon.

by z3t4 5y ago

It would not surprise me if half the images are "photoshopped" by merging one image with another. The only one that looks real is the Buck Moon.

weego 5y ago

That's just the nature of astronomy photography. Often hundreds of photos are stiched to make the final image. For some subjects and shots it's the only possible way it can work.

xondono 5y ago

It’s likely that some of them are constructed through “stacking”. The technique is easy to pull off, with software built for that specific purpose. You take your N long exposures, and then have the program map the movement of stars around you during those (if you do 20 30s exposures, you’ve spent ~10 minutes on it, so the stars will have shifted). Then the program corrects that motion and sums the images. It’s a cheaper and easier way to “simulate” a longer exposure, that would require a tracking system otherwise.

bobbylarrybobby 5y ago
This is neat: some Pentax cameras that have GPS, a compass, and most importantly a sensor attached to small motors that allow it to move inside the camera (normally used for in-body image stabilization), also can compensate for the movement of stars in a photo by rotating the sensor to keep the stars stationary relative to the camera. The GPS is needed to tell how the stars overhead will actually rotate. I assume that this means that anything stationary on the earth will be blurred instead, but still very cool.
- xondono 5y ago
  Yes, part of the “art” of stacking is choosing a location where you can easily create a mask that covers the sky but not the ground to avoid blurry artifacts, and then blending the two sections seamlessly.

ekianjo 5y ago

yeah stacking is not photography anymore tbh. its more editing than anuthing else and the sky looks nothing like these pictures if you do not use such techniques.

sativallday 5y ago
Most images of galaxies and nebulae are accomplished by post-techniques.
tomduncalf 5y ago
My understanding is that the same is true of images from Hubble etc, they are false coloured etc., so I don’t really see this as a big issue in this case