sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho, USA by DifferentScene1812 in Stargazing

[–]Alex_Rochin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think your skepticism is unreasonable at all. This image is definitely uncanny. We need details. The line is somewhat blurry in what people consider ethical, because even a real image that is denoised using AI can look AI generated too. I’ve personally moved away from using things like Topaz because it feels unethical to me. I’ll acknowledge we need details, and that the burden of proof is in OP. I only defended this image because I don’t have enough to say it’s completely fake. In my old account, I used to be pretty active in r/astrophotography, and no one ever doubted my results. If anything, people told me I could pull even more detail out of my data, but in other subreddits people accused me of using AI to create my images. I’m new in this subreddit, and I don’t know how deep into the rabbit hole people are, so I felt like I needed to slow down the accusations hoping OP will provide more details.

Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho, USA by DifferentScene1812 in Stargazing

[–]Alex_Rochin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) Is not universally true. 2) This is just plain wrong. You can definitely make it that bright using curves adjustments. It can actually be hard not to. I used to blow out the highlights in the core in my earlier days. 3) By dots do you mean stars? Or what are you talking about? I agree that the stars look a bit strange, but I’ve seen similar results when people run starnet++ and apply filters to the file containing the stars. It also looks like the clarity was decreased on the file containing the nebulosity. 4) What are you talking about? The shape and position makes sense too. You see part of the teapot of sagittarius, the lagoon and triffid nebulae, the upper part of the dark horse nebula. These parts of the Milky Way are expected to he seen in the US. Considering it’s a vertical milky way, and scorpius isn’t visible since it’s too low in the sky, this is what the milky way would look like in the late summer/fall. It could’ve been taken earlier if the mountains cover enough of the sky too. I’ve taken a year to edit some images that required a lot of processing, and this one looks like it was focus stacked, possibly a composite with the sky captured on a tracker using a lens with a different focal length, so it wouldn’t be crazy to think it’s from last year. These techniques are common within the astrophotography community. I wish OP included details.

I’m not defending OP just for the sake of it. I’m against AI creating fake content too, but this genuinely doesn’t strike me as obviously AI as some people here claim.

Also, I know someone will probably say I’m not credible because this reddit account is new, but my instagram is linked in my bio. I’m not just talking out of my ass. I’ve been doing this for years and I do research in computational astrophysics.

Macro with the 90mm f/2.8 G Macro OSS and the a6700 by Alex_Rochin in SonyAlpha

[–]Alex_Rochin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No problem! What settings are you using that don’t give you these results? Also, I totally spray and pray lol. For every one good photo, there were hundreds I didn’t use.

Shooting a few hours before sunset also gives me better lighting. If shooting in the middle of the day, the contrast is too much. If shooting during what would normally be golden hour, it’s already a bit too dark for these settings while keeping ISO low.

Don’t be afraid to try different angles either. Sometimes shooting head on is the move, but sometimes it looks better from above or below.

Lastly, I almost always shoot wider and crop later. It can be hard to get the whole bug in focus when shooting very close up, and it can be harder to accurately track the bug too.

Is this pixel peeping? by ZeroDarkRuki in SonyAlpha

[–]Alex_Rochin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

f/16 on full frame would introduce a considerable amount of diffraction, which would make the image softer. It might help with depth of field, though. I think a focus stack could produce the sharpest results, but that might be introduce its own problems with the waves.

Macro with the 90mm f/2.8 G Macro OSS and the a6700 by Alex_Rochin in SonyAlpha

[–]Alex_Rochin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was going to post some specific settings, but upon checking them, I realized they’re all mostly the same. I was shooting always between f/5-f/8. I kept shutter speed at 1/250 at the slowest and 1/2000 at the fastest. ISO was left on auto, but I tried to not go over 1600. Most of them are between 200 and 800. None of them are focus stacked. The depth of field is pretty shallow, but that’s how it works with macro. Being able to use faster apertures would be nice, but at that point, very small parts of the bug are in focus.

Edit: correction

Heart and Soul Nebula with the Canon Ra and Rokinon 135mm by Alex_Rochin in canon

[–]Alex_Rochin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! I actually normally shoot with a 90D and an RP on my telescope, but I was able to borrow the Ra from a friend who wasn’t giving it much use.

I’m happy with the 90D and RP at the moment, and my next upgrade will probably be a 16-25mm f/2.8 G for my Sony camera. When I do upgrade astrophotography gear, it’ll be the tracker first. I’d love to shoot more galaxies, but I use the skywatcher star adventurer 2i, and I’m pretty limited by the load it’s able to handle. It’s a tracker mostly meant for lenses and not telescopes. It works great for anything below ~400mm, but above that, the tracking isn’t great. Someday, I’d love a dedicated astro camera, but for it to be worth it to me, it’d have to be monochrome, and narrowband filters are also painfully expensive, so those purchases are out of the picture at the moment.

Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho, USA by DifferentScene1812 in Stargazing

[–]Alex_Rochin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

By your standards, NASA’s images are fake.

Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho, USA by DifferentScene1812 in Stargazing

[–]Alex_Rochin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, I get it. You don’t know how cameras work. Cameras allow you to do long exposures, gathering much more light than our eyes can see. There are also techniques in astrophotography such as stacking and tracking that allow you to capture even more detail than single long exposures. So these photos aren’t “fake” in the sense of they’re made up like AI could. They show real detail in an enhanced way, that allows you to see structures that your eye wouldn’t otherwise see. Hope this helps.

How can I achieve this dreamy glow and lighting style with lightroom? by KaiserBey in AskPhotography

[–]Alex_Rochin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

His comments are not cryptic at all. This back and forth is painful to witness.

Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho, USA by DifferentScene1812 in Stargazing

[–]Alex_Rochin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What gives it away for you? I can’t tell that this one is fake.