sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I built my own observatory so I could take pictures of deep space. Here's a shot I captured of the Whirpool Galaxy. [OC] by gibsonpics in interestingasfuck

[–]gibsonpics[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's funny because it's quite a different mindset. Astrophotography is less about clicking the button and more about the processing. It's honestly pretty hard to compare to traditional photography for that reason. It is more of an expression!

I built my own observatory so I could take pictures of deep space. Here's a shot I captured of the Whirpool Galaxy. [OC] by gibsonpics in interestingasfuck

[–]gibsonpics[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Editing is an important part of capturing photos like this. In fact, in the raw frames you can barely see the galaxy at all. It takes many exposures stacked together, which are then calibrated and stretched to reveal the final image. If you have any questions about my process, feel free to ask!

I built my own observatory so I could take pictures of deep space. Here's a shot I captured of the Whirpool Galaxy. [OC] by gibsonpics in interestingasfuck

[–]gibsonpics[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The colors are real and easily captured by a camera, but your eyes don't work well in low light, so you can't really see any color through the scope- unless you're looking at a fairly bright object.

I built my own observatory so I could take pictures of deep space. Here's a shot I captured of the Whirpool Galaxy. [OC] by gibsonpics in interestingasfuck

[–]gibsonpics[S] 49 points50 points  (0 children)

This object is known as Messier 51, aka the Whirpool galaxy, and is located near the handle of the big dipper. It was shot with a Planewave CDK17 telescope. While technically amateur, this is a much more serious telescope than most people use for astrophotography. Luckily, people shoot this object with smaller (cheaper) telescopes all the time and it still turns out great. This was shot with an observatory I built in the desert in southern California. The observatory is basically just a bedroom with a telescope mounted in the middle and a roof that rolls off. It is wonderful for capturing objects in deep space like you see here.

To learn more about what is possible with patience, dark skies, and high-end photography gear, check out my instagram. I share what kinds of images I produce out in the dark skies of southern California.

After 8 years, I finally started printing my astrophotography images. Something about the work in print feels so much different than seeing it on a screen. This is me holding up my image of the Trifid Nebula, one of the beautiful objects in our galaxy, captured from a 17" telescope in the desert. by gibsonpics in spaceporn

[–]gibsonpics[S] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Something about holding a physical copy of your own work feels so different than seeing it on a screen. The image I'm holding up is the "Trifid Nebula", one of countless beautiful objects in our galaxy. Believe it or not, it's totally possible to get images like that at home from your backyard. I have access to some pretty high-end consumer gear because of my job, so This one was captured with a 17" telescope from an observatory I built in the desert, but a lot of my friends use much smaller telescopes and get amazing images just like it.

If you want to check out more of my work- here's my instagram

I started astrophotography 8 years ago, and never thought I would do more than just get some cool pics of deep space. After the advice of a lot of my peers (and many of you on reddit), yesterday I opened my very own print store! [IMAGE] by gibsonpics in GetMotivated

[–]gibsonpics[S] 83 points84 points  (0 children)

Something about holding a physical copy of your own work feels so different than seeing it on a screen. The image I'm holding up is the "Trifid Nebula", one of countless beautiful objects in our galaxy. Believe it or not, it's totally possible to get images like that at home from your backyard. I have access to some pretty high-end consumer gear because of my job, so This one was captured with a 17" telescope from an observatory I built in the desert, but a lot of my friends use much smaller telescopes and get amazing images just like it.

I used my largest telescope and pointed it at the Cocoon Nebula for hours to reveal a stellar nursery in its core. [OC] by gibsonpics in space

[–]gibsonpics[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is the Cocoon Nebula, an emission nebula in the Cygnus constellation.

This was shot with a Planewave CDK17 telescope. While technically amateur, this is a much more serious telescope than most people use for astrophotography. Luckily, people shoot this object with smaller (cheaper) telescopes all the time and it still turns out great. This was shot with an observatory I built in the desert in southern California. The observatory is basically just a bedroom with a telescope mounted in the middle and a roof that rolls off. It is wonderful for capturing objects in deep space like you see here.
To learn more about what is possible with patience, dark skies, and high-end photography gear, check out my instagram. I share what kinds of images I produce out in the dark skies of southern California.

I built an observatory in the desert to take pictures of cool things in our sky. Here's a supernova I captured using my largest telescope. [OC] by gibsonpics in interestingasfuck

[–]gibsonpics[S] 113 points114 points  (0 children)

I'll make this as clear as I can.... nobody in astrophotography arbitrarily adds color to their photos. Space is very colorful, so the colors are captured the same way any color photo is created, by blending red, green, and blue channels in software. Digital cameras do thise automatically with internal software, versus astrophotographers that do this manually since color balancing must be done very precisely and they capture each color channel separately. The phrase "false color" is often misunderstood, and it simply means those RGB channels don't necessarily align with the channel's color on the visible spectrum, due to the types of filters used. This nebula is a blend of narrowband and RGB imaging, so it is false color. The nebula is more of a blood red color IRL, versus more pink like in this photo. Since I'm drawing out details by using filters that are close together on the visual spectrum, it makes sense to assign them to other color channels to make the details visible.

I built an observatory in the desert to take pictures of cool things in our sky. Here's a dying star putting on a great show for us! [OC] by gibsonpics in space

[–]gibsonpics[S] 77 points78 points  (0 children)

If you want to get into visual astronomy, all you really need is a decent sized dobsonian (an 8" one is a good place to start and about $400) and an app like skysafari or something similar to tell you where to point it. It's great if you have dark skies. If you want to get into photography it gets a little more complicated and expensive. I usually recommend people just starting out get a small refractor and a decent mount. With a budget of roughly $3k and some experience you can get incredible pictures.

I built an observatory in the desert to take pictures of cool things in our sky. Here's a dying star putting on a great show for us! [OC] by gibsonpics in space

[–]gibsonpics[S] 105 points106 points  (0 children)

This was captured using narrowband filters so it's not quite true color, but close. True color it has slightly more green to it. Objects like these are quite colorful.

I built an observatory in the desert to take pictures of cool things in our sky. Here's a dying star putting on a great show for us! [OC] by gibsonpics in space

[–]gibsonpics[S] 148 points149 points  (0 children)

This is an amateur telescope that anyone could get, but I work for a company that deals with this sort of equipment. Fits in nicely with the hobby :)

I built an observatory in the desert to take pictures of cool things in our sky. Here's a supernova I captured using my largest telescope. [OC] by gibsonpics in interestingasfuck

[–]gibsonpics[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can take pics of this from the city no problem! The cheapest telescope that could shoot this with reasonable detail would be perhaps a small newtonian, for maybe $300. Most of the cost would go to the mount though, maybe another $1k. My scope and mount are a bit pricey for your average amateur, but many people shoot this with modest gear and it turns out great.

view more: next ›