After spending a morning looking at awarded images it made me wonder, is the gear and software so good in 2026 that we are reaching the limits of what there is to capture? Faint IFN seems to be captured with relative ease as long as skies are reasonably dark. Incredible detail in Galaxies is routinely recorded even with medium sized apertures. The lucky imaging crowd routinely pushes to the diffraction limit in Lunar, planetary and especially solar imaging. Can it get much better or are we at the point where astrophotography just going to get easier and more automatic. It’s nice to make the same high quality images that so many of us make with slight variations but where are the new frontiers to be explored, the new challenges? I’d love to know your thoughts…
Are we at the limit?
Short answer is: no
Long answer: you will see soon regarding broadband limits when pre-LSST observations stop and LSST begins, but even with pre-LSST observations the images are quite lets say “eye opening” more details are soon to come ;)
Narrowband is tricky: or at least tricky for now, MOTHRA https://www.mothratelescope.org/ is coming alive very soon, and that will be an evolution in imaging depth regarding narrowband images where I doubt there will be any more quasi new narrowband nebulae discovered by amateurs.
Both surveys are limited to southern-skies so that will give you an idea of what people should focus on “imaging” in the future.
As I write this message there are already talks for what happens to LSST after its 10 year survey and there are already ideas to optimise it for narrowband or for spectroscopy but I cannot give you any official statement on that. Feel free to draw your own conclusions from that.
Hey Tony,
I think astrophotography is going the same way daylight photography did quite some time ago. Most subjects have already been captured in a very pleasing way — take today’s IOTD as an example. It’s a great image, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen essentially the same picture three or four times as IOTD.
I don’t necessarily think this is something that will destroy the hobby, but for me it has definitely made me reconsider a few things. I don’t really take pictures for the pictures anymore. I do it because I enjoy being out under the stars and tinkering with my gear. That’s also part of the reason why I got a Newtonian telescope even though I already own a very good APO. Building things myself, like a secondary heater, collimating, and so on — that’s become a big part of the appeal for me.
I’m trying to focus on the process rather than the result. In a way, the journey has become the goal. I’m also trying not to compare my work to that of others anymore — I don’t think there’s much to gain from doing that.
I don’t know about the technology but I certainly am not. So I’ll happily keep chugging along :)
I guess it all depends on why people do it. If my hobby was birds photography I certainly wouldn’t stop because every birds out there have been photographed already.
Same for Astro, I haven’t imaged everything in space and there’s no way I will in my lifetime so why would I stop ?
And then if it’s important for some there is plenty of objects that have never been shot. Just look at the DBDN catalog, I think nobody but me knows about it ( I got lucky) and I’m pretty sure I am the only one who’s ever shot any of it.
It’s not true that everything has been done, far from it.
Maybe one day we can put our astro images into an AI manipulation program so you can see it in a 3D environment and zoom it in and out??
Eric Gagné · Jun 8, 2026, 06:57 PM
If my hobby was birds photography I certainly wouldn’t stop because every birds out there have been photographed already.
Not as it is but what if everyone had to photograph the same stuffed bird, under the same lighting conditions and from the same spot. Looking at it that way you can see that normal photography and astrophotography are very different.
Tony Gondola · Jun 8, 2026 at 07:48 PM
Eric Gagné · Jun 8, 2026, 06:57 PM
If my hobby was birds photography I certainly wouldn’t stop because every birds out there have been photographed already.
Not as it is but what if everyone had to photograph the same stuffed bird, under the same lighting conditions and from the same spot. You can see that normal photography and astrophotography are very different different.
But they could still process it in their own way and end up with different result. And even if they all end up with the exact same result what does it matter ?
This is a hobby, we do it for fun. It’s all about the journey
Eric Gagné · Jun 8, 2026, 08:10 PM
Tony Gondola · Jun 8, 2026 at 07:48 PM
Eric Gagné · Jun 8, 2026, 06:57 PM
If my hobby was birds photography I certainly wouldn’t stop because every birds out there have been photographed already.
Not as it is but what if everyone had to photograph the same stuffed bird, under the same lighting conditions and from the same spot. You can see that normal photography and astrophotography are very different different.
But they could still process it in their own way and end up with different result. And even if they all end up with the exact same result what does it matter ?
This is a hobby, we do it for fun. It’s all about the journey
Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not knocking it. I’m just exploring the question.
Tony Gondola · Jun 8, 2026 at 08:23 P
Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not knocking it. I’m just exploring the question.
I fully understand and it’s an interesting question to explore, that’s why I’m participating in the discussion
Tony Gondola · Jun 8, 2026, 07:48 PM
Eric Gagné · Jun 8, 2026, 06:57 PM
If my hobby was birds photography I certainly wouldn’t stop because every birds out there have been photographed already.
Not as it is but what if everyone had to photograph the same stuffed bird, under the same lighting conditions and from the same spot. You can see that normal photography and astrophotography are very different different.
At one point I tried processing high quality data found online to see what I could come up with. I'm talking multiple dozens of hours under pristine Bortle 1 sky taken in Chile or some ultra-low seeing conditions.
Well after 30min of processing I realised I hated it and came back to processing my own data captured under god forsaken sub-18 sqm sky with half of it captured under 30° altitude. And you know what? I was proud of what I came out with after some grueling days of processing. The emotional link with your own image from your own data no matter how bad it is is central to my appreciation of the hobby.
AstroGadac · Jun 8, 2026, 08:31 PM
Tony Gondola · Jun 8, 2026, 07:48 PM
Eric Gagné · Jun 8, 2026, 06:57 PM
If my hobby was birds photography I certainly wouldn’t stop because every birds out there have been photographed already.
Not as it is but what if everyone had to photograph the same stuffed bird, under the same lighting conditions and from the same spot. You can see that normal photography and astrophotography are very different different.
At one point I tried processing high quality data found online to see what I could come up with. I'm talking multiple dozens of hours under pristine Bortle 1 sky taken in Chile or some ultra-low seeing conditions.
Well after 30min of processing I realised I hated it and came back to processing my own data captured under god forsaken sub-18 sqm sky with half of it captured under 30° altitude. And you know what? I was proud of what I came out with after some grueling days of processing. The emotional link with your own image from your own data no matter how bad it is is central to my appreciation of the hobby.
I would totally agree with that. Processing data that I haven’t gathered myself would just be a pretty empty experience. I know some people do it and enjoy it but it’s just not for me as well.
A few frontiers I find genuinely exciting:
The time dimension. At the fast end: photon-counting detectors (SPADs), smart-telescope networks and robotic rigs are opening true time-domain work to amateurs. Occultations, transits, variable stars, the optical counterpart of a transient alert. At the slow end: multi-year and multi-decade animations. The classic example is the Crab Nebula, whose expansion is now measurable from amateur data taken years apart. (Given our name, you'll forgive me a particular soft spot for the whole time-domain idea.)
LEO. It sounds exotic, but rideshare launch costs and miniaturised optics are making it less fanciful every year. The first genuinely amateur-grade orbital imager feels like a "when," not an "if", and it would reset what "good detail" even means.
A wider gamut. We're still mostly living inside the LRGB and SHO color spaces, and fairly narrow gamut JPGs by any measure. Finer filters decomposition would let us map the sky into a far larger, more truthful color space. There's a lot of real color information out there we're simply not recording (or displaying) yet.
High dynamic range. Not bracket-stitching, but true HDR captured natively. Think the Trapezium core and the faintest outer shells of M42 in a single self-consistent dataset. Photon-counting and high-well/log sensors, as well as higher dynamic range monitors point in this direction.
Teams. Remote scopes make 100+ hour integrations routine, but pooled, collaborative datasets has proven to take us to depths no single imager reaches : ultra-faint IFN, tidal streams, planetary-nebula halos.
Smarter processing. Sub-frame deconvolution, PSF modelling and ML can pull out real detail. The genuine challenge that comes with them is provenance : the line between enhancement and fabrication will define good practice for the next decade.
In short, I don't think we're done. The polished, repeatable image is becoming a baseline. It frees our attention for the harder, stranger, more original work.
Curious to hear where others think the real edges are.
There are still the small and not visually interesting or spectacular objects that are seldom imaged. Think tiny planetaries and tiny galaxies.
Such objects are not spectacular but you still have the opportunity to do one of the best ever images of a given object if for no other reason than they are seldom imaged. Of course that means they will never win IOTD or even get nominated for a Top Pick regardless of how well they are done because they are just not stand-alone impressive, which seems to be necessary for an award (rightly or wrongly, it is just the way seems to work).
But they are out there in large numbers and they seldom get much attention from either amateurs or professionals and I find them challenging and they help to keep me from doing quite as many of the “usual suspects” objects.
I feel like infrared astrophotography might become more of a thing if the equipment starts getting commercialized. Planewave does it with IRDK scopes. I understand there are limits here for imaging that I don’t fully understand and it sounds like the cameras are crazy expensive.
This has already been said but I agree with it. The much smaller and less imaged objects might get much more popular as peoples ambition to capture new things in as great of detail as possible rise but this also comes with the need for larger equipment. I think what we are seeing now is how larger objects that in previous decades took a massive amount of resources and knowledge for an amateur to capture have become much easier and more affordable to do so. Thus more people are taking images with deeper integration and the ceiling is rising with it. I imagine as equipment gets better and more affordable, maybe home observatories become more common and people start commonly using much larger equipment. I could see this leading to smaller and more distant objects becoming more common place for amateurs and thus the ceiling for detail on those objects will go up.
Another area I find fascinating and hope becomes more common is time lapses of distant targets over long spans of time to capture the normally imperceptible but present movement of these targets. This is a fantastic example and honestly one of the most captivating images I have seen win IOTD: https://app.astrobin.com/explore/iotd-tp-archive?i=1c90u6#iotd
Christian Silk · Jun 8, 2026, 09:44 PM
I feel like infrared astrophotography might become more of a thing if the equipment starts getting commercialized. Planewave does it with IRDK scopes. I understand there are limits here for imaging that I don’t fully understand and it sounds like the cameras are crazy expensive.
This has already been said but I agree with it. The much smaller and less imaged objects might get much more popular as peoples ambition to capture new things in as great of detail as possible rise but this also comes with the need for larger equipment. I think what we are seeing now is how larger objects that in previous decades took a massive amount of resources and knowledge for an amateur to capture have become much easier and more affordable to do so. Thus more people are taking images with deeper integration and the ceiling is rising with it. I imagine as equipment gets better and more affordable, maybe home observatories become more common and people start commonly using much larger equipment. I could see this leading to smaller and more distant objects becoming more common place for amateurs and thus the ceiling for detail on those objects will go up.
Another area I find fascinating and hope becomes more common is time lapses of distant targets over long spans of time to capture the normally imperceptible but present movement of these targets. This is a fantastic example and honestly one of the most captivating images I have seen win IOTD: https://app.astrobin.com/explore/iotd-tp-archive?i=1c90u6#iotd
Another good one is Hubble’s Variable Nebula. I believe AstroBiscut did a great animation of that object. I wonder how many other objects like that display this sort of behavior but it just hase’t been noticed?
I’m completely new, I do however understand your question. The electric guitar reached it’s limits with The Les Paul Gibson (my opinion only), people still play the guitar today, write new songs and so on. My point being is it’s an instrument of creativity and new music will continue to come from those who play. I think the same is true for astrophotography. If you believe you have either seen or imaged everything out there in space you should check out the US Dep of War website at the newly released UAP files, I wouldn’t be surprised if we’ll be zipping off to distant galaxy’s with our travel rigs in no time at all.
Lol, sign me up!
Eric Gagné · Jun 8, 2026, 06:57 PM
Just look at the DBDN catalog, I think nobody but me knows about it ( I got lucky)
Thanks for the tip, gonna check that out. I found the paper and catalog.
Tony Gondola · Jun 8, 2026, 09:49 PM
Christian Silk · Jun 8, 2026, 09:44 PM
I feel like infrared astrophotography might become more of a thing if the equipment starts getting commercialized. Planewave does it with IRDK scopes. I understand there are limits here for imaging that I don’t fully understand and it sounds like the cameras are crazy expensive.
This has already been said but I agree with it. The much smaller and less imaged objects might get much more popular as peoples ambition to capture new things in as great of detail as possible rise but this also comes with the need for larger equipment. I think what we are seeing now is how larger objects that in previous decades took a massive amount of resources and knowledge for an amateur to capture have become much easier and more affordable to do so. Thus more people are taking images with deeper integration and the ceiling is rising with it. I imagine as equipment gets better and more affordable, maybe home observatories become more common and people start commonly using much larger equipment. I could see this leading to smaller and more distant objects becoming more common place for amateurs and thus the ceiling for detail on those objects will go up.
Another area I find fascinating and hope becomes more common is time lapses of distant targets over long spans of time to capture the normally imperceptible but present movement of these targets. This is a fantastic example and honestly one of the most captivating images I have seen win IOTD: https://app.astrobin.com/explore/iotd-tp-archive?i=1c90u6#iotd
Another good one is Hubble’s Variable Nebula. I believe AstroBiscut did a great animation of that object. I wonder how many other objects like that display this sort of behavior but it just hase’t been noticed?
Yes that is a great example. Once I am done with my observatory hopefully before the end of 2027 I want to start capturing a number of targets year over year and look for that relatively slow celestial movement. Oh, and to answer the question for this thread… no, the observable universe is far larger than any one of us can imagine. There are things out there that we don’t even know to look for. We are only limited by our imagination and our own ambition.
Christian Silk · Jun 8, 2026, 09:44 PM
I feel like infrared astrophotography might become more of a thing if the equipment starts getting commercialized. Planewave does it with IRDK scopes. I understand there are limits here for imaging that I don’t fully understand and it sounds like the cameras are crazy expensive.
Christian Silk · Jun 8, 2026, 09:44 PM
Another area I find fascinating and hope becomes more common is time lapses of distant targets over long spans of time to capture the normally imperceptible but present movement of these targets. This is a fantastic example and honestly one of the most captivating images I have seen win IOTD:
I think long-span images with deeper integrations, and perhaps timelapses, are exactly where the future is headed. Smart scopes may eventually democratize image acquisition, but they don't democratize curiosity.
The images that will stand out won't necessarily be the deepest or the cleanest. They'll be the ones that show us something we haven't noticed before. Long-term projects that reveal real change in distant objects are incredibly compelling because they remind us that the universe is alive and in motion, even when those motions are normally hidden from us.
I also wonder if infrared imaging will eventually become the next frontier for amateurs. If the hardware ever becomes commercially viable, we may find ourselves rediscovering familiar targets through entirely different wavelengths.
The technology may make astrophotography easier. Finding new ways to see the universe probably never will. My biggest concern is the number of satellites being launched and light polution as a whole.
On short term i believe what will be a major shift is afffordable remote observatories. Most of us would never dream of year long access to a bortle 1 site from out living room. Now anyone can have that for as low as 150$ a month. We can point a camera at what is believed to be an empty spot in space, gather 100 hours in a matter of days just for the fun of checking whether there’s something there and all without breaking the bank.
Chuck Korenic · Jun 8, 2026, 10:49 PM
Christian Silk · Jun 8, 2026, 09:44 PM
I feel like infrared astrophotography might become more of a thing if the equipment starts getting commercialized. Planewave does it with IRDK scopes. I understand there are limits here for imaging that I don’t fully understand and it sounds like the cameras are crazy expensive.
Christian Silk · Jun 8, 2026, 09:44 PM
Another area I find fascinating and hope becomes more common is time lapses of distant targets over long spans of time to capture the normally imperceptible but present movement of these targets. This is a fantastic example and honestly one of the most captivating images I have seen win IOTD:
I think long-span images with deeper integrations, and perhaps timelapses, are exactly where the future is headed. Smart scopes may eventually democratize image acquisition, but they don't democratize curiosity.
The images that will stand out won't necessarily be the deepest or the cleanest. They'll be the ones that show us something we haven't noticed before. Long-term projects that reveal real change in distant objects are incredibly compelling because they remind us that the universe is alive and in motion, even when those motions are normally hidden from us.
I also wonder if infrared imaging will eventually become the next frontier for amateurs. If the hardware ever becomes commercially viable, we may find ourselves rediscovering familiar targets through entirely different wavelengths.
The technology may make astrophotography easier. Finding new ways to see the universe probably never will. My biggest concern is the number of satellites being launched and light polution as a whole.
Don’t worry about satellites the Kessler effect will take care of that. We’re just a few decades from its inevitability anyway.
Chuck Korenic · Jun 8, 2026, 10:49 PM
Christian Silk · Jun 8, 2026, 09:44 PM
I feel like infrared astrophotography might become more of a thing if the equipment starts getting commercialized. Planewave does it with IRDK scopes. I understand there are limits here for imaging that I don’t fully understand and it sounds like the cameras are crazy expensive.
Christian Silk · Jun 8, 2026, 09:44 PM
Another area I find fascinating and hope becomes more common is time lapses of distant targets over long spans of time to capture the normally imperceptible but present movement of these targets. This is a fantastic example and honestly one of the most captivating images I have seen win IOTD:
I think long-span images with deeper integrations, and perhaps timelapses, are exactly where the future is headed. Smart scopes may eventually democratize image acquisition, but they don't democratize curiosity.
The images that will stand out won't necessarily be the deepest or the cleanest. They'll be the ones that show us something we haven't noticed before. Long-term projects that reveal real change in distant objects are incredibly compelling because they remind us that the universe is alive and in motion, even when those motions are normally hidden from us.
I also wonder if infrared imaging will eventually become the next frontier for amateurs. If the hardware ever becomes commercially viable, we may find ourselves rediscovering familiar targets through entirely different wavelengths.
The technology may make astrophotography easier. Finding new ways to see the universe probably never will. My biggest concern is the number of satellites being launched and light polution as a whole.
The near IR, starting at 680nm and going down to about 1100nm is already accessible with cameras like the QHY5iii715C and 585 based cameras, plus the filter is inexpensive. I’ve been using one for awhile as it’s great for producing deep L frames under heavy light pollution. I know this is just knocking at the door of ground based IR but it’s useful with cameras we already have.
Here’s a great example by bin member Wolfgang Promper using R, IR and Sloan Z band filters:
Tony Gondola · Jun 8, 2026, 08:34 PM
Processing data that I haven’t gathered myself would just be a pretty empty experience. I know some people do it and enjoy it but it’s just not for me as well.
I can tell you this much, I’ve only done it twice…
Once - I bought a monochrome dataset because I wanted to see how I would go (I’m colour deficient/colour blind), and didn’t want to commit to monochrome imaging only to find out that I couldn’t generate a reasonable image..
I processed the data - I was happy with the result, and I uploaded it to AB and got my first ‘Top Pick’… While I was happy with the Top Pick, and I was amazed to see how much easier processing LRGB images is than processing OSC data for someone who doesn’t ‘see’ colour very well… I can’t say the Top Pick gave me any real sense of pride.
So, I bought the mono camera… I spent a few weeks with it, and landed my first Top Pick from data that I’d captured with my own gear, in my back yard… The feeling was VERY different… This same image went on to win the 2025 ToupTek Astro Global Astrophotography Competition.. To have my own dataset and processing recognised is a very very different experience to processing a purchased dataset from a remote observatory…
The other time is when I had captured 10~12h of Ha on a target from my back yard, but when I attempted to capture some LRGB data, I realised the target is far too faint for my bortle 6 skies… I did not want to abandon my dataset, but as a monochrome image, it was a little lifeless.. I rented time on a rig similar to my own in a remote bortle 1 site and pulled down 5h of data (2h L and 1h each of R, G & B) to give my Ha data some colour… I didn’t even submit that image for IOTD consideration as I knew it would feel empty if the image was awarded TPN/TP or even IOTD…
I think to push the boundaries further, we need to look at multi-rig, multi-night/season projects.
20 years ago, backyard astrophotographers would have LAUGHED if you said you were planning to capture 6~8h on a target.. Most would limit their work to 2~4h, largely because they already spent 2h getting their polar alignment sorted with no software assistance, just drift aligning the scope.
Software has improved, so polar alignment is a 5m routine at the start of a night. Platesolving means you can rest assured that multi-night images align well/perfectly..
I remember in 2008 or 2009, a fellow Australian astrophotographer won a bunch of awards and recieved a ton of recognition when he ‘pushed the limits’ and captured an (at the time) unimaginably deep image of Centaurus A, with 12.5h of total integration time with a 6” APO and a mono CCD… The image was absolutely glorious, and the fact you could see the outer shells of the galaxy, and tidal tails was considered absolutely magic.
Fast-forward 17 years, amateurs are routinely doing 25~50h integrations on targets, with far more sensitive cameras that have significantly lower noise profiles… and I’ve now seen images of Centaurus A with over 300h of integration, captured over 5 years…
If you want to stand out - you have to do something stand-out… Commit to shooting one target for a whole season.. or even multiple seasons… Do it with a focal length that you don’t often see the target imaged with. (wide fields of galaxies, or excecptionally close up images of large nebulae)… Use faster scopes to build wild SNR quickly… Or… Find objects/areas of the sky that are often ignored… There are plenty of amazing targets that hardly ever get imaged because they live next door to something like M42, or Eta Carina…
- Find obscure targets.
- Commit to long integration.
- For LRGB targets, explore what adding NB data does to that image.
- For narrowband targets, explore what LRGB data will add to the image.
- Explore new/interesting compositions of common targets to show them in a new way.
For the love of all things holy, If you want to stand out and produce something that people really stop and say ‘wow… I’ve never seen that before’ stay away from M42, IC434, The Rosette, The Pleadies, M33, M31, M15, M16, M8/M20, M51 etc… UNLESS!! unless you’re going to commit to bringing us an image that has hundreds of hours of integration, and shows that target in a way it literally hasn’t been seen before…
To make me gasp over an M42 image would be an absolutely monumental task, but to do the same with an image of an obscure patch of dust interacting with a bright section of reflection nebula I didn’t even know existed… That’d be pretty easy indeed.