c/astronomy-photos

Spent a whole night trying to get a shot of the Orion Nebula from my backyard in Phoenix

My problem was a tiny piece of dust on my camera sensor that I kept thinking was a new star. I spent like 4 hours re-focusing and checking my telescope before I finally saw it on a test shot. Has anyone else had a speck of dust totally ruin a night of imaging?

Someone told me my star trails were just messy and they were right

I used to think stacking 50 shots for trails was fine, but a guy on here said my lines looked like spaghetti. I cut it to 25 shots and the trails are way cleaner now. Anyone else get told their stacking was off?

Choosing between a star tracker and stacking for my Milky Way shot

I had to pick between renting a star tracker for $80 or just stacking 30 second exposures on my tripod for a shot at Joshua Tree. I went with stacking and got way more detail in the galactic core than I expected. Has anyone else found stacking works better than a tracker for certain wide field shots?

My brother told me to ditch the phone for planetary shots and just use my 6-inch Dobsonian

I argued for months that my phone's 'night mode' was good enough, but the Jupiter photo I got last week with just the telescope and my eye was way clearer. Anyone else have a piece of gear they stubbornly avoided that actually made a huge difference?

The Orion Nebula looked way dimmer in my 2015 phone pic compared to the one I took last night with my new telescope.

I finally saved up for a Celestron 6SE and the difference in those ten years is INSANE, like seeing a whole new object, so what's the biggest upgrade YOU ever made to your astro setup?

Heard a podcast host say 'you can't see the Milky Way from 80% of North America' and it got me thinking

They were talking about light pollution and mentioned that places like Cherry Springs State Park in Pennsylvania are some of the last dark sky spots. I looked it up and the Bortle scale map for my area is awful, which explains why my galaxy shots are so noisy. Has anyone had good results from a Class 4 Bortle zone, or do I really need to drive 5 hours to a darker site?

Warning: I almost ruined my Orion Nebula shot by using the wrong stacking method

Last month I tried stacking 50 light frames in a popular free program, just using the default settings. The result was a noisy, soft mess. Then I followed a guide from a local astronomy club member in Tucson and used a different, more manual program, carefully calibrating with 30 dark frames and 20 flats. The difference was SHOCKING. The second image had crisp detail in the Trapezium cluster and way less grain. Has anyone else found that taking the extra time for proper calibration frames is a total game changer?

Rant: my friend said astro photos are just pretty pictures

Three years ago, I was showing him a shot of the Orion Nebula I took from my backyard in Tucson. He shrugged and said, 'It's just a colorful blob.' Last week, I finally got him to look through my telescope at Jupiter's moons. His whole view changed right then. Now he gets that every photo is a real place, light years away. Anyone else have a friend who just didn't get it until they saw for themselves?

Just realized how much light pollution messes with our photos after checking a dark sky map

The Bortle scale site showed my backyard is a class 7, which explains why my Milky Way shots always look washed out. Anyone know a decent dark site within an hour of Cincinnati?

Tried to photograph the Milky Way from my backyard last night and got a weird green glow instead

I was so excited, the forecast said clear skies and I set up my camera on the tripod. I used a 20-second exposure at f/2.8, ISO 3200, which has worked before. But when I checked the shot, the whole bottom half of the frame was just this weird, hazy green glow. It wasn't the aurora, and it definitely wasn't stars. I realized after about an hour of messing with settings that a neighbor about two houses down has one of those new ultra-bright security lights with a greenish tint. It was bouncing off the haze in the air and completely washing out my shot. I learned that even if the sky looks dark to your eyes, long exposures pick up every bit of light pollution around. Has anyone else had a specific light source ruin a whole night of shooting?

PSA: I was stacking my astro photos wrong for a year and didn't know it

I kept seeing these super clean Milky Way shots from places like Joshua Tree, and mine always looked grainy. I was stacking maybe 10 frames, thinking more was always better. Then I watched a tutorial by Trevor Jones from AstroBackyard where he said stacking too few frames with high ISO just amplifies noise. I was doing the opposite of what I should have been doing. Has anyone else had to completely rethink their basic stacking process?

Got told my star trails looked like spaghetti and it stung

Posted a 30 minute exposure of Orion last month, really proud of it. A guy in the comments said my polar alignment was off and the stars weren't sharp points, just messy lines. He was right, I'd just eyeballed it. So I spent last weekend actually learning to use the polar scope on my Sky-Watcher mount properly. It took three tries to get it dialed in, but my test shots are way cleaner now. Anyone have a good method for checking alignment in the field without a computer?

Am I the only one who thinks people are way too quick to call any light in the sky a 'satellite'?

I was out last night in my backyard in Phoenix, just looking up, and a guy next to me pointed at a steady light moving fast and said 'cool satellite.' Thing is, it was clearly an airplane. The steady light had that faint red blink if you watched long enough, and the path was all wrong for a polar orbit. People see any moving dot and just guess. It matters because it muddies the water for actual satellite spotting, like when the Starlink train goes over. I've been tracking passes for about six months now with the Heavens-Above app, and you learn the real paths and speeds. A real satellite doesn't blink, and it fades out when it hits the Earth's shadow. How do you all tell the difference when you're just looking with your eyes?

Just got back from the Atacama Desert and the Milky Way was unreal

I was at the ALMA Observatory in Chile last month and the sky was so dark you could see the galactic core with your bare eyes. I tried to take a photo with my phone but it just came out as a black blur. I'm looking for a real camera now, something under $800 that can handle long exposures. What's a good starter setup for deep sky stuff?

Serious question, how much editing is too much for an astro photo?

I read on a NASA blog that the raw data from the Hubble is basically black and white, and all the color is added later. That makes me wonder if heavily processed shots are still 'real' astronomy photos. Where do you draw the line?

My best Andromeda shot got ruined by a neighbor's security light

I was out in my backyard in Tucson, finally getting a clear shot after two hours of tracking. Right as I started the final exposure, a new motion light across the fence turned on and flooded my sensor with orange. Has anyone else had luck talking to neighbors about light pollution for astro shots?

Vent: My best Milky Way shot got ruined by a car's headlights

I was out at Joshua Tree last month, set up my Sky-Watcher mount for a 3 hour stack of the galactic core. Had everything dialed in, perfect focus, tracking was solid. Right at the 2 hour mark, a car pulled into the parking area about 50 yards away and just left their high beams on for a full 10 minutes. The whole foreground was blown out and the sky glow washed out half my subs. I was so mad I almost packed up, but I decided to just wait them out. They finally left, and I got another 45 minutes of data. In processing, I had to toss like 70 frames from the middle of the sequence, but stacking the good ones with the new ones still gave me a decent final image. Has anyone else salvaged a session after a major light pollution spike like that?

Warning: My attempt to fix a simple hot pixel in my stacked Andromeda shot took 12 hours

Three years ago in my backyard, I tried to photograph the Orion Nebula with a $300 camera. The results were so bad I almost quit the hobby.

I thought stacking software was a waste of time for my backyard shots

For years, I just took single long exposures with my DSLR and a basic tripod. Last month, a friend in Flagstaff insisted I try DeepSkyStacker on a set of 30 shots of the Orion Nebula. I was sure it would just make a blurry mess. The result was a cleaner image with way less noise than my best single frame. Has anyone else had a tool they doubted that became a game changer?

That crazy clear night in Joshua Tree last October completely changed how I shoot the Milky Way

I was out there for three nights, and on the second one, the seeing was so good you could see the galactic core with your bare eyes. I got a shot of the Rho Ophiuchi cloud complex with my 85mm lens that I've been trying to nail for two years. But now I'm torn, because some folks say chasing perfect conditions like that is the whole point, while others argue you can make great photos anywhere if you know your gear. What's your take on location versus technique for deep sky stuff?

I thought a cheap phone mount for my telescope was fine, but I was wrong

Spent $25 on a flimsy plastic holder and it dropped my phone twice, almost cracking the screen. A solid metal one for $60 saved my gear and lets me actually take decent moon shots now. Anyone have a good brand for planetary imaging that won't shake?

Hot take: I thought those 'phone telescope' adapters were total junk until I saw Jupiter's moons

My buddy brought one over last Friday, a cheap Celestron NexYZ, and I was ready to clown on it. We hooked it to my old 8 inch Dobsonian, pointed at Jupiter, and I'll be honest, my jaw dropped. The photo on my phone screen clearly showed the Galilean moons as tiny dots. It's not Hubble quality, but for $60? Wild. Anyone else have a surprisingly good result with budget astro gear?

Finally got a clear shot of the Orion Nebula after wasting $80 on a cheap filter that just made everything hazy

I learned the hard way that a basic light pollution filter from a no-name brand can't compete with the city glow and just washes out detail, so what's a decent mid-range filter that won't break the bank?

My shot of the Orion Nebula went from a fuzzy blob to showing actual structure after I finally learned how to stack 45 frames in DeepSkyStacker.

What's the biggest jump in quality you've seen from learning one specific processing step?