Stock google. I no longer run graphene due to creative differences
And TBCH google blows graphene out of the water camera wise
1 Like
Yeah stock Graphene makes it look like its a shot from a cheaper phone. I tried installing it via Aurora and no surprise that it wouldnt run without Google software framework.
1 Like
So there are some things that you can do to improve that. Update the app and send me a screenshot of all its settings so I can remember and try to help you
1 Like
I make my own AOSP build without google, but I have a gcam services helper that provides the minimum frawework that gcam needs to operate. It’s the best of both worlds.
1 Like
I wouldn’t advise it because film is EXTREMELY rare and kinda expensive. If you want to be sure to be okay spending 30$ per roll.
Sorry for the delay but this notification slipped.
VERY aware of film costing a bit. Bigger concern being fetching a good developer
Love the foldable design of that Fuji/Voigt, but the Hassie can support a digital back
I’ve been enjoying deep sky photography a bit lately. I shot the Orion Nebula on Christmas Eve just last year with my DSLR and a tripod. I didn’t shoot enough subs and I completely ignored flat frames. I’m still very new into this kind of editing and don’t honestly understand it well enough to do it on my own. I just followed a video. Here’s the photo though:
You can also see the Flame Nebula top left, faintly.
16 Likes
What lens did you use? The corners look great. Offers big promises for your next shoot with improved technique.
1 Like
I should probably get into this! We have relatively pitch black nights here and light pollution aint so bad few Kms away.
1 Like
@jode It was shot on my Nikkor 70-300 f4.5-5.6 ED lens at 100mm. I did crop in quite a bit though.
@regulareel Do it! It’s quite fun. I shot it at my back yard which is still light polluted, but not as bad as other locations that I know people also shoot at.
Photo of unedited and not cropped version below:
3 Likes
I wouldn’t bother with developing the shot to be honest. I’d just fork for a good film scanner. In for a penny, in for a pound I guess.
I’m gonna look into that. If it’s 6x6 film size maybe can be adapted.
Amazing shot! Doesn’t really look that light polluted aswell! Have you thought about getting a whole setup for astro photography?
1 Like
Thanks! It’s around Bortle class 6 if we consider data from 2015. I have thought about the whole setup, but it’s not my only expensive hobby 
. It will probably happen one day though. I’m also looking into telescopes, mainly for visual astronomy at the moment, but finding anything decent below 200€ seems to be pretty difficult if I want to buy locally.
EDIT:
I want to get a full frame camera actually to get better dynamic range, since astro isn’t the only field I shoot and I would definitely benefit from it. I saw a Canon 6D with L class lens on sale at a thrift store for 700. There’s also a Nikon D610 for about 800 with nifty fifty and 105mm macro lens. I would prefer Nikon since I already have few lenses for it, but Canon with its L class would be really good as well.
2 Likes
Yeah, it’s pretty hard to find decent gear for that low of a budget. If you end up getting one for visual astronomy the step towards an adapter is not that long.
Yeah, I understand that very well!
I’d be lucky to be at Bortle 5. That’s why I mostly given up astro photography.
I’m not really sure about that. I think you should look into the actual sensitivity of each sensor before making a purchase. Between the two you mentioned the D610 looks better on paper and for 100€ it might be worth.
1 Like
Yeah. I want a reflector that I could mount on a tripod, as I figured it would be easier to transport than a dobsonian if you don’t have a car.
Have you heard of a Youtuber called AstroBackyard? He shoots quite a bit from light polluted area or at least used to. It just takes a bit more data to get through the light pollution.
Yeah D610 is better on paper, but I would have to also get a new wide angle lens if I go down that route. That’s what puts me off a bit. I have an old AF-D era lens from 90’s. It’s very glowy from what I’ve tried with it so far, but it might be enough initially.
Sample of said lens below. I might have missed the focus a bit too, since my camera body doesn’t support manual focus on AF-D lenses.
You are lucky. In the outskirts of DC it’s more like Bortle 8-9
Fear not, though. There is great astro-photography to be made with astro filters that filter out the typical light pollution of suburbia. Don’t have first-hand experience with this, though.
1 Like
Nicely done.
I was lucky enough to look at a pristine night sky outside of Bryce Canyon NP last summer
10 Likes
Definitely the way to go.
Thanks for the suggestion! I’m gonna look at their channel and see if I can make anything out of what I have already.
I get it. It really sucks having to swap hardware, buy and sell back and forth. Maybe selling the two lenses you get in the bundle would net you enough to buy a wide angle.
I see kinda see it in the shot you posted. Maybe the antireflective coating they put on at the time wasn’t that great. Maybe a CPL would help.
Nhaa, I’m just dumb. I have issues with scales 
I’m at 7; I can see some bright objects in the sky, like the big dipper or orion’s belt. Other than that not much else is visible. I wish I was this into photography 8 years ago when I saw the milky way with my naked eye.
Saw a couple by Hoya, but they’re 200 to 300$ a pop. I’m not ready for that level of commitment yet hahaha
1 Like
Oh wow, I’m so jealous. That field of photography makes me want to get a car, but it’s really expensive to maintain it over here, so I’ll stick to my bicycle. Good photo!
I do have a CPL so I could try it. I could in theory still use my kit lens of D3200 and deal with the reduced resolution and probably inferior optics until I get better glass, if the CPL doesn’t end up being that good.
Hey, this video might help you with revealing the milkyway for example. I’ve used it quite a few times and I go a bit beyond what he shows. I tend to make 2 copies of same exposures: one for the sky with the ETTR and second one for editing the ground correctly. On top of that I also take at least 10 exposures to deal with the noise.
3 Likes
Absolutely! It’s not worth chasing resolution and good glass if you’re also on the verge of moving to another platform.
I’d be so stoked to manage something like that! Looks simple enough, I need to try that asap!
That makes sense. Once I get to grips with the basic concept I’ll try that too!
Have you tried taking a stack of “white” frames against the sun to use as a noise reduction filter? Maybe it can make your workflow easier.