1.81
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
A short while ago, many of you chipped in with answers to the question « What single thing has made the biggest difference to your astrophotographs? » Allow me to ask what you would consider as the most important set of criteria that make a good and/or a great astrophotograph. I think gaining an understanding of these dimensions could help many to improve, by helping them look for solutions to the top issues in their images. CS, Emmanuel |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
It's very difficult to narrow this down to just one characteristic because I have produced many images that were fine in one but lacking in another, so that the overall image was unacceptable. Instead, I think of a triumvirate consisting of focus, low noise, and a uniform gradient. The better these three components of an image are, the better the overall impact of the image. After these three, I would put contrast between the target and the background. |
12.53
#...
·
|
|---|
|
"..................what you would consider as the main criteria that make a good and/or a great astrophotograph." The most simplistic answer is one that is "pleasing" to me (which may be completely unacceptable to someone else). And the "pleasing" aspect for me can vary greatly from object to object, depending on its magnitude, size, shape, sky conditions, etc. If you want to drill down a bit, for me:
|
|
1.81
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| Many thanks for your answer Ken! Just to clarify: my question aims at a set of criteria, not just one. |
5.73
#...
·
|
|---|
|
As insightful or in depth that the question may seem, I think it to be the oppisite. One may as well ask what makes a good marriage partener. You may be better served by asking what are the pit falls that need to be over come or mastered in order to create a good astro image. That may be easier to list as a criteria and goals to be set. They may be simpler such as maintain good focus, create/maintain good dynamic range, control sensor tilt, obtain a flat field across the image, create good sigle/noise ratio, etc. In other words, ask what are the factors that contribute to a poor/unexceptable astro image. And there you have your answer. if you are wanting to get into the aesthetics of photography/astrophotography, I fear you will open a Pandora's Box. As an Art/Painting professor for 38 years, I will not go there. Lynn K. |
8.42
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| It depends on the person and on the mood. I'm a fan of *interesting* rather than aesthetically pleasing. A blurry picture of an unusual astrophysical phenomenon or an obscure galaxy speaks more to me than some of the more artistically perfect pictures here. |
1.81
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi Emmanuel,I believe the outstanding image differs from an ordinary one once the imager is aware of what kind if object is he capturing. When you are taking image of a deep-sky object you generally don't know how the scene is actually composed in the space. If you have no idea about the objects that are in the background and foreground of the image you will highly likely get a "flat" scene. Especially if you will try to bring out all finest detail and colour during postprocessing. So I advise that if you pretend to get a really interesting image, you should spend some time to read some (scientific-grade) sources to know more about your target. Knowing your target makes the difference! CS, Konstantin |
7.53
#...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
I point you all towards the technical requirements considered here on Astrobin: Once you got that down, critiques become subjective which is a good place to be in. |
11.01
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
For me, at the moment, it's about taking and processing one that is better than I have done before. I'm still (like many people I assume) learning all the initricasies of this hobby. It's really complicated, yet gets simpler with each step forward. I don't yet take great astrophotographs, but I can say that I'm understanding it more each day and each new learning shows up in my photos. What I will say is that it's not about just spending money on equipment. I'm still using the scope (a Skywatcher 200PDS) that my wife bought me as a surprise present four years ago and I know that I still can't do it justice with my current skill set. That's a £380 OTA. So, if my skills can't optimize the image from that tube assembly, then why spend more money on anything better. When I first started this hobby I was questioning the equipment I had within a few months. I now know better and will actually just focus on my skills and hopefully, one day, I will get to the stage where I am equipment-limited. |
1.51
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| If it pleases me, then it's good! |
|
1.81
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi to all, I’ve tried to synthesize your answers with my readings and the little experience I have. I hope it can be useful to beginners, like me! Feel free to suggest any modification, I’ll keep updating this summary.  |
11.14
#...
·
|
|---|
Feel free to suggest any modification, I’ll keep updating this summary. Very nice! I have two suggestions: One is to combine "Round stars" and "Sharp focus" into one factor, Sharp stars (and the radar chart becomes hexagonal which looks better imho  ). Secondly, to reduce the clutter I would remove the dashed box and I would avoid mentioning specialized solutions like the mount modifications.Disclaimer! I am not a graphics designer!  |
1.20
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
The secret to producing a beautiful astrophotography is to go to Namibia with a 50.000 € setup after having done a processing course in photoshop (no pixinsight or other beats). Seriously I think the most important thing is never to be satisfied, never satiated with one's appetite for improvement. We must always be critical of our photographs and never be satisfied with the many likes received. Persevering in processing is especially important. Processing is the hardest thing to learn and it can turn a caterpillar integration into a beautiful butterfly photograph even if we are shooting under a non-beautiful sky with cheap equipment. It is true that the sky helps because sometimes a single single shot of 600 seconds is equivalent to an integration of two hours under a bad sky and this shortens the times and makes processing easier. |
0.90
#...
·
|
|---|
| I think a natural looking photo with an unusual object and/or composition, i.e not M42 with clipped histogram, strong color cast and centered in the field of view with north up. |
|
7.46
#...
·
|
|---|
| A black, utterly black, field. |
3.21
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Allow me to ask what you would consider as the most important set of criteria that make a good and/or a great astrophotograph. Getting out the best of the equipment used. |
15.65
#...
·
|
|---|
| Clean details and a sense of depth - three dimensionality. |
