Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I don’t know. For example, astrophotography seems interesting when you see amazing pictures of distant galaxies and stuff. But the actual process of taking thousands of photos and processing them seems super boring to me. Actually, any kind of photo post processing I find super boring. For years I used Lightroom in my photos. Now, I can’t do that shit anymore.
Yep, I was into regular photography, well the boring and hard branch of photography called bird photography and even I struggled with astrophotography.
It really feels like you can either not buy much equipment and struggle with moving the camera a tenth of a millimeter every 3 minutes or you buy an eq mount and hook up your camera to your laptop and come back after a 7 hours nap to a neat pile of pictures that don't really show anything but after 4 hours of automated processing and some manual retouching show something about 80% good as Hubble. Which is nice, but it's not exactly something unique. And the extra annoying thing is the only way you get better is by investing more money.
At least in bird photography once you've got the 600mm f/4 for 10k you're set for life.
Yeah but if you want to switch from photographing birds to airplanes or fuckin lions or something you don't need to change literally anything.
If an astrophotography invested 10k into DSO wants to take pictures of the sun, they'd need more equipment. Want to do lunar imaging, new stuff. Solar system objects, new stuff. Eclipse new stuff. Comets new stuff.
It depends on what you like, and how you do it.
Once you start to get serious, a lot of it is almost automated. You connect a video camera to your telescope, set the telescope to track whatever you're trying to image, and batch process the frames into a final image. There's still lots to do, but the boring parts are not too bad.
I find the setting up and tweaking interesting too though, so I might be biased :D
The process may be boring, but I assume the end result or discovering anything interesting would be exciting.