Alley in Pisa, Italy

by Lars Kotthoff

submit your photo

Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged


I recommend you put those questions on an astro amateur forum, e.g. Cloudy Nights. You will get more answers + advice with respect to astronomical use of DSLRs or software...


Here is the process I use: cd ~/directory_with_raw_files ufraw-batch --out-type=tif --out-depth=8 --wb=camera --exposure=0.33 --black-point=auto *.NEF Of course, you will process CR2 files instead of NEF. I usually open just the first raw file to find acceptable parameters for ufraw-batch, such as exposure. Then install the stacking package: sudo ...


ufraw will handle raw files for you, and can do the basic processing that you mentioned. If you still need more editing, it connects nicely to gimp. In case you are running Ubuntu, Mint or a similar flavour, install it like this: sudo apt-get install ufraw gimp ufraw-gimp


Unless it is pretty cold out, you will want to use exposure stacking for such a shot. Not so much because it would cause damage, but rather because of the noise that your camera will pick up from a long exposure. As a sensor is operating, it is consuming power and this causes heat to build up. That heat results in mistaken readings where the sensor things ...


Yes, you have way too much light pollution. It looks like the sky is Bortle class 7 or worse Class 7: Suburban/urban transition. The entire sky background has a vague, grayish white hue. Strong light sources are evident in all directions. The Milky Way is totally invisible or nearly so. M44 or M31 may be glimpsed with the unaided eye but are very ...


If you can see as little as the glow of lights of a small town over the horizon, you're going to suffer from light pollution to some extent. Light pollution is the reflection of the "glow" of cities off the atmosphere, brightening it, so dimmer stars can't be differentiated. If you see the clouds in your first picture, they're so bright because of the ...


I would say it depends what kind of photo you are taking. If it's the Milky Way with a background/foreground in it, you have to go for a faster lens with a wider focal length like 21mm or below. And that too you are limited to 25 seconds of exposure as the earth rotates and beyond this amount the stars are going to trail. In your case you have to divide 600 ...


Actually contrary to what some are saying here, I have found astrophotography is not nearly as difficult as many advocate and you do not need a tracking mount. Astrophotography can be done with a crop frame sensor, but you are typically limited to iso's ranging from 1,600 to 3,200 and ideally some of the best photos come at iso's ranging from 3,200 to ...


Those two photos are heavily processed - you can't get that all in one image with one exposure. I'm not saying it's impossible, just extremely unlikely, from looking at the images. In fact, in the top one, she didn't do the reflection correctly, and the reflection doesn't match what it's reflecting - it's not obvious but there's some large errors in the ...


Yes, but it's not easy. Lens and camera are far less important than how you mount your camera and process your images - astrophotography is too involved to address in a single answer on stackexchange, but in short you need to mount your camera so that it follows the motion of the stars across the sky, and composite many exposures to increase your ...

Top 50 recent answers are included