Orion nebua and Double cluster.

[HaseebM]

Orion nebula, taken this with Skywatcher 100ED, 30 secs x 79 frames.
Double cluster, taken with SW 100ED, 30 secs x 17 frames.

Those who like astrophotography, hope you like it and those who don't too hope they like.



BW



Double cluster:

[Shadowman]

Nice captures.

[ajohnw]

We don't see many of these on here Haseeb. My only source of information is Astrobin really and most of those are loads and loads of shots probably via colour filters and a sizeabley chipped astro camera.

I'd be interested to know what produced these and the ISO rating used if it was a dslr. Also filters if there was significant light pollution.

John
-

[chauncey]

It tends to lose it's grandeur when converted to B&W...great images nonetheless.

[mknittle]

Makes my shots of the moon look kinda silly.

[HaseebM]

We don't see many of these on here Haseeb. My only source of information is Astrobin really and most of those are loads and loads of shots probably via colour filters and a sizeabley chipped astro camera.

I'd be interested to know what produced these and the ISO rating used if it was a dslr. Also filters if there was significant light pollution.

John
-

It was with 550D, no filters. ISO 800 at 30 secs each. Then took adequate Dark frames to reduce noise a bit. Initial stacking was done with Deep Sky Stacker and then processed with PS. I sometimes use a light pollution filter CLS II by Astronomik but did not do so yesterday night. For a mere 40 minutes work the results are pretty good, especially considering the light dome perennially surrounding my terrace, fortunately M 42 was at the Zenith.

[HaseebM]

Thank you everyone for your kind replies, much appreciated.

[IzzieK]

Absolutely gorgeous and stunning shots Haseeb. #1 is very very intriguing to say the least here...90 shots! Wow!! You did very well executing details there. The clusters in #2 is brilliant too but what are those round almost empty black spots all over? When I look at stars, I imagine "diamonds in the sky"...

[HaseebM]

Absolutely gorgeous and stunning shots Haseeb. #1 is very very intriguing to say the least here...90 shots! Wow!! You did very well executing details there. The clusters in #2 is brilliant too but what are those round almost empty black spots all over? When I look at stars, I imagine "diamonds in the sky"...

Thanks Izzie. Those are dust bunnies. When using the camera at prime focus, the sensor is open therefore vulnerable to air and dust. That's why I keep the 550D only for astronomy purpose.

Indeed some of those stars look like Diamonds in the sky and some have beautiful hues.

[JamesScott86]

Excellent captures - well taken.

[Wavelength]

Great captures indeed

[HaseebM]

Thanks James and Nandakumar. Here's the same processed differently with a bit of tone mapping.

[IzzieK]

Haseeb. although I find this one very nice too with the same turkey head trying to look out of its shell, I like the first one better because of the subtleness of its processing...it is nice to see this other version or I would not have been able to appreciate the first one better.

[HaseebM]

I like the first one too Izzie. I see so many of these images being processed this way so I tried to do one myself. However the guys who process this way have more than two hours integration time under dark skies and their images look spectacular.

[IzzieK]

Did you spend 2 hours or more just processing? With 90 frames to merge together, it wouldn't have been that bad, eh? But the PP afterwards will/might be. I love these kinds but my very first skyscapes failed when we were in Florida because of bad weather and I cannot do anything of the star kind here in Missouri because of the lights. City lights sucks big time here, but I will be going to Australia soon so I might give it a try over there...if I can...<keeping my fingers crossed>

[ajohnw]

I like the first one too Izzie. I see so many of these images being processed this way so I tried to do one myself. However the guys who process this way have more than two hours integration time under dark skies and their images look spectacular.

That's the problem Haseeb. They also often use cooled black and white "cameras" and colour filters too so the equivalent integration time is likely to be a lot longer on a dslr. These people have tempted me to buy yet another scope. Celestron 80mm ED. I've been waiting for one to turn up in original condition for some time. We do have some hills round here that are much higher than the city street lighting which should help. 80mm is a compromise on size, still light and a decent aperture. Also F7.5 which is a bit more general purpose than F6.

Thanks for the info. I read a comment that say 8 iso 800 shots were averaged the result would be the same a 100 ISO shot. I may try some experiments along those lines but at much higher iso's.

John
-

[HaseebM]

Hi Izzie and John, I did not spend two hours on this image, only 41 minutes of integration time. I was referring to some of my friends who spend quite a lot under the stars imaging, sometimes even up to 12 hours on a single image.

John you are right, most of these pro's use cooled cameras. Btw the 80mm should be just about right for imaging galaxies and nebulae. If you haven't done so yet, you will be surprised at what they can throw up under fairly good skies at exposures less than half an hour, i.e., 30 secs x 60 for example. I have a 71mm which takes excellent images.

[ajohnw]

Noticing your comment about dust bunnys I wonder what set up you use Haseeb. I intend to use a 2in 50mm extension with a filter on one end and the camera adapter on the other along with cap when not in use. I'm assuming the extension will be needed because the lack of a diagonal. Hopefully the focus tube wont be extended too much as well so that it's rigid.

I had an expected disappointment last night. I had dug some of my gear out which includes a filter that completely rejects the sodium line. All I need to do to check a filter is to look through it out of our front door. As expected it just dimmed the view as the street lighting was changed last year. There is still a lot of the golden yellow that low pressure sodium produces but a lot of other junk now. Previously the view was jet black via the filter.

I don't have any 2in filters so now am in 2 minds, a Baader type CLS or one of their UHC's. The Baader CLS makes sense as it also cuts IR and cameras are sensitive to it when exposures are long despite the filtering - think of nd filters that don't cut IR.

I keep wondering how I can start some sort of campaign to find out what street lighting costs as they are clearly spending more when they should be cutting costs. There are some LED lights round the corner - far fewer of them and more than adequate lighting even when widely spaced. High cri types though so consume more power than needed.

One thing about the newer lighting is any clouds retain more of their natural colour rather than having a sort of sodium lighting glow.

John
-

[ajohnw]

I've decided to see what one of these is like. Just hope some light gets through

http://www.opticalvision.co.uk/astro...125_and_2.html

I'm not convinced that alternatives would really achieve anything but have no clear idea what it will do.

John
-

[HaseebM]

John, I use a T-Adapter with camera appropriate T-Ring, in my case Canon T2i. Works well and has enough focus distance in both my Catadioptric as well as three different Refractors. I have a 2" Agenaastro T-thread / T-Ring combo which works amazingly well and you should buy that.

With regard to LP filter, I use an Astronomik CLS II filter which is extremely good. However the images taken above were direct with camera without filter.