17 minutes ago, Samrau said:

@Cations @bluedemon25

https://www.ttartisan.com/?full-frame-lenses/62.html

Canon RP, TTArtisan 11mm F2.8 Fisheye Lens. Top photo: 3200/20s/F2.8. Bottom photo: 3200/6s/F2.8

Photos without processing. I just converted the RAW to JPG

Those are both with the fisheye?! Wow, so there is a script or something to correct the fisheye effect into a normal looking shot in a photo editing program?

I have never edited a photo yet, I tried once and it didn't go well, so I just render them all into timelapses.

You and Jessica are inspiring me to start scouting locations I could try to drive to.

I just put on my new 16-35mm f2.8 and the 16mm doesn't look too distorted to me. I just wish some company made a f1.8 or really fast zoom lens at the wide end. I tried my new 24mm f1.4 and I could get down my exposure to 1/60 with the same light that I need 4" with at f2.8 on my 24-70mm. I love it. I found someone who had a 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma but it is APSC, I can't find any Sigma zoom under 2.8 for the wider focal lengths, they are all primes.

Edited September 30Sep 30 by Cations

1 hour ago, Samrau said:

@Cations @bluedemon25

https://www.ttartisan.com/?full-frame-lenses/62.html

Canon RP, TTArtisan 11mm F2.8 Fisheye Lens. Top photo: 3200/20s/F2.8. Bottom photo: 3200/6s/F2.8

Photos without processing. I just converted the RAW to JPG

And the lense is actually in the affordable range, wow.. Only downside is APS-C mode for my camera.

Btw would love to see what Jessica can do with those RAW files, since that's really impressive for being unedited.

4 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

And the lense is actually in the affordable range, wow.. Only downside is APS-C mode for my camera.

Btw would love to see what Jessica can do with those RAW files, since that's really impressive for being unedited.

Are you saying that you have APS-C or your APS-C mode isn't great for your camera? If I had APS-C I would jump on the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, wish they had if for full frame at that speed.

3 minutes ago, Cations said:

Are you saying that you have APS-C or your APS-C mode isn't great for your camera? If I had APS-C I would jump on the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, wish they had if for full frame at that speed.

Apparently with my Z6 and that lense it has to be used in APS-C mode, under specifications in the link Samrau gave. I'm not familiar with what it means exactly outside of less light, just remember that 'my go-to camera place' recommended to avoid those. However if the alternative is a lense at 4x the cost I'm all for accepting less light 😂

4 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Apparently with my Z6 and that lense it has to be used in APS-C mode, under specifications in the link Samrau gave. I'm not familiar with what it means exactly outside of less light, just remember that 'my go-to camera place' recommended to avoid those. However if the alternative is a lense at 4x the cost I'm all for accepting less light 😂

Sorry I wasn't clear. Those lenses won't work great for full frame cameras (like you and I have). If you have APS-C camera, then they are great.

I just have to go back to what @DavidS said (I know the quote below says me, but it is David)

On 9/27/2025 at 2:47 PM, Cations said:

(Sigma 14/1.4, Sigma 15/1.4 Fisheye, Sigma 20/1.4, Sony 14/1.8 GM and Sony 24/1.4 GM). If I only had one available it would still be the 14/1.8 GM for mix of IQ and size.

I was then lamenting that there is no good zoom in the 14-24 range that is f1.4 or f1.8, but Sigma or TTArtisans should make one for the astro-photography crowd like us.

2 hours ago, Cations said:

Those are both with the fisheye?! Wow, so there is a script or something to correct the fisheye effect into a normal looking shot in a photo editing program?

I have never edited a photo yet, I tried once and it didn't go well, so I just render them all into timelapses.

You and Jessica are inspiring me to start scouting locations I could try to drive to.

I just put on my new 16-35mm f2.8 and the 16mm doesn't look too distorted to me. I just wish some company made a f1.8 or really fast zoom lens at the wide end. I tried my new 24mm f1.4 and I could get down my exposure to 1/60 with the same light that I need 4" with at f2.8 on my 24-70mm. I love it. I found someone who had a 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma but it is APSC, I can't find any Sigma zoom under 2.8 for the wider focal lengths, they are all primes.

I didn't correct the distortion in any of the shots, but when you hold the lens level, everything seems straight. However, there's still some distortion at the edges. It can all be removed with software. But I don't do that. I don't like editing at all. That's why I try to make the best photos I can. Perhaps in the future, I'll give up RAW files altogether 😄

58 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Apparently with my Z6 and that lense it has to be used in APS-C mode, under specifications in the link Samrau gave. I'm not familiar with what it means exactly outside of less light, just remember that 'my go-to camera place' recommended to avoid those. However if the alternative is a lense at 4x the cost I'm all for accepting less light 😂

This specification might be outdated. It doesn't include one for my camera. Check around; there might already be one for your camera on the market.

Edited September 30Sep 30 by Samrau

1 hour ago, Samrau said:

I didn't correct the distortion in any of the shots, but when you hold the lens level, everything seems straight. However, there's still some distortion at the edges. It can all be removed with software. But I don't do that. I don't like editing at all. That's why I try to make the best photos I can. Perhaps in the future, I'll give up RAW files altogether 😄

This specification might be outdated. It doesn't include one for my camera. Check around; there might already be one for your camera on the market.

Agree completely with unedited photos! However I would make an exception for editing out Starlinks. 😊

On 9/30/2025 at 10:59 AM, Rudolph said:

And the lense is actually in the affordable range, wow.. Only downside is APS-C mode for my camera.

Btw would love to see what Jessica can do with those RAW files, since that's really impressive for being unedited.

Did I miss anything? Since you did not mention me explicitly @Samrau @Cations , I may not have seen your message if you did. Let me guys know if any one of you wants me to edit your RAW files. I use no magic, LOL I have been crazy busy these past few days as I work during the day and chase during the night, and this pesky sun of ours is not giving us any breaks :) (which is a good thing, of course)

Re: editing is "bad." @hamateur 1953 When you work from RAW files, you MUST edit because the RAW file is undeveloped in the sense that only the basic operations were applied to make the RAW image viewable.

On 9/30/2025 at 9:45 AM, Samrau said:

@Cations @bluedemon25

https://www.ttartisan.com/?full-frame-lenses/62.html

Canon RP, TTArtisan 11mm F2.8 Fisheye Lens. Top photo: 3200/20s/F2.8. Bottom photo: 3200/6s/F2.8

Photos without processing. I just converted the RAW to JPG

Beautiful "crown". With the fish eye, you never miss a SAR! Nice.

2 minutes ago, JessicaF said:

Beautiful "crown". With the fish eye, you never miss a SAR! Nice.

This is my favorite size, I already wrote about it). It wasn't until after photographing the comet that I forgot to change the white balance, which is why the frame has a predominantly yellow and red cast. I prefer green and purple. After taking a lot of shots, I decided not to adjust it until the timelapse was finished.

Incidentally, I noticed the SAR with my own eyes, just above the horizon to the left, and at first I thought it was a separate pillar. But then I decided to photograph the sky. It was invisible at the zenith.

1 hour ago, JessicaF said:

Did I miss anything? Since you did not mention me explicitly @Samrau @Cations , I may not have seen your message if you did. Let me guys know if any one of you wants me to edit your RAW files. I use no magic, LOL I have been crazy busy these past few days as I work during the day and chase during the night, and this pesky sun of ours is not giving us any breaks :) (which is a good thing, of course)

Re: editing is "bad." @hamateur 1953 When you work from RAW files, you MUST edit because the RAW file is undeveloped in the sense that only the basic operations were applied to make the RAW image viewable.

Beautiful "crown". With the fish eye, you never miss a SAR! Nice.

@JessicaF I think perhaps I should have consulted a thesaurus. “Enhanced” or perhaps obviously exaggerated was my thinking tbh. 😊

Edited October 1Oct 1 by hamateur 1953
Reconsidered after finding one among those.

21 minutes ago, hamateur 1953 said:

@JessicaF I think perhaps I should have consulted a thesaurus. “Enhanced” or perhaps obviously exaggerated was my thinking tbh. 😊

I don't get it. One of Jessica's trucks full of magnets flipped over?

29 minutes ago, Samrau said:

This is my favorite size, I already wrote about it). It wasn't until after photographing the comet that I forgot to change the white balance, which is why the frame has a predominantly yellow and red cast. I prefer green and purple. After taking a lot of shots, I decided not to adjust it until the timelapse was finished.

Incidentally, I noticed the SAR with my own eyes, just above the horizon to the left, and at first I thought it was a separate pillar. But then I decided to photograph the sky. It was invisible at the zenith.

SAR always goes E--W, right? It pivots on the horizon exactly at E and W but then can have an arbitrary tilt, right? On Oct 10, 2024, here in NY state, it was in the south. I need to check your imagery and videos. There is much I have to go back to once the spaceweather calms down :)

11 minutes ago, Samrau said:

I don't get it. One of Jessica's trucks full of magnets flipped over?

I do not get it either, LOL It may be Mike's conjecture that I secretly stash tons of powerful magnets in NY state to attract the aurora. Well, Bz flipped once it got dark here, so ... where are my magnets?

12 minutes ago, JessicaF said:

SAR always goes E--W, right? It pivots on the horizon exactly at E and W but then can have an arbitrary tilt, right? On Oct 10, 2024, here in NY state, it was in the south. I need to check your imagery and videos. There is much I have to go back to once the spaceweather calms down :)

I do not get it either, LOL It may be Mike's conjecture that I secretly stash tons of powerful magnets in NY state to attract the aurora. Well, Bz flipped once it got dark here, so ... where are my magnets?

To be honest, I saw it for the first time. Yes, the arc was from west to east. On the left, it was lighter above the horizon, and the pillar was barely visible to the eyes. On the right, there was a city, and it was impossible to distinguish anything. I do not know its nature, as I have not studied it yet.

In the photo I posted here, the SAR was not as bright.

15 minutes ago, Samrau said:

To be honest, I saw it for the first time. Yes, the arc was from west to east. On the left, it was lighter above the horizon, and the pillar was barely visible to the eyes. On the right, there was a city, and it was impossible to distinguish anything. I do not know its nature, as I have not studied it yet.

In the photo I posted here, the SAR was not as bright.

It seems to be always pivoted at the E&horizon and W&horizon and the tilt depends on the strength of the storm. So, yours was perpendicular to the horizon? It can have all sorts of angles. And I assume it is visible more often but people miss it as they focus on the N horizon mostly while it can be above you or even behind. It is also fainter than auroras, typically, but can outlast them by a significant amount. It can persist even long after the aurora is gone.

No. I thought I perhaps should have used the term artificially enhanced photography. To better illustrate my skepticism when viewing some photos @JessicaF. I was completely unaware of course that apparently all RAW files require editing, not being a professional photographer or even an Amateur 🤣🤣🤣. Hence the humorous meme.

Edited October 2Oct 2 by hamateur 1953
The to that

3 minutes ago, hamateur 1953 said:

No. I thought I perhaps should have used the term artificially enhanced photography. To better illustrate my skepticism when viewing some photos @JessicaF. I was completely unaware of course the apparently all RAW files require editing, not being a professional photographer or even an Amateur 🤣🤣🤣. Hence the humorous meme.

It is a good joke, btw. I just did not see the connection but did recall you mentioning me stashing magnets. I am more than willing to discuss image editing but do not want to bore people to death. It is a giant topic in landscape photography. In general, the RAW file contains a lot more data than what people realize. I mentioned it here before that I have some images where nothing can be seen at the first glance but the aurora is there. These are not the greatest images, they suck big, but the point is that the phenomenon did get captured. Kind of like when astronomers use all sorts of tricks to squeeze every drop out of the imagery to absurd levels. I am attracted to such techniques because they look like "magic" when something comes out of nothing. But, realistically, most of the time, there is nothing in the image when it looks like there is nothing there. Honestly, I do get quite a kick out of capturing (a necessarily lousy) aurora at 42N when HP is 17 and Bz sustained positive for a long time period because it is a super borderline case. Pushing the limit to absurd levels.

I have been thinking of creating a PDF document with examples that I collected from near borderline auroral displays. Just need to find some time to do this.

OK, I'll bite -

@JessicaF, what do you do in LR to pull out the invisible or faint Aurora?

I normally lightly edit my "other-than-Aurora" images in Adobe Camera Raw (in PS, I hardly ever use LR, but the functions are nearly the same between the two). My Aurora stuff is usually time lapses only and those I edit in my video editor, as the time lapse is not a RAW image but a mp4 file.

@JessicaF I think that now is not the time when RAW is so miraculous. JPEG and others do not stand still, they develop by coming up with new compression methods and filters. I always shoot RAW+JPEG, and if on the cheap Canon 2000D the difference in quality between RAW and JPEG is quite noticeable, then in the Canon RP it is not noticeable. I remember I already gave you the frames, but you could not take from there even a weak glow, and I knew it even looking at the picture through the Canon Camera Connect app during shooting.

1 hour ago, Samrau said:

@JessicaF I think that now is not the time when RAW is so miraculous. JPEG and others do not stand still, they develop by coming up with new compression methods and filters. I always shoot RAW+JPEG, and if on the cheap Canon 2000D the difference in quality between RAW and JPEG is quite noticeable, then in the Canon RP it is not noticeable. I remember I already gave you the frames, but you could not take from there even a weak glow, and I knew it even looking at the picture through the Canon Camera Connect app during shooting.

RAW is a lossless compression, and contains a lot of extra data collected by the camera sensor that isn't shown in the image without editing.

JPEG is lossy compression. Once you have a JPEG, that's it. It should never be re-edited or re-compressed at that point, it'll destroy any remaining quality in the image.

Slight edit as Samrau rightfully pointed out:

RAW can depending on the camera be set to uncompressed RAW, lossless compressed or lossy compressed.

Edited October 2Oct 2 by Rudolph

44 minutes ago, JessicaF said:

SAR always goes E--W, right? It pivots on the horizon exactly at E and W but then can have an arbitrary tilt, right? On Oct 10, 2024, here in NY state, it was in the south. I need to check your imagery and videos. There is much I have to go back to once the spaceweather calms down :)

I do not get it either, LOL It may be Mike's conjecture that I secretly stash tons of powerful magnets in NY state to attract the aurora. Well, Bz flipped once it got dark here, so ... where are my magnets?

Your trailers of neodymium magnets are likely still doing their job on our eastern seaboard @JessicaF from the beautiful aurora pics I have seen across our upper tier states you might wanna invest in an additional one though. 🤣🤣🤣

8 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

RAW is a lossless compression, and contains a lot of extra data collected by the camera sensor that isn't shown in the image without editing.

JPEG is lossy compression. Once you have a JPEG, that's it. It should never be re-edited or re-compressed at that point, it'll destroy any remaining quality in the image.

In the standard understanding of the JPEG format, it is impossible to do lossless compression, since the JPEG algorithm itself is based on lossy compression. However, more advanced formats such as JPEG 2000 or JPEG XR are able to achieve compression with minimal or invisible losses. Once upon a time, this was considered fiction, but with the development of technology and digital formats, JPEG will become excellent. All manufacturers of digital cameras strive for this, because it is very important for professional photographers, especially in the field of sports, when it is necessary to quickly transfer the captured materials to the client or office. I don't think they edit photos at all, I think they initially set up the camera so that the JPEGs images are as high-quality as possible.

Of course, digital communication is also developing. Perhaps after a while, 50mb of RAW image will become a trifle, as it is now, when 1kb of data has a minimal ping.

As far as I know, even RAW comes in three types: uncompressed, lossless, and lossy.

Edited October 2Oct 2 by Samrau

6 hours ago, Samrau said:

@JessicaF I think that now is not the time when RAW is so miraculous. JPEG and others do not stand still, they develop by coming up with new compression methods and filters. I always shoot RAW+JPEG, and if on the cheap Canon 2000D the difference in quality between RAW and JPEG is quite noticeable, then in the Canon RP it is not noticeable. I remember I already gave you the frames, but you could not take from there even a weak glow, and I knew it even looking at the picture through the Canon Camera Connect app during shooting.

As I said above, most of the time when visual inspection reveals nothing, there indeed is nothing in the image. It is not like the RAW format will always give you a miracle. There simply was nothing in your images.

The JPEG format has stayed pretty much unchanged since 1992 when it was standardized. If the JPEGs from your RP look better than from an older camera, it could simply be because of a better development and post processing pipeline, finer quantization matrices used for luminance and chrominance, and also because the RP is a full frame and thus has better SNR than cropped sensors.

9 hours ago, NightSky said:

OK, I'll bite -

@JessicaF, what do you do in LR to pull out the invisible or faint Aurora?

I normally lightly edit my "other-than-Aurora" images in Adobe Camera Raw (in PS, I hardly ever use LR, but the functions are nearly the same between the two). My Aurora stuff is usually time lapses only and those I edit in my video editor, as the time lapse is not a RAW image but a mp4 file.

Oh I only noticed this now. The notification in your message for some reason is not "active".

I can give you a snapshot of the adjustment panel in LR of what I usually do. It is nothing special. I start with a Camera landscape profile, then usually bring up the exposure a little and then iteratively, little by little, increase the whites while pulling back on highlights. One needs to be careful not to lose detail in the brighter greens. Then I move on to clarity to increase the contrast in midtones and add little bit of dehazing, depending on the image. Clarity will introduce artifacts around edges if overdone, so one needs to be careful to not overdo it. Clarity and dehazing also have a tendency to make vignetting much more pronounced. Adding a radial filter (inverted) to compensate for the loss of luminance towards the corners can fix this but it can be pain to do it right. Finally, I denoise but usually pull back on what LR does by default as I'd rather have some noise in the images but not lose detail in the texture of the aurora. Oh, and then as the last step, I remove Elon's junk and airplanes.

If I need to dig out something at the threshold of being captured, I will go more heavy handed at clarity and dehazing, sometimes pushing it a lot. That can sometimes bring out a very weak signal that is buried in there. I might also adjust the white balance a bit more aggressively in this case. As I said, these images of something out of nothing are bad, nothing to write home about. The purpose here is to see if the phenomenon got captured. For example, when shooting through haze or light pollution, finding the right WB setting can reveal a faint auroral glow because the spectral characteristics of the aurora are different from light pollution.

13 hours ago, JessicaF said:

It is a good joke, btw. I just did not see the connection but did recall you mentioning me stashing magnets. I am more than willing to discuss image editing but do not want to bore people to death. It is a giant topic in landscape photography. In general, the RAW file contains a lot more data than what people realize. I mentioned it here before that I have some images where nothing can be seen at the first glance but the aurora is there. These are not the greatest images, they suck big, but the point is that the phenomenon did get captured. Kind of like when astronomers use all sorts of tricks to squeeze every drop out of the imagery to absurd levels. I am attracted to such techniques because they look like "magic" when something comes out of nothing. But, realistically, most of the time, there is nothing in the image when it looks like there is nothing there. Honestly, I do get quite a kick out of capturing (a necessarily lousy) aurora at 42N when HP is 17 and Bz sustained positive for a long time period because it is a super borderline case. Pushing the limit to absurd levels.

I have been thinking of creating a PDF document with examples that I collected from near borderline auroral displays. Just need to find some time to do this.

I would love to read that document if you make it

@JessicaF Can you tell me which balance I should use?:

1) For weak auroras outside of light pollution/in light pollution conditions

2) For medium auroras outside of light pollution/under light pollution conditions

3) For strong auroras outside of light pollution/in light pollution conditions

4) by moonlight

To get my favorite green/purple colors

3 hours ago, Samrau said:

In the standard understanding of the JPEG format, it is impossible to do lossless compression, since the JPEG algorithm itself is based on lossy compression. However, more advanced formats such as JPEG 2000 or JPEG XR are able to achieve compression with minimal or invisible losses. Once upon a time, this was considered fiction, but with the development of technology and digital formats, JPEG will become excellent. All manufacturers of digital cameras strive for this, because it is very important for professional photographers, especially in the field of sports, when it is necessary to quickly transfer the captured materials to the client or office. I don't think they edit photos at all, I think they initially set up the camera so that the JPEGs images are as high-quality as possible.

Of course, digital communication is also developing. Perhaps after a while, 50mb of RAW image will become a trifle, as it is now, when 1kb of data has a minimal ping.

As far as I know, even RAW comes in three types: uncompressed, lossless, and lossy.

Just to expand a bit on this:

JP2 was for what it's worth a great format and compression algorithm in its time that spanned from lossless(XR was also quite good at this) to a highly efficient lossy compression(XR has minor flaws here). Both JP2 and XR severely lacked application support and has gone the same way as so many great image formats before them, in the bin(except for certain medical imagery, and bizarrely enough JSOCs AIA imagery). JP2 is over 20 years old at this point and not a single browser in the top 10 or most image apps have support for it, same with XR except for the old IE browser.

Instead AVIF(based on the AV1 video codec) won out, a royalty-free format which outperforms JP2 & XR in pretty much every relevant area while supporting modern features like 12-bit colour, transparency, wide-gamut and HDR. If reducing file size with minimal quality loss is the goal I don't think anything currently beats AVIF, however JPEG XL outperforms AVIF for higher quality compression when file size isn't the most important factor(Worth noting that XL currently has very poor application support).

We should already be way past the point of a RAW file being an issue to transfer, but strangely enough we're not. I was very disappointed to see my Z6 only managing 2.3-2.5MB/s or roughly 20mbit wirelessly(this is apparently the norm across several manufacturers), which is equivalent to the WIFI standard available in the year 2003(802.11a/g) - because of this I do occasionally set the camera to also save high quality JPEG for a quicker transfer to my phone when I'm hours away from a computer or USB port. However with a bit of extra gear you can quickly move the memory card into a card-reader and connect it to a phone or tablet to achieve 50-400MB/s speeds, or purchase a ridiculously expensive(800-1400EUR in Norway) wireless transmitter that connects directly to the camera and allows you to transfer images at more acceptable WIFI-5(802.11ac) speeds.

I edited in the part you mentioned about RAW compression, I had forgotten it is an option to do lossy compression.