A picture with the Moon making the image interesting - can be just the Moon, or the Moon just being pretty with foreground objects or stars and planets, new or old, but OC.See finder image (next post) for exif.
>>4525386
This is the moon eclipse pic from 2024A6700 + tamron 18.300Can t remember the settings is a pic i ve sent via WhatsApp to ppl
>>4525424
>>4525394>Can t remember the settingsIf you're on a Windows box, use File Explorer, right-click the file, "Properties", then the "Details" tab.Also, a little editing revealed a lot in your picture (pic related is yours, I hope you don't mind my presumptuousness). Do you know which lunar eclipse this was? File name implies Sept. 7 2025, which would match reality, but I can't match the field stars.
>>4525477
>>4525478
>>4525477Cool! Egret?
>>4525447I need to get back home and get acces to hdd with pics. If i haven t deleted them
100 pics60 darks60 dark biased pics at ss 1/8000pipp+asfull moon on 28-29thtook like 750 pics and 200 dark biased but as far as i can tell even zoomed at 800% cant find any visible differencesharpening 150% texture +100% dehaze +100% in lrc because why not
>>4525531420-800 lens@800f16ss 1/500iso 800>took like 750 pics and 200 dark biased but as far as i can tell even zoomed at 800% cant find any visible difference*in the staked end picalso fuck 4chin for resetting the cookies or some bs i need again to solve 4 bs captchas even after multiple email verifications
>>4525447my bad, sept 2025 eclipsef8ss 0.4siso 1600sooc jpgattached exported at 75% iq in lrc so i can uploaded
>>4525534anotr one from same night after the eclipse when the moon started getting illuminated againf 7.11siso 320
Shot this an hour ago using a 400mm lens I bought from Cash Converters for a few bucks. 100 light frames + 40 dark, 20 flat, 20 flat dark.400mm, f22, ISO 100, 1/6 sec, Sony a7iii.
>>4525565My autism kicked in and I had to edit it. Sorry.
>>4525565>>4525620Pretty nice lens with good details My tamron 18 300 on aspc so 450 on ff does not show that much and sharp details. And ive paid 900$ new. Only for it to be on sale for 550$, less than 4 months laterHere is mine from previous thread. Maybe if i ll edit it a little bit will look nicer as it was just the processed pipp+as pic with no edits
>>4525638>>4520759
>>4525638I'm wondering if maybe you'd get a slight bump in quality by underexposing your shots. I'm not always the best judge of these things but it looks slightly washed out, a lot of details can be lost in lunar photography if there's too much exposure. The whole point of stacking after all is to gather more detail by boosting your signal to noise ratio when trying to capture low light objects, which won't happen if you've already blown the highlights.Either lower ISO and exposure time or step down the aperture, or both.
>>4525620No, I appreciate your autism (although I don't appreciate the rotation - I'm in Australia, so the photo was the right way up)Out of curiosity, what did you use for sharpening it?
>>4525652Oh shoot - my apologies in particular for rotating.I use GIMP for most editing - rotating, resizing, light balance, and sharpening (gaussian).Sharpened twice: using radii of 3, then again with 2.Then resized, because a lot of the image real estate is blur - neighboring pixels in blocks of nine have no discernible detail differences - so that cuts down on 'superfluous' size.I find many images in general nowadays are what I call oversized. It's a hallmark of truly pro photographers when you see an image at original size retain pixel-to-pixel detail relevance. Frankly, Almost all of my images are resized except planets, where (paraphrasing Monty Python) 'every [pixel] is precious.'
>>4525638>>4525649Here's my attempt at that, but there was less skeletal information to work with. I sharpened once with a radius of 2. At higher settings it began to have a 'newspaper photo' quality about it, and the blue fringing at left became distracting.The biggest enhancement came from adjusting the gamma.
>>4525659>>4525620Why is the moon crop on a ff @400mm bigger than 300mm on 1.5x crop?2000x2000 vs 1200x1200?Shouldn't my moon look bigger and have more pixels in diameter?I will maybe try again tonight and underexpose a little bit
>>4525661400mm here - I neglected to mention that I used a teleconverter. It's variable and can be set to 2x, 2.5x and 3x; I think I had it on 3 but genuinely can't remember.
>>4525661Anon's original was 10000x6676>>4525565
>>4525668Better answer:Anon's original frame was 10000x6676. The Moon's diameter was 3230 pixels, and I cropped and shrunk the frame so the Moon is now 1570 pixels.>>4525565Your Moon's diameter was and still is 720 pixels in a 1208 square frame.So lenses aside, this is a demo where megapixels have a consequence.Another issue would be lens/camera quality. Do more megapixels simply magnify the inherent flaws in a system?
>>4525672But how did he get 10kx6.6k pixels pic out of 6k x 4k pixels sensor?
>>4525673¯\_(ツ)_/¯We'll have to wait for him to answer that.Digital zoom would be one answer and explain why I felt okay shrinking it.
>>4525664Isn't using a tc softness and iq decline the more x you use? Must be some really sharp lens
tried again tonight-0.7 expbut like a retard forgot switch off ibisa6700+tamron 18-300@300iso 200ss 1/160f11300 pics60 darks60 dark flatsno editing, just the pipp cropmy mouse started double clicking so i can t use lrc
This is my best shot of the Moon, taken in June, 2019.Nikon D5200m ISO-100, 1/500th sec.Schmidt-Cassegrain with reducer/corrector to effective focal length 2,106 mm, f/7.Image reduced in half to 3000x2000.
>>4525674>>4525673>But how did he get 10kx6.6k pixels pic out of 6k x 4k pixels sensor?I was wondering the same thing and was a bit confused. I just had a look at my Autostakkert settings and apparently I've selected Resample 2.0x at some point in the past and totally forgot about it, and then didn't question why my resulting file was 12032x8032 and needed resizing to fit within 4chan's 10000x10000 limit. I can only assume I'm a drooling retard.
it's clearly been some time since I've been on /p/, what happened to embeded exif data?
>>4525841Depending on the editing software and the nature of how the images are stored and finally saved, exif can get wiped out pretty easily, and difficult to restore.
nice moon shots anons
>>4525841embedded exif data gets purged by 4chink software because some retards used it for doxxing back in the dayall you can do is add the important exif data (camera make/model, shutter/aperture/iso, focal lenght) as a caption to the image. see >>4525936
>>4525937Just tested - true story! There used to be an option to include exif, and now there isn't.
>>4525490Yeah, a Cattle Egret I believe. Took this photo in a botanical garden in Málaga.
>>4525848>>4525937are these fucking AI answers fuck off>>4525940a while back 4ch was hacked via a malicious pdf upload because the backend was using an ancient ghostscript version with a vulnerabilitywhen the site came back, basically any feature that relied on calling third-party software on the backend was disabled because the 4ch devs got spookedyou can export with a watermark with the info you want to show like >>4525936 but personally I export it in the filename because I hate watermarks
Fujifilm XM-5 500mm TT Artisans
>>4526003How is the lens?
>>4526002>a while backlol newfagthat was just the last attack that lead to "show exif data" on /p/ being removedthe images themselves got cleaned of any exif long before that you fucking niggerjew
>>4526052so shit he has to crop to 1300x1300 lol
>>4526063I was pretty sure when I was talking about, probably 2018, it would strip the geotags but kept all the pertinent exif data like lens, camera, and settings. Maybe it was longer ago than that, I am an ancient little faggot after all, but I didn't branch into /p/ until 2010s
>>4526122do you mean like the little [exif] button next to the image?that's what I was talking about here >>4526002that was a feature only on /p/the site did strip all the exif from the image files themselves, so technically this faggot >>4526063 is correct
Sorry, I know it's not very good.
>>4526249It's a benchmark for you to compare with your future efforts, and it reminds me of when I started.Believe it or not, practice will enable improvement.
>>4526211yes, exactly that
>>4526249maybe not but it's got sovland by sovl I mean grain but still it looks cool
>>4526253>>4526277Thanks for the kind words. Just to avoid any misunderstanding, it's fake grain from C1.
>>4526280>it's fake grain from C1.I don't know what that means.
>>4526284I mean, I added the grain effect in Capture One.
>>4526329Ah. Thanks.
partial lunar eclipse from last month
>>4526572Purty!
Moonrise today,Jupiter below, Leo to the left, Cancer upper-right and you can see M44 (the "Beehive" cluster).
>>4526714cool
moona by the sea
I finally found my holy grail: the MTO-1000I'd read about them but never thought I'd see one in the wild and the idea of buying one from overseas didn't particularly appeal between the shipping costs and risk of damage in transit, until this week when one appeared on Marketplace only an hour away from me complete with the filters and original box for 350 Australian dollarydoos.It's in perfect condition, no scratches or fungus. It's fucking huge but the 3.9kg doesn't actually feel too bad when held. I'm gonna stick it on a tripod in a couple of hours and shoot the moon, might even try it with my 2x-3x teleconverter for laughs.
>>4529930Yes, those are iron sights.
>>4529930>>4529937Dear lord. Post some photos.
>>4529938Here we go. Haven't finished shooting yet (I want to try and find saturn with this absurdity) but this is a SOOC shot.
>>4529955And this is with the 3x teleconverter @ 1/80 400 ISO. Never had the problem before of the moon being *too* big, so this is novel.
>>4529956I'll post some stacked images later when I'm done. Now, time to try and get Saturn in my sights, both metaphorically and literally.
canon t7 rebel with sigma 150-600mm contemporary, 1/100 400ISO f/8 iircmoon was low in the sky so I think the atmosphere caused some loss in sharpness, gonna stay up late for friday's full moon and shoot while its higher in the sky
>>4529930>>4529937holy basedi want to see some bird pictures with this thing
>>4529956>>4529955Surprisingly decent. Nice find. Congrats.
Here's a stacked image from the MTO-1000, no teleconverter. 1/125 ISO 200. I'm impressed, those commies built a fine piece of glass.PIPP is having some trouble with the 3x teleconverter images (I assume due to the moon being bigger than the frame). It's late and I'm tired, I'll try to stack them tomorrow.
>>4529961I kneelOut of reach for me, I'd need a 1000mm on my camera to almost match that. The sorrow of the fool framer...
>>4529930>>4529937Very nice. A friend from Nevada got a similar Rubinar a while ago but I don't think it had all the accessories like that one.
>>4529981I know you'll probably need a tracker, but I'd love to see what this can do for deep-sky objects considering it cost you a few hundred dollarydoos. It's surprisingly good for decades-old reflex lens. >>4529983Is there a single thread you can keep your autism out of? Yeah, actual astro cameras use more like a 1" sensor, what's your fuckin point.
>>4529991My point is I'm getting FOMO for a crop or 5Ds. 5Ds kinda sucks so crop it is.
>>4529970Dem fuckin' strings of lights
>>4529981If you go through stacking to get better results, you might as well finish with exposure balancing.Nice shot.
Horrible photo, but this is the last moon photo I took. I was high on shrooms to the point I could barely function, and my friend who was also very high called to ask if I still had my camera, saying there's a lunar eclipse. I could not figure out how to work my camera, so gave up and used my phone. Dogshit photo, but nice memory associated with it
>>4530051Thanks, I'm a dumbass. It was nearly 1 in the morning and I knew I'd forgotten something but was too tired to think what it might be, and the exposure looked fine when viewed on a monitor in a dark room. That'll teach me to do post-processing in the dark.
>>4529991>trackerI'm really keen to try some deep-sky objects (the Carina nebula is a favourite of mine) but before it goes anywhere near a tracker I need an improved mounting solution. My LWS rails, Y-bracket, and velcro strapping felt very dodgy and I was worried about it tipping laterally off the tripod mount. The only physical connection is a single screw hole at the back which it could easily rip out if it fell sideways.
>>4530102>the exposure looked fine when viewed on a monitor in a dark room.Boy, do I know THAT scenario. I've posted dark stuff at night after editing and realized the recipients are probably all looking at the pics on their phones in daylight, and can't even tell what it's of.
>>4529961First attempt at a stacked photo. Much sharper but the software introduced some strange mosaic pattern.
>>4530168>strange mosaic patternWeird.Anyhoo... hope you don't mind my autism here,l but here's my shot at 'fixing' that, using GIMP: 1) Colors, Exposure, raised "exposure" up to just shy of losing detail in whitest areas.2) Filters, Blur, Gaussian blur at size 0.83) Filters, enhance, Sharpen (unsharp mask), 1.0
>>4530194Dont mind at all, thank you anon!I'm excited for this friday to get some full moon pictures
99% full moon tonight bros, I'm expecting this thread to be full of photos tomorrow morning. as far as i know, 99% illumination is better for lunar photography than 100%, but maybe i'm wrong.
my moon shot, I think there is some glare from the uv filter, I'll probably get rid of those, you can play with the levels on this one
This is a stitch of three screen caps from a video of panning the scope down the moon on a night of unstable air.
>>4530772Hard to compete against this, how many feet is that telescope
>>4530772Awesome.>>4530699Is this heavily edited? Looks fake to my eyes but I'm not claiming it is. Maybe it's just the filter.>>4530194Overcooked. Leave some softness in your photos. It's only natural.>>453006310/10 pure art.>>4529970Awesome. One of the best in this thread.I find plain photos of the moon boring. It's just gear wankery. The deeper your pockets the better your shots. I'd love to see more moon and sky photos with some layers and additional points of interests like planes, clouds, trees, branches, buildings etc.
>>45309013,910 mm f/11. Pic related.>>4530910>I find plain photos of the moon boringBut you're here... why? Coincidentally, there's guy in /ast/ saying he finds deep sky boring.Just can't please some people.
>>4531037>But you're here... why?Because I wanted to see pictures of the moon... I'm sure this isn't illegal.>Just can't please some people.Stop taking photos to please other people and don't take every feedback you get as a personal attack although I understand why it could be difficult on this website.
>>4530910I'm >>4529970, I'm glad you enjoyed it. However, that photo was actually taken on a phone with an S22 Ultra, but thankful for the compliment anyways
>>4531113Serene
>>4530910>I find plain photos of the moon boring. It's just gear wankery. The deeper your pockets the better your shots.I post in these threads because I enjoy the challenge of taking, or attempting to at least, high quality moon shots on a shoestring budget. I'm a poverty-spec shooter and have never used a lens for moon shots that cost more than approx $250usd. I've never owned a brand new piece of gear in my life and I only own a single modern AF lens, with the rest of my glass collection being older than me.I get what you're saying, it's nice to see some different photos occasionally. It's unfortunate that the ones you liked mostly (but not entirely) look ass.
>>4530910It's not, just 1 frame and raw adjustments, no ps. I think for most people it looks more real to their eyes, but not like hdr. Here's a out of camera hdr for comparison. It was after sunset, but still pretty light out, so I felt 1 frame was possible.
>>4531140I'm not saying this is the best example of hdr, I was just using that built-in feature, but I didn't adjust the bracketing at all, and you can see this picture is just a bit later and the sky is already darkening and has lost most of its color
>>4531037Wow it's very compact too. I have like a 4 foot reflector telescope 8 inch mirror and the moon doesn't fill the eyepiece. I guess I can get a different eyepiece. I've looked it up and it's considered to be 1200mm f/5.9. Maybe one of those interchangeable lens go pros can fit on it
>>4531158>Wow it's very compact too.Reflectors do that. The secret's in the secondary mirror. It's shaped to fold the light tighter so the whole tube is much shorter.What do you have for imaging hardware now? There are smart phone adapters for telescopes that clamp onto the eyepiece holder tube and are adjusted to hold a phone at the right spot.
>>4531104>However, that photo was actually taken on a phoneAnd why does that matter? It's a good photo.
>>4531228ah, misread the post. my bad
Important public announcement: fuck clouds
>>4531274Yeah, they suck. But sometimes they do add to the picture. But more often than not, no.
I tried taking bracketed pics but idk what to use to stack them. So here's one that i brutalizedAre there any free tools out there that do HDRs well? Darktable sucks ass.
Partial lunar eclipse from March 2025
>>4531427Why does that moon look like it wants open borders for everyone but herself?
Anyway...From May 3, 2025. Moon, Mars, M44
Took this last night having never really shot the moon before (just crappy smartphone pics where you see a white smear with some vaguely darker parts). I just have an old Nikon 1 so I was surprised to see this much detail. Took a couple of test shots and played with the settings a bit but not much.F/7.1 200.0mm 1/100s ISO-200
>>4532259Is this a 1200mm lens, or a scope of that FL?cool shot = gibbous waning is an unusual phase to see.
>>4532325It's a 200 mm camera lens, I think you're reading f/7.1 + 200 mm as f/7 + 1200 mm.
>>4532329You're right. Oops.
>>4532331Thanks for the compliment though. I meant to say that earlier.
Hey, Moonies... it'll be very close to Jupiter, in fact occulting it for some of you farther south around 8 AM UT.Get yer cameras out!
>>4533030Rising over the house across the street.Oshiro 500mm lens, ISO 5,000, f/13, 1/2 sec
I wonder if "Moon Photography" includes moons of other planets. If so, here's Saturn and four of its moons on Oct. 6, 2026 at 08:11 UT. L to R: Titan, Rhea, Dione, Enceladus (lost in the planet's glare) and Tethys.
>>4533302Damn, you can even see the rings
playing around with moon + trees
>>4535767
>>4535767>>4535768>>4535782>>4535784Nice set!I liked the last one the most.
>>4535790two different anons with the same idea i guess.I am >>4535767 and >>4535768I like the other anons photos too, though.
>>4535791Ye, it happens, your pics are also lovely>>4535790Thanks for the kind words, you two
>>4535791LOL! Well, this is my preferred then..>>4535768>>4535808>Thanks for the kind words, you two
My best moonshot so farwith a viltrox 2x teleconverter on the sigma 60-600mm set to 567.5mm so it was a 1,135mm shot at reno lookout on the 191 with a iso 50 & f11 1/200 & only a single shot no stacking at all
>>4531158A Dobsonian, right? Very common class of telescope, I used to have one. Didn't like the size & weight, the collimation requirements, or the lack of slow-motion controls on the mount, but the big aperture was really nice.>I guess I can get a different eyepiece.Careful with that, at f/6 you'll have to be mindful of how different eyepieces perform differently at shorter focal ratios, some handle fast optics fine while some need over f/10 to perform well, others sit somewhere in the middle. This is known as optical correction, usually shortened to just "correction" in common parlance. Your own tolerance for outer field aberrations will also play a factor in selection. Eyepieces with good correction for fast optics tend to be more expensive, especially if they also have a wide field of view. I think Plossls at least work okay at f/6 though, but you may find the small eye lens and short eye relief of the shorter focal length Plossls uncomfortable (of course you may also find it to be no problem at all, and it's about a 50/50 split so you'll be in good company either way).
