Are My Astrophotography Images Even Good?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2024
- Full Post: bit.ly/7astrotraits
1. Large, High-Resolution Image Size
2. Creative Composition and Framing
3. Lots of Overall Integration Time
4. Excellent Star Quality and Size
5. Overall Sharpness and Clarity
6. Effective Saturation and Color Balance
7. Depth and Contrast
I encourage you to comment on this video with your ideas of what makes a great image, and if I have left anything important out. While I do have a lot of experience with deep-sky astrophotography, I have plenty of room to improve in terms of technique, and image processing. - Навчання та стиль
IMHO the best image a person has is the one they like the best, not necessarily what the rest of the crowd likes! Great work Trevor! Dr B from Manitoba, Canada 🇨🇦
Trevor… I can’t thank you enough for this video. As a new astrophotographer I am constantly questioning my edits feeling so insecure in my skills and asking myself “what will others like?”
When I ask other amateur astronomers they always say the same thing. “It doesn’t matter what anyone else likes”. For a beginner looking for affirmation this is difficult to understand. But I’m beginning to realize everyone’s image is their own, and when I’m happy and feel at this point in time can’t get any better then the image is perfect (for now) lol! As my skills improve I can always go back and try new techniques. I started out loving vibrant colour and get the over processed vibe going too. But I love it!
You do this for you. If your happy with it, that's what matters. You've been doing this for many years. At some point you run out of targets , and just start recapturing the same. At this point all that's left is using different processing techniques to change from your last capture to get a different perspective. Always enjoy your work Trevor, and thanks.
As a newbie I had no idea that capturing an image with a scope was just the beginning. The processing adventure is just that and the results usually end up as personal preference. That's what makes this hobby so exciting where the end results are rarely the same but are influenced as/by art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As I look at what people have created I seem to hesitate on the unusual. It's the WOW factor. Over saturated? Nope, just right. For me. Thanks for the video.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some folks see the whole, some the individual pictures. Some see only the effort that went in to the software, and not the celestial object itself.
If I had your setup I won't be able to capture images that are even remotely close to yours, experience speaks in these fields sir
Its art and you are the artist. Make yourself happy.
Astrophotography is like writing music, drawing, writing, acting, etc: it’s ART. Your images do not belong to us and neither do the nebulae. This is your craft and you make your art. Imagine how awful it would be if everyone made the exact same image and you couldn’t tell the difference?
I love your punchy photos Trevor. Thank you for what you do and keep killing it and having fun for YOU.
You've been an inspiration to me for years. Keep up the good work and don't worry about the nay sayers. You don't have to satisfy anyone but yourself.
I'll definitely give these tips a shot when I have a nice night to enjoy, as the last time I had the chance to see the sun, moon, and stars was back in September 😟
A bonus for one shot color images and DSLRs, balance your levels and curves so your histogram RGB line up. Most DSLRs and especially modified ones really push the red out of camera. Bring back in that Blue and Green to match your red.
Clear skies.
Thank you for sharing. You and your postings are parts of the reasons i am entering this hobby again, after 30 yeas of absence.
Spot on Trevor ! Best Simon Lawrence
The 7 key traits of why Trevor is awesome. Thank you for another video buddy
Another great video, Trevor. I have been a landscape/portrait/still life photographer for many years. I spent 16 years shooting Fine Art at the Denver Art Museum, and have been truly intrigued by AstroPhotography of late. I agree fully with your seven key traits, no matter what the subject. Again, thank you, Trevor and Ashley for your dedication and hard work in presenting your passion.
I come from the camp of slightly over-saturating my images. I like seeing those colors. Great advice, Trevor
Honestly I like the kinda over processed images especially Ken Crawford. Yours is even better though Trevor.
The old saying, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
I think your new Veil Nebula capture looks great! Fully saturated with LOVE! ❤️😜
Hi, from all UA-camrs out there, from all images I've seen so far - I LIKE YOUR Style! I love your images, even its more saturated - I LOVE IT! Keep your style!
Thank you Trevor, super points. Clear skies
Great video Trevor! Loved the cool transitions on how you’ve planned your Viel Nebula image particularly. I don’t think it was over processed personally and I love seeing targets in new unique styles! Clear skies! 🌌
I'm glad you pointed out that astrophotography is a subjective art. We can process images for scientific accuracy, or simply artistic impression...and neither are wrong. It's up to the artist and expecting people to always fall into one category is short sighted. We can be inspired by the highly saturated intense images, and still glean the information we need from the scientific images. Both should have their place in our galleries!
Awesome video as always, trevor!
Thanks Trevor for more words of wisdom, keep up the good work, clear skies.
A couple years ago I seen one of your videos and after that I was hooked ... Last week I bought a telescope and now I'm spending hours on editing with no knowledge and I am loving it ... Thank you for introducing me to this world of Astrophotography.
Wonderful video. I always click Like first because I know it will be true. I’ve enjoyed watching you grow as an astrophotographer and videographer. I always learn something new. My preference was “natural” looking , like if you went there in a space ship. That bubble burst when I learned this was not the case. Galaxies and nebula are huge and dim. We are in the midst of the Milky Way and it is only impressive from dark sites; not glorious like long exposures of the similar Andromeda galaxy. Bottom line: the camera reveals so much more actual details than our eyes and becomes an instrument to extend or vision. If saturation reveals more details, wonderful! My post processing skills are terrible; mainly because it’s the part of the process I enjoy least. Great tips!
AND YOUR RIGHT IT DEPENDS ON ONES VIEW OF THE IMAGE THEY HAVE IN THERE MIND.. AND LOVE YOUR SHOTS OF THE SKY UP THERE. ^^^😉👍
I'm just about to start astrophotography, and TBH you are one of the few I am trying to emulate, so it's fair to say I love it.
A great video Trevor and I agree with your key points. Also, I really like your image. I've been imaging about the time you started your UA-cam channel and I gleamed lots of great info from them. Likewise, my style has changed from SHO images to where now I enjoy a bit more green in those images. I also try to find objects less imaged or regions slightly away from the main target that also have rich nebula structures. Keep up the great videos!
the last punchline 🤣 Exactly me! 😅
Some very good points well made Trevor. I don't often get a decent amount of data on a target and when I do I tend to obsess over processing it again and again. Having said all that, all those new Pixinsight scripts certainly encourage my obsession 😉
A great video for reflexion, which is so necessary. I agree this is the best way to skip frustration, insecurities, etc. Photography, speaking in general, is actually a career and you must be searching for your own path, step by step. Even the best photographer in the world will see an evolution looking through his own photos along the years. Thanks!!
This video is so deep. Thank you for spreading this message 👌🏽
Awesome video. Your images are amazing and what I consider to be the standard. This is an art and we are the artist. Your images are masterpieces.
I still love /hate the pic you made of the veil. The artist in me loves the vibrance and saturation, making it look 3d!
The child scientist in me says, "That's not what you'll see with your own eyes when you're flying towards it!"
It's a great image to be able to tug me both ways at the same time! 👍👍
I'll probably find the same answer below, but I wanted to be unbiased by other commenters. I think the main thing that is 'bugging' me with the image (which is very good by the way!) is the dark background. For me the best images are those that don't have a too black background.
Your point about our changing preferences rings true. I've been at it about 4 years now, and seen that, while I still have a lower threshold of how much saturation I like, it definitely has increased since I started. And I do agree that studying large numbers of images on Astrobin (and CN forums) has likewise probably influenced me. And NASA, for their part, has contributed to the situation by releasing gorgeous views from the Hubble and JWST. We really are astro artists, and as such, bring a fair bit of subjectivity to our craft.
Perfect processing afterwards
Hi Trevor, in the end each and every photo is a own interpretation in the end, since there doesn't exists a ground truth as a reference. Some of the colors can't even be seem by human eye. You do a great job and your channel is a great inspiration!
Trevor if you like your photos then no worries! I personally love them all! Overprocessing is the boundary of natural photo and an artist! Either way they are amazing! Keep rocking
Thanks so much for this
Love the philosophical video switchup
Trevor, as always thx for posting your vids, I look forward to seeing them each time. As for the images..
Ultimately it comes down the the personal preference of the photographer.. its THEIR pic, so if they are happy with it then thats all that matters.. yes there will be someone who doesnt like it.. but that is the problem of that person.. you will never get everyone to agree. Any pics I post are to my taste and I take images to please me not them.
What other people think of me is not my problem.
Keep up the great work, its always an inspiration.. cheers Cam
I'm only a bit over a year into imaging, but I've been finding I like to do one processing attempt that is focused on showing the data as realistically as possible, and then another where I really play around with what I like artistically (so far these have all been starless variations, but I imagine that will vary as I capture more targets).
I also hope I never get to the point where I'm throwing away otherwise useful data because there's some technical fault I'm worried the astro community might complain about.
I do this more for myself and my connection with the universe around me than for anything else, but it's nice to be able to share it with people too.
Excellent video. It is easy for us to have our taste shaped by social media & quantity vs quality of “likes” - the more saturation, the more likes.
For me colour is primary, especially in regard to Nebulae etc. kind of reminds me of those original Star Trek movies when you see the USS Enterprise flying through DSO’s! I think your image of the Veil Nebula is absolutely stunning. Hopefully I can get somewhere near it during my own astrophotography journey ☘️👍🎄
Brother ! You do You. I was about to give up and found out that I had many people telling me how they looked forward to my pics . We’re all artists in our own right. Picasso painted differently than DaVinci .
Opinions are like elbows and backsides! Everyone has one. I'm in my second year and slowly moved from dslr to a dedicated astrophotography camera. I no longer look at them as photos. It is a collection of data stacked upon itself to bring out as much as possible that the eye can not see. Processing is an amazing skill! And I for one know my processing is terrible. I use all free software and NO Adobe. I like my pictures(data collections)and that's all that matters. Every night is different and challenging. I for one like your processing skills. If a subject is oversaturated...it still shows a lot of detail that some of us won't see ever. And colors? I have seen so many objects with so many variations, that I have no idea what the actual colors are. Best part is...we all have it in our back yards but the human eye is too fast to see the details in the darkness. Will always admire your work and processing skills! Enjoy the night.
Interesting piece. I’ve noticed you’ve made several videos with a similar topic. I usually let the data and the object steer my processing. I’m more of a realist, so I prefer more “natural” colors and an image that is easy on the eyes. Then again, certain images wow me with their colors. Oh hell, you’re right. It’s all subjective!
As a casual enjoyer of Astro content the bright intense images get me excited. I understand the artistic liberties of the creators and respect that some people may feel it’s not representative of what most people see. I know what one I would use as a background tho…
Loved this video man. I found myself "over processing" my images, but they just look cooler lol.
And in many ways, the same people would tell NASA that they overprocess their images too. And many times if you ask for an image from such a critique, they aren't taking picture of the day material either.
Good points about the qualities that help photos be more successful. I also respect that you're owning your decisions on your image. As an artist you have the ultimate say in how your image should look. I appreciate that you explained your logic, but didn't apologize for it. I also fall in the more color is better camp with my own images. But, that's my general philosophy for life; if some is good then more is better and too much is probably just about right.
As an amateur photographer and a newly born astrophotographer (trying the Seestar and saving for better gear!), my take on it is not to listen too much about random people you do not care about.
We are doing art. In that regard, even if your representation of the subject is not « real », that’s not the point. The point is taking a picture of a subject with your own specific point of view.
For those who are doing it for « science », that’s fair, to each their own, but they are also the ones usually scrapping the works of other for the sake of looking real.
And real is a big world in a field where we are combining sensors data in a specific way.
Of course, as land photography, there are rules to follow for it to be « good » for most people.
It’s always subjective but humans seems to be used to see certains things.
I agree very much with all the points people should try to master in a picture.
Also, shoot something non conventional. Look at the core of Orion shot by the JWST, it’s insane. They shot something most of people would just be « yeah, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, I want to see the whole nebula ». Albeit it was for scientific reasons, but you get the point. 😊
You mentioned some other Astrophotographers to follow...and I have a few that I dig ie: Nico, Cuiv, Delta Astrophotography...but who would you recommend as I am always looking to learn a new perspective.
My technique is I process my images before I take them. Jokes aside, you're a huge inspiration Trevor. Thank you
G'day Trevor. Personally, that image looks frick'n awesome. Like art and music, photography and in this instance AP is very subjective. I am a newbie but even I know what you may think is 'great' may not be so by others (hey, i write and record my own music as a hobby - this is the channel - and yet some people love my songs and most others think I suck more than a Hoover vacuum cleaner. Oh well, can't please them all :) - keep creating those awesome images mate. Cheers Dan
I think it's unique that that this hobby allows us to put whatever personal opinion on to the final product, and that generally we can make our images look very different. Some people are better at processing data collecting with a kit lens and star tracker and others feel they need the latest and greatest equipment to get a fianl result that works for them. Either way its a hobby I really enjoy and I am amazed at how it has grown over the last 7 years.
I'm only just starting in the hobby so I'm not being overly critical as i know it takes time and experience. I keep in mind that i am trying to take photos that I find attractive and not scientifically perfect images. I have a good setup, better than I can make use of fully for now but that will come as i get better and continue to enjoy the process.
I often take a looong time to process my images to get them good. i still prefer a more natural look to them after a year of doing this but i guess i'll see how it changes
I definitely prefer a more 'natural' look (whatever that is) and your images are too saturated for me, but you're spot on with your key features and I totally agree, it has to be about what you, the astrophotographer, wants. Otherwise it's a job not a hoppy. Keep it up :)
Out of curiosity:
When you get to PhotoShop or whatever do you start with your personal saved presets or start from scratch every time? Using the preset as a starting point and rarely, if ever, the final push.
At the end of the day, astrophotography is part science and part art, and art is very subjective. This video is a good example, I personally prefer your "natural" version of the Veil Nebula myself. I have a mosaic of the veil region too (both eastern and western), and I actually did not remove the greens in mine, since I liked that version better. Subjective, personal preference.
Doesn't make me right, but it doesn't make me wrong either.
This got lengthy, but one really important keyword from your video is "inspiration" - being inspired to do your own version of these objects.
It's all a matter of personal taste, much like art or music. You like what you like. I can only look on with envy at the images you produce. I only have a little Dwarflab 2, as well as a 6" Newtonian with GSO optics and a Skymax 127 Maksutov for planetary views. The Dwarf scope can give the beginner some relatively decent images with minimal setup time.
I like your image of the veil. I captured a very similar one but I can't seem to tone down the blue which looks a bit over saturated in mine. To all my non astrophotography friends it looks great though. The main thing is it looks infinitely better than the first image I captured of this target four years ago so I'm happy with that. Ultimately I love this hobby because I find it both interesting and relaxing at the same time and have no desire for stressing myself out trying to be the best pixel grabber around which I know I will never be anyway. If people like my images, great. If they don't, well that's ok too. Let's face it to the human eye our targets look like nothing more than grey/green fuzzy blobs anyway, even through large scopes, so who's to say which processed image is the true representation. Great tips by the way.
Hey, I have a question, is a Nikon P90 Good for astrophotography? I’m trying to work with I can with a budget set. If you’re able to answer then thank you!
Your Veil is a beautiful image Trevor! yes, to me it's a bit over saturated but why not? As soon as you stretch that Master light you have moved away from science and into art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and art is producing beauty for some beholder, somewhere; maybe just yourself. You may need lots of things to be a good artist but you only need one thing to be a successful artist. What's that, I hear you ask? Well, to be successful you only need a buyer. 😄 You're good and probably successful. Keep it going, it's your art.
What ist better, high ISO and short exposure time or Long exposure and lower ISO?
Does anyone have any recommendations for affordable motorized mounts with manual controls or a manual one that can be upgraded with a motor drive?
Art is subjective. Its not like we just point and shoot and the final image is done by itself. There are so much in the process that just the fact that you archived that, it's amazing. That's breath taking.
So don't bother because someone say that this awesome photo is over this or under that. You are an amazing photographer and an artist
I´ve learning and appreciating your work for years now like many other students
Thank you Trevor
Great post Trevor! Very subjective IMO as you say we are all at different places in our Astro journey so opinions will differ
Cheers Si
To my mind, an image needs to be processed in line with the purpose for which it was captured. If that purpose is scientific analysis (think, for example, variable star monitoring) then the processing needs to be minimal and how it is done needs to be appropriate for the analysis that is being undertaken. If the purpose is artistic -- which is the purpose of most astrophotos -- then the processing can be anything that is required to get the effect that the astrophotographer is seeking. There are no rules; every technique and trick is on the table; and it's purely down to the taste of the individual as to how and to what extent they process the image. We won't agree on "taste" and one person may absolutely hate what another person absolutely loves. But therein lies the fun!
This is the beauty of “art”. It’s both a curse and a blessing that it is subjective.
I once went to an art exhibit at the local art gallery for a college assignment and there was this New York artist that had her stuff on display. Her art exhibition was literally three giant balloons hanging from the ceiling. My task was to critique the art… so I did. I was not a nice critic either with these three giant balloons hanging from the ceiling. My review was graded well but not without some aggressive remarks by the teacher. I still remember her comments to this day. Art is subjective. No one can tell you what you created isn’t art just because they don’t understand it.
I still don’t think balloons hanging from the ceiling classifies as art, but I also don’t care for the hubble pallet. I think it looks terrible. Will I tell you, it’s over processed and looks like garbage? No. No I won’t. I will give you my opinion, but it won’t be insulting.
Art is subjective. You do you. My photos look like I’ve had too many beers while processing. But we are also our own worst critics.
Here are all the reasons I think the more saturated one is better:
1. It shows way more detail.
Astrophotography is art, and it's in the eye of the artist and skill, but none are real just another form of art. But great art.
I love oversaturated images, they're more pleasing to my eyes.
czy to optyczne czy cyfrowe zoom?/
Its all a learning experience.
Hubble pallet is my standard
What about a 8inch telescope
My photos have none of these seven. Sad. Guess I will have to keep trying to improve.
I think my main complaint with some of the astrophotography these days is the ridiculous amounts of time some put into many of the objects you see them posting. And, this is putting a lot of pressure on newbies and others in the hobby to try and emulate because they see these great photos and want the same. People need to realise that spending the equivalent of days in gathering "data" doesn't necessarily mean your image is going to be better than someone who spends a fraction of the time on the same object. We are fundamentally limited by the physics of our equipment and the environment in which we take our piccies. And, no amount of time extra to what's really needed top capture a good image of an object is going to make the slightest bit of difference to that. It will not change the resolution of an image, the amount of noise in the image, the color or anything else. An image of only a few hours in length can be just as good as one of 40, 50, 100 or even 200 hours. As a matter of fact I would go as far to say that it is better simply because to take such long exposures of an object requires multi-night observations and that brings into it everything that can change over that period of time...including your luck!!! Having too much data can, in fact, reduce the image quality, even its resolution by introducing its own specific types of noise based on the fact that you have already reached the limits of your equipment and the environment you shoot in. So, for anyone that feels their 1 hour long shot of M31 isn't up to scratch just because Rob Gendler (sorry mate, no disrespect to your piccies!!!) posts one of 90 hours, don't feel that way. Your image is just as good as his and to you it's better. Don't get caught up in the imaging hype and the quest for "more data" because it's a road leading to nowhere except lots of financial headaches!!! Meaning "bigger and better" equipment. And, also, time wasted on one object at the expense of others and enjoying the hobby for what it is, not what it must be (at least in the eyes of some).
Trevor do you lay in bed hugging your pillow looking up at ceiling and seeing a projected galaxy crying hysterically while thinking to yourself should I edit the image for the 8th time😂😅 lmao I'm kidding man love ya
All your telescopes together are worth more than my house lol
Helix...that bar was set sooo high and I was let down so hard. Then I realized, yeah 1m scopes in Chile and New Zealand are a little better 😂 Still proud of what I got! If I ever get to the Atacama...
Heck I took a pic of the Milky way the other night and I did a quick edit on it and I think its the best pic Ive taken, astrophotography wise. Btw it was taken with my phone
Regardless of what people say... Photography is an art... The Eye of The Beholder... Astrophotography is no different. Everyone has their " Own Interpretation " of what an Image or Object should look like. It's Like going to an Art Gallery.... Not everyone is going to like All they see. But Respect the Artists Expression and the Story Behind It.
I think your right. Do your own Style, and do what you like 😊
Look @ those Photos of James Web, there so awesome, but who the hell can see in Infared?
I wanna see details, i can’t see with my bare eyes, keep going on…
I'm so sad I can't capture orion 3 months of cloud 😢 I just got a whole new rig
I don't think it matters if it's thru a telescope or a small lens. Process it til it makes you happy and you want to put it on your wall. To me they are all abstract designs and deserve some color. I don't post pics publicly, just to friends, and they know, I like color! I post several edits of one, and most people like a colorful one. How are we to know what they real look like anyway? We're never going to see these up close and in person, so make them how you want :)
In all seriousness, I do like *some* noise in my images. I don't like the washed-out, hazy, glass-smooth look where the image has been denoised to death.
I like some noise in the image, it reminds me of "where the image came from" - a noisy electronic system - it adds some character and familiarity to the image.
My childhood was spent reading the hubble space telescope picture books from my school library, and many of those images share the same traits with mine today. They have some grain, some noise, and a more mute colour pallete compared to today's instagram look.
My images of the same target change often I mean comparing last years veil nebula to this was like chalk & cheese for me, but comparing it with my first version many years previously using an ED80 & a ropey modified DSLR to my eye was miles better. As for your version I liked it but you can't please everyone sadly.
Only OGs will remember when this video wss titled "What makes an astrophotography image great?"
After 3 years, I stopped worrying about what other people think or like. You can't satisfy everyone. Especially others who do the and they get a different result. My images contain a lot of green, and others said that "it should be" _____ (insert another color). I said there are no "should" and "must" . My images are not made to scientifically measure gas contents of a nebula. My images are what I get from my camera and nothing added or taken away. If the color gets greenish, I won't be doing every sort of manipulative tricks to get rid of it. I'll try to color balance it the best as possible and that's it. In that point of view, my images are more accurate. And if someone says not, then that's his opinion. My image remains the way i want it to.
This is why I never post my images on line. Quite frankly I’m not really interested in others opinions of my photos. All I care about is how my images look in large format prints on my wall - to me. I used to have an in home professional pet photography business and made the mistake of posting one of my first images on line. I was proud of it because it had been selected for a calendar but didn’t mention that when I posted. It didn’t take long to start receiving all manner of advise on how to ‘fix’ my image. That was the first and last image I ever posted ..
In the words of Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it"
An astro image is like a steak. Over done, under done. Swallow what you like. Taste is a personal preference. However, if one other person likes your image and a million don't then there is something amiss regarding the image in the grander scheme of acceptance. I only have visual set ups but given 3 different images of the same target I could only tell you which of the 3 is to my personal liking. That may by consensus not be deemed "the best". There lies an ideology within the astrophotography community and an astro image of the year exists because it would be deemed so by the wider community. What if we had no digital cameras (noise) and no computers (processing) then the image would come down to how well polar aligned you were, how focused you were and how long you could leave your (film) camera shutter open and hope that a band of satellites or an airliner didn't bollocks up your image.
I just captured the orion belt
Personally I like the enhanced image. We all have our likes and dislikes. We use filters or software to change the look of an image. In fact any use of filters or software in itself is enhancing an image. Even Hubble and the James web images are enhanced to give them a WOW factor or to bring out details. The one rule in photography is all rules are meant to be broken. The best image is the one you are most happy with.
What do all great astro images have in common:
1. They took it with a CDK24 in Chile
Why don't my astro images look great?
1. I don't have a CDK24 in Chile