"Star Gazer's Observations"

In this blog, I will be showing and describing my findings, looking into the stars. Hopefully, you'll enjoy what I find in the images.

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

A brief history of the early photos of the Moon

The Moon is the brightest object in the night sky, so when photography was invented, photographers were determined to get the first image of it.

The very first person to take a photo of the moon was known as Louis Daguerre, the man who invented the daguerreotype process, one of the earliest forms of photography. It was so popular that renowned U.S president Abraham Lincoln and poet Emily Dickenson had their photos taken in daguerreotypes.

He took the photo in 1839- however- a fire broke out in his laboratory and burned all of his work to the ground. This meant that the first known photo of the moon, was burned up, and destroyed forever. However, not too long after, in 1840, John William Draper took a photo using the daguerreotype process from a observatory, this photo of the oldest surviving photo of the Moon is shown below.

The following are photos taken around the same time, with their creators listed with them.

(John Adams Whipple and James Wallace Black)

(John Adams Whipple)

When Draper had a son (Henry Draper), he inherited his father's passion for astrophotography. Even with it being not too long after photography was first invented (1822), he took some remarkable photos of the Moon, and is well-known for taking some of the clearest and best photos of the moon for the 19th century, the detail on these images were (and still very much are) incredible for the time!

Shown below is Henry Draper and his most famous photos of the Moon.

Henry Draper's Observatory ^

As the years went on the quality of these photos got clearer and more consistent, since there were different ways to take photographs as the years went on. When a new century arrived, new photos were being taken of several planets in our solar system, such as Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Neptune, etc. An example of the new photos include the following image

(Weltall und Menschheit) Taken on a lithograph

(Soviet Spacecraft) 07 October 1959, Luna 3 captured the dark side of the moon on film, then developed it robotically and faxed photos to Earth.

Over one hundred years after the first photo of the moon was taken by Louis Daguerre in 1939, the United States landed on the moon. When they landed, they took this iconic photo, which was labelled as the "Greatest picture ever" in 1969. It was the first time a man had stepped on the moon, and it illustrates how monumental this image was to the American people.

Buzz Aldrin on the Lunar surface

Jim Irwin next to the lunar module that allowed them to get safely to the surface.

Even in 2024, we are still taking incredible photos of the different planets in our solar system (and beyond), they are much higher quality than those taken over one-hundred years ago. But that doesn't mean that those photos should be forgotten about- because without them, we wouldn't be where we are today. We wouldn't be taking photos of the moon like this incredible, jaw-dropping photo of it taken in 2024 by Astro-photographers Andrew McCarthy and Connor Matherne.

SOURCES:

How We Saw the Moon: Top Ten Apollo Images

On February 26, 2016, we opened our latest exhibition of imagery, A New Moon Rises, in our Art Gallery.

Soviet spacecraft photographs the dark side of the moon - WiredPen

On 07 October 1959, Luna 3 captured the moon on film, then developed it robotically and faxed photos to Earth.

TITLE : MOON PHASE ORIGIN : germany DATE : 1900 TECHNIQUE : lithograph MEASUREMENT : paper is 7.5 x 11" CONDITION : this is an original vint

https://www.1000museums.com/shop/art/henry-draper-charles-bierstadt-full-moon-from-negatives-taken-by-prof-h-draper-with-his-silvered-glass-telescope/

This is the Oldest Surviving Photo of the Moon

These days anyone with a cheap point-and-shoot camera or even a cell phone can snap a picture of the Moon (although I highly advise using at

A Brief History of the Very First Moon Photos Ever Taken

To get detailed photos of the surface, pioneers used plaster casts.

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

My presentation at the "Stars" event

A few weeks ago, I attended the "Stars" event, which showcases the talents and research of students in a wide variety of areas.

In my presentation, I spoke about my colorized photos of the Crab and Iris Nebula with my partner Andrew Berlo, who spoke about his photos separately, he took colorized photos of Saturn and the Flame Nebula, which he did a fantastic job on, which you can see labelled below.

(Flame Nebula, colorized and edited by Andrew Berlo)

(Saturn, colorized and edited by Andrew Berlo)

In our poster, we compared our final results of the Crab Nebula photos, and the following is what we said about our final results.

"For my image of the Crab Nebula, I edited to make the Crab Nebula appear greenish in color, while also having blue, green, and red appear throughout the surrounding stars. The Crab Nebula is located about 6,500 light years from Earth and is a supernova remnant located in the constellation Taurus." (Andrew Berlo)

"For my image of the 'Crab Nebula', I had made several attempts to get a clear shot of this image, but finally was able to get one once I applied several settings and tools. Including the 'Curves', 'Levels' and 'Hard Light' filter to the 'Luminance' layer, which allows everything in the image to be much clearer and brighter. ​

My result ended up showing the nebula as being more of a cloud, unlike Andrew's. Which shows more of the interior of the nebula. ​

This image was the result of 3 other attempts that resulted in an either an overexposed or pixelated mess." (Cameron Williams)

I also spoke in detail about my final product of the Iris Nebula, in the description, I went in-depth on the details of how I edited it, and how I got the final result. And here is what I said in the poster;

"In this image of the Iris Nebula, I used the editing software 'GIMP' to manipulate the three main layers of this image, those are the Blue, Green, and Red layers. ​

      Located 1,300 light years away, the Iris Nebula appears to be predominantly Blue. However, in my editing process, although  it did come out a bright blue color, it was not very clear. And the clearest I could get it was when I increases the red color's intensity, which made it appear to be a purple hue to it. ​

In fact, I had to make a second 'Luminance' layer and add a "Hard Light" filter for the Nebula to be picked up on the screen."

Overall, I enjoyed the event, I saw other people's presentations about the same thing (Astrophotography), but also other topics, such as "Adoption", "Housing Costs", etc.

SOURCES:

References​

“The Crab Nebula seen in New Light by NASA’s Webb”, NASA Observatory, 30 October 2023, The Crab Nebula Seen in New Light by NASA’s Webb – NASA​

​

“Saturn”, NASA, February 2024, Saturn - NASA Science​

​

“Flame Nebula”, Wikipedia, 20 March 2024, Flame Nebula -​

 Wikipedia  ​

​

"NGC 7023", Astro Backyard, https://astrobackyard.com/iris-nebula/​

​

"The Iris Nebula", Wikipedia, July 25 2023:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Nebula

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

My Photo of the Iris Nebula

Attached is a photo of the "Iris Nebula" that I colorized and enhanced.

This was the first photo that I attempted to colorize and enhance after my "Crab Nebula" one. This attempt was much more successful than my "Crab Nebula" one, due to the fact that I had practiced colorizing and editing on the last photo. It also was brighter than the Crab Nebula to begin with, so I didn't need to focus on stretching up the "Levels" and "Curves" as heavily as I did in the Crab Nebula photo.

Located about 1,300 light-years away, the Iris Nebula (also referred to as "NGC 7023") is located in the 'Cepheus' Constellation, and belongs in the class of Nebula known as a "Reflection". Other well-known 'Reflection Nebulas" are named the "Blue Horsehead Nebula", and the "Running Man Nebula" which is located in the Orion Constellation. The Iris Nebula is also about six light years (35.28 trillion miles) long!

With the help of the BSU Observatory and Professor Kern, I was able to get a clear picture of the Iris Nebula. The original picture did not show much, all I could see was the faint center, which was visible (unlike the Crab Nebula). Once I increased the luminance level and changed the "Curves" and "Levels" tools around slightly, I was able to get a view of the stars and dust clouds surrounding the center of it, that photo is shown below this paragraph.

(This photo was after increasing the "Levels" and "Curves" on the photo, NOT the luminance layer)

You may look at the first photo and notice that the color of it is primarily purple- in fact- its ALL purple. The reason behind this is that prior to increasing the "red" layer's intensity, it was not clear enough for my liking, the dust clouds in the photo were being muted out by the "blue" layer. In order for the clouds to appear prominently, I had to add to the "red" layer's intensity, and it worked, the downside is that it made everything purple.

Below is an photo taken by Trevor Jones, which shows the Iris Nebula being shown as blue, unfortunately, my photo was only clear when I made it look purple.

What gives off it's iconic blue glow is the star that is located inside the Nebula, it is known as "SAO 19158". The reason that it is blue is because of the temperature of the star, which falls between 10-50,000 Kelvin. The star is about ten to fifteen times the mass of our sun, and illuminates the dust clouds surrounding it, which gives us the jaw-dropping beauty of the "Iris Nebula"

SOURCES:

"Stars | Causes of Color" (Webexhibits)

"Iris Nebula" (StarryWonders)

Iris Nebula

"The Iris Nebula" (AstroBackyard)

The Iris Nebula | Astrophotography Tips and Advice for Capturing a Reflection Nebula

The Iris Nebula in Cepheus contains a lot of dark interstellar dust that blocks out surrounding starlight. Showcase these areas and the mix

"iris Nebula" (Wikipedia)

Iris Nebula - Wikipedia

Photo Credits:

BSU Observatory

Trevor Jones

NASA

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

Final Colorized Image of the "Crab Nebula"

Shown here is my final image of the "Crab Nebula". You may look at this and say- "Hey, that looks familiar!", and that's because it is the exact same as my "work in progress" photo.

Unfortunately, after multiple hours of changing the "Red, Green, and Blue" layers on the editing software "GIMP", I was unable to get the image any clearer than this image. In fact- this image was better stabilized all around. The "Luminance layer" (as you may remember), is what brightens up the image, and overall keeps the image more appealing to look at. It can also keep everything clear, and can make the main subject of the image stand out.

I attempted to lower the brightness, but unfortunately it resulted in the image below, I decided that the first image was a better overall result.

Although you can still see the nebula itself, you cannot see the surrounding dust clouds as much, which add to the nebula's size and impact on the screen. Without the Luminance Layer being set so high, it is nearly impossible to see the actual size of the Crab Nebula, it also removes the much of the detail of the stars in the background.

After attempting to use the "Curves" and "Levels" tool to attempt to save the image- I decided that changing it any further would end up making the image seem distorted. I was happy stopping where I was, since you could still see a lot of detail, and can still see the different colored stars in the background (which is a good sign, since not all stars are the same color, they vary in color and temperature.

One thing I do not like about my final image is how the image looks more "blue" then expected. Even after using the different tools and filters within GIMP, it did not help much, and any other colors would cause the detail to be lost in some places, specifically the stars (which i was the most concerned about).

Overall, im happy with how this image turned out, and am glad I did this as practice, since this helped me make my future photos clearer and more defined in the places that it mattered.

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

The Early Days of Astrophotography

During class we learned about the early days of Astrophotography. When we first started talking about it, I did not expect high-quality photos at all. I was expecting the same as the early days of the original camera (low-quality, and not much detail showing), but what we looked at are shockingly detailed! Even compared to today's standards. You can see in the attached photos that the stars and surface of the moon are incredibly detailed.

In the first image, it is an example of the wet collodion process. Which involves cutting a piece of metal or glass, and exposing it to a multitude of chemicals (including egg-whites), and finally, exposing it to your target (What you want to capture), for a few minutes, and finally letting it dry. This would leave you with something that looked like this. It is a photo-negative, but when inverted, it is a clear image of the stars.

In this second image, it is another example of the "wet collodion process", except this time- it is the moon. The photographer would have to keep the sheet of glass or metal aimed directly at the moon, even while it was moving in the sky.

Moon image credit: ("Mercurio" https://www.flickr.com/photos/agustinbarrutia/6358462243 )

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

.

(REVISION)

During class, we learned about the early days of Astrophotography. When we first started talking about it, I did not expect high-quality photos at all. I was expecting the same as the early days of the original camera (low-quality, and not much detail showing), but what we looked at are shockingly detailed! Even compared to today's standards. You can see in the attached photos that the stars and surface of the moon are incredibly detailed.

When looking at the image above, you may see a picture of white smoke on a piece of paper, which I wouldn't blame you for thinking. I was thinking the same thing until my teacher told me that this (and the other images she handed out) was an inverted image of a nebula. This is called "dry plate photography" (a plate which was covered in gelatin with silver halides in solution, and then the gelatin was allowed to dry.)

You can see this yourself by inverting the colors on your phone and looking at it through your phone's camera. I was already impressed by this image, especially because even as an inverted image, you can see the amount of detail it picked up when the image was being processed. However- when I learned that these images were over thirty years old, I was even more impressed, which I did not think was even possible.

Now this image is interesting, this is an image of the moon. Seems simple enough- however, the image was made using an old technique for astrophotography called the "wet collodion process". This is a labor-intensive process used the following steps in order for a singular image to be taken; "used a prepared piece of glass which, in the darkroom, would be coated with collodion and then made light-sensitive with further chemicals. Before the plate could dry, it would be placed in the camera and exposed" (Royal Collection Trust).

This specific image seems to be a mystery for it's origins. After reverse image searching, I could only find one person who posted about it, but they left no credit to who took it. So I will leave that person in my "credit" section in this blog. They also included a video to show how a person can do a wet collodion processed image to a person. Not necessarily an astrophotography one. Still- it is a nice look into how this process was done.

CREDIT:

This processes used a piece of prepared glass

The description of "Dry plate photography" was given to me by Professor Kern (thank you!).

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

(FINAL REVISION)

During class, we learned about the early days of Astrophotography. When we first started talking about it, I did not expect high-quality photos at all. I was expecting the same as the early days of the original camera (low-quality, and not much detail showing), but what we looked at are shockingly detailed! Even compared to today's standards. You can see in the attached photos that the stars and surface of the moon are incredibly detailed.

When looking at the image above, you may see a picture of white smoke on a piece of paper, which I wouldn't blame you for thinking. I was thinking the same thing until my teacher told me that this (and the other images she handed out) was an inverted image of a nebula. This is called "dry plate photography" (a plate which was covered in gelatin with silver halides in solution, and then the gelatin was allowed to dry.)

You can see this yourself by inverting the colors on your phone and looking at it through your phone's camera. I was already impressed by this image, especially because even as an inverted image, you can see the amount of detail it picked up when the image was being processed. However- when I learned that these images were over thirty years old, I was even more impressed, which I did not think was even possible.

Now this image is interesting, this is an image of the moon. Seems simple enough- however, the image was made using an old technique for astrophotography called the "wet collodion process".

This labor-intensive process used the following steps in order for a singular image to be taken; "used a prepared piece of glass which, in the darkroom, would be coated with collodion and then made light-sensitive with further chemicals. Before the plate could dry, it would be placed in the camera and exposed" (Royal Collection Trust).

This specific image seems to be a mystery for it's origins. After reverse image searching, I could only find one person who posted about it, but they left no credit to who took it. So I will leave that person in my "credit" section in this blog. They also included a video to show how a person can do a wet collodion processed image to a person. Not necessarily an astrophotography one. Still- it is a nice look into how this process was done.

CREDIT:

This processes used a piece of prepared glass

The description of "Dry plate photography" was given to me by Professor Kern (thank you!).

[apod]

2024 January 23

Deep Nebulas: From Seagull to California Image Credit & Copyright: Alistair Symon

Explanation: How well do you know the night sky? OK, but how well can you identify famous sky objects in a very deep image? Either way, here is a test: see if you can find some well-known night-sky icons in a deep image filled with faint nebulosity. This image contains the Pleiades star cluster, Barnard’s Loop, Horsehead Nebula, Orion Nebula, Rosette Nebula, Cone Nebula, Rigel, Jellyfish Nebula, Monkey Head Nebula, Flaming Star Nebula, Tadpole Nebula, Aldebaran, Simeis 147, Seagull Nebula and the California Nebula. To find their real locations, here is an annotated image version. The reason this task might be difficult is similar to the reason it is initially hard to identify familiar constellations in a very dark sky: the tapestry of our night sky has an extremely deep hidden complexity. The featured composite reveals some of this complexity in a mosaic of 28 images taken over 800 hours from dark skies over Arizona, USA.

∞ Source: apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap240123.html

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

(REVISION)

When looking at this remarkable image, it is easy to look at it and think to yourself- “That’s pretty”, and move on. However, there is much more to look at than the image as a whole. Lets take another look at the image, but this time, look at the different parts. The first part I want to take a look at is the big blue spot almost in the dead-center in the image. This spot is the hottest area, since blue is the hottest color that we know of.

You can see the blue spot almost resembles an eye, and the yellow area around it seems to be trailing off , the outer ring of it seems to resemble a head and a snout, you can also make out what seems to be the tips of ears on the top of the image. I like to call this Nebula the “Fox Nebula”.

We can now look to the left side of the screen, to the left of the big blue dot, we can see what looks like the remnants of the exact same shape we see fully formed in the blue dot. Some may look at this and think that it was a glitch with the camera, and while that very well might be true- I see this as a part of the “fox-head” I described in the previous paragraph. I believe this was originally part of it many years ago- but was not as strong, or built together. So it ended up drifting apart, due to a multitude of different factors, leaving only a fraction of what it once was.

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

(FINAL EDIT Of my APOD image)

When looking at this remarkable image, it is easy to look at it and think to yourself- "That's pretty.", and move on. However, there is much more to appreciate in the smaller parts of the image- rather than the image as a whole. Lets take another look at the image, but this time, look at the different parts. The first part I want to take a look at is the big blue spot almost dead-center in the image. This spot is the hottest area that we can see, since blue is the hottest color we know of.

You can see the blue spot almost resembles an eye, and the yellow area around it seems to be trailing off, the outer ring of it seems to resemble a head and a snout, you can also make out what seems to be the tips of ears on the top of the image. I like to call this Nebula the "One-Eyed Fox Nebula" (not the official name).

We can now look to the left side of the screen, to the left of the big blue dot, we can see what looks like the remnants of the exact same shape we see fully formed in the blue dot. Some may look at this and think it was a glitch with the camera, and while that very well might be true- I see this as a part of the "fox-head" I described in the previous paragraph.

In my personal opinion- I think it would be interesting if it was originally part of the "One-Eyed Fox Nebula" (not the official name) many years ago- but was not as strong, or built together. So it ended up drifting apart, due to a multitude of different factors, leaving only a fraction of what it once was.

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

The following are some explanations of the differences between the different images you run across in the field of astrophotography;

What is the difference between the different images for Astrophotography?

What is a dark calibration image? What is the purpose of using it to calibrate a flat image or data image?

An extremely important image for your astrophotography is a dark calibration image. Although the image may seem blank- it is not. The image appears dark because it is meant to focus on removing any "static" or "fuzziness" from your image without damaging it. When applied to the calibration of a flat or data image it darkens the image and removes most (if not, all) of the static that can often times ruin the image's clarity.

What is a flat calibration image? What is the purpose of using it to calibrate a data image?

A flat calibration image is a vital part of the astrophotography process. When these images are captured- it can take several hours to get one set of them done. I can tell you from first-hand experience- it took around 3-4 hours to get a group of them done. They are the foundation for whatever image you are trying to create. These photos (like any other) are extremely sensitive, and just one strong gust of wind can completely ruin the photo set, causing you to go back in and either try again- or to go into the files and remove any duds that cannot be used.

Why do we usually choose the "median" combine mode rather than "average" when combining darks or flats for use in calibration?

If we used the "average" method when calibrating images, we would see very bright spots where there shouldn't be. This is because the "average" method adds each pixels light measurement and divides it by the amount of photos you have, meaning if one of the images are far brighter than the others, it can cause the final result to be much too bright for the image. The "median" method takes the medium light level across all the images' pixels and makes that the final result. This usually results in a much better and higher quality result in the end.

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

The Early Days of Astrophotography

During class we learned about the early days of Astrophotography. When we first started talking about it, I did not expect high-quality photos at all. I was expecting the same as the early days of the original camera (low-quality, and not much detail showing), but what we looked at are shockingly detailed! Even compared to today's standards. You can see in the attached photos that the stars and surface of the moon are incredibly detailed.

In the first image, it is an example of the wet collodion process. Which involves cutting a piece of metal or glass, and exposing it to a multitude of chemicals (including egg-whites), and finally, exposing it to your target (What you want to capture), for a few minutes, and finally letting it dry. This would leave you with something that looked like this. It is a photo-negative, but when inverted, it is a clear image of the stars.

In this second image, it is another example of the "wet collodion process", except this time- it is the moon. The photographer would have to keep the sheet of glass or metal aimed directly at the moon, even while it was moving in the sky.

Moon image credit: ("Mercurio" https://www.flickr.com/photos/agustinbarrutia/6358462243 )

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

.

(REVISION)

During class, we learned about the early days of Astrophotography. When we first started talking about it, I did not expect high-quality photos at all. I was expecting the same as the early days of the original camera (low-quality, and not much detail showing), but what we looked at are shockingly detailed! Even compared to today's standards. You can see in the attached photos that the stars and surface of the moon are incredibly detailed.

When looking at the image above, you may see a picture of white smoke on a piece of paper, which I wouldn't blame you for thinking. I was thinking the same thing until my teacher told me that this (and the other images she handed out) was an inverted image of a nebula. This is called "dry plate photography" (a plate which was covered in gelatin with silver halides in solution, and then the gelatin was allowed to dry.)

You can see this yourself by inverting the colors on your phone and looking at it through your phone's camera. I was already impressed by this image, especially because even as an inverted image, you can see the amount of detail it picked up when the image was being processed. However- when I learned that these images were over thirty years old, I was even more impressed, which I did not think was even possible.

Now this image is interesting, this is an image of the moon. Seems simple enough- however, the image was made using an old technique for astrophotography called the "wet collodion process". This is a labor-intensive process used the following steps in order for a singular image to be taken; "used a prepared piece of glass which, in the darkroom, would be coated with collodion and then made light-sensitive with further chemicals. Before the plate could dry, it would be placed in the camera and exposed" (Royal Collection Trust).

This specific image seems to be a mystery for it's origins. After reverse image searching, I could only find one person who posted about it, but they left no credit to who took it. So I will leave that person in my "credit" section in this blog. They also included a video to show how a person can do a wet collodion processed image to a person. Not necessarily an astrophotography one. Still- it is a nice look into how this process was done.

CREDIT:

This processes used a piece of prepared glass

The description of "Dry plate photography" was given to me by Professor Kern (thank you!).

[apod]

2024 January 23

Deep Nebulas: From Seagull to California Image Credit & Copyright: Alistair Symon

Explanation: How well do you know the night sky? OK, but how well can you identify famous sky objects in a very deep image? Either way, here is a test: see if you can find some well-known night-sky icons in a deep image filled with faint nebulosity. This image contains the Pleiades star cluster, Barnard’s Loop, Horsehead Nebula, Orion Nebula, Rosette Nebula, Cone Nebula, Rigel, Jellyfish Nebula, Monkey Head Nebula, Flaming Star Nebula, Tadpole Nebula, Aldebaran, Simeis 147, Seagull Nebula and the California Nebula. To find their real locations, here is an annotated image version. The reason this task might be difficult is similar to the reason it is initially hard to identify familiar constellations in a very dark sky: the tapestry of our night sky has an extremely deep hidden complexity. The featured composite reveals some of this complexity in a mosaic of 28 images taken over 800 hours from dark skies over Arizona, USA.

∞ Source: apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap240123.html

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

(REVISION)

When looking at this remarkable image, it is easy to look at it and think to yourself- "That's pretty", and move on. However, there is much more to look at than the image as a whole. Lets take another look at the image, but this time, look at the different parts. The first part I want to take a look at is the big blue spot almost in the dead-center in the image. This spot is the hottest area, since blue is the hottest color that we know of.

You can see the blue spot almost resembles an eye, and the yellow area around it seems to be trailing off , the outer ring of it seems to resemble a head and a snout, you can also make out what seems to be the tips of ears on the top of the image. I like to call this Nebula the "Fox Nebula".

We can now look to the left side of the screen, to the left of the big blue dot, we can see what looks like the remnants of the exact same shape we see fully formed in the blue dot. Some may look at this and think that it was a glitch with the camera, and while that very well might be true- I see this as a part of the "fox-head" I described in the previous paragraph. I believe this was originally part of it many years ago- but was not as strong, or built together. So it ended up drifting apart, due to a multitude of different factors, leaving only a fraction of what it once was.

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

My work in progress of the "Crab Nebula"

The attached image is my work in progress of colorizing a photo of the "Crab Nebula". This attempt is not my first, nor my second. This attempt is my third, and is the only one to show variety in colors in the surrounding stars.

However, im getting ahead of myself here- you may be asking, "How do you colorize an image of space?" (Or something similar, I can't read your mind.). What is needed to colorize a photo successfully are three photos of the object, but taken with different filters on. These filters include the Red, Blue, and Green ones. These may not seem very helpful, and they really aren't, until you get a program that can put them all together and can also edit them individually.

The program I use is called "GIMP" and it is a user-friendly version of astrophotography editors. When you get all the images into Gimp, you have to change the properties of the individual colors. This is the most tedious part, since if you mess up one time (Over-exposing it, making it too dark, etc.), it can kill your project. And can be very hard to undo without the blackness of space looking like tv-static, or "grainy".

This is the problem that I ran into, multiple times. I even had to scrap one attempt because the program itself was not working correctly, so you have to factor in the program not being "Top-tier" levels of reliable. This W.I.P took a lot of patience and trial-and-error to make the nebula in the middle of the image visible, as my attempts in the past did not make this easy. Since the image would either come out very bright, or too dark, it would make it extremely difficult to adjust and line up correctly.

After getting to a point where I was happy with the image quality, I was able to finally call it a "work in progress". Keep in mind- this is NOT a finished product! I still have many more filters, effects, and settings to apply to this before I can make this once black-and-white photo into color again.

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

The Early Days of Astrophotography

During class we learned about the early days of Astrophotography. When we first started talking about it, I did not expect high-quality photos at all. I was expecting the same as the early days of the original camera (low-quality, and not much detail showing), but what we looked at are shockingly detailed! Even compared to today's standards. You can see in the attached photos that the stars and surface of the moon are incredibly detailed.

In the first image, it is an example of the wet collodion process. Which involves cutting a piece of metal or glass, and exposing it to a multitude of chemicals (including egg-whites), and finally, exposing it to your target (What you want to capture), for a few minutes, and finally letting it dry. This would leave you with something that looked like this. It is a photo-negative, but when inverted, it is a clear image of the stars.

In this second image, it is another example of the "wet collodion process", except this time- it is the moon. The photographer would have to keep the sheet of glass or metal aimed directly at the moon, even while it was moving in the sky.

Moon image credit: ("Mercurio" https://www.flickr.com/photos/agustinbarrutia/6358462243 )

[apod]

2024 January 23

Deep Nebulas: From Seagull to California Image Credit & Copyright: Alistair Symon

Explanation: How well do you know the night sky? OK, but how well can you identify famous sky objects in a very deep image? Either way, here is a test: see if you can find some well-known night-sky icons in a deep image filled with faint nebulosity. This image contains the Pleiades star cluster, Barnard’s Loop, Horsehead Nebula, Orion Nebula, Rosette Nebula, Cone Nebula, Rigel, Jellyfish Nebula, Monkey Head Nebula, Flaming Star Nebula, Tadpole Nebula, Aldebaran, Simeis 147, Seagull Nebula and the California Nebula. To find their real locations, here is an annotated image version. The reason this task might be difficult is similar to the reason it is initially hard to identify familiar constellations in a very dark sky: the tapestry of our night sky has an extremely deep hidden complexity. The featured composite reveals some of this complexity in a mosaic of 28 images taken over 800 hours from dark skies over Arizona, USA.

∞ Source: apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap240123.html

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

Incredible image! You can almost see what looks like a fox on the right hand side. The image also seems to be duplicated on the bottom- it could be that, or it could just be an aftershock from whatever explosion or supernova caused this, but I thought id mention this, since I found this very interesting. Also, the "eye of the fox" is very hot, as it is bright blue.

[theoneandonlyastraeus]

Cited Sources for images

Avatar and Banner images:

What's the Faintest Star You Can See in the Sky?

The “magnitude scale” for measuring stellar brightness also reveals the limits of naked-eye stargazing

Why Are There No Green Stars?

Have you ever wondered why there are no green stars in the night sky? Find out why stars are different colors.