Skywatcher Light Pollution Filter - First Use

[Marky1973]

I was in the market for a LP filter and was umming and ahhing about the various kinds out there, from the cheapo Ebay options up to the CLS Clip Filters that are over £120. I was initially going with the CLS Clip Filter, but was a little unsure about the price and whether I was going to get value for money with my simple set-up. After reading a bit and taking some advice on SGL I decided on giving the Skywatcher LPF a go - £30 (Wex Photographic) so it wasn't going to break the bank if it didn't work.

I am using it on the Lightwave Field Flattener I got at the same time and here is just a very brief, basic, entirely unscientific comparison of two shots I took of Orion.

The first is taken without the filter, ISO 800 for 30 seconds.

And the second was with the filter, ISO 800 for 60 seconds

Now, I said this wasn't scientific and is very basic, but I think the effect is clear as the image is a lot darker on the second image even at twice the exposure length. I admit they were take a few nights apart - although both without a major interference from the Moon - but I was happy with the result and, for £30, I think it was a pretty good, low-budget investment for my little set-up.

I also add that I am in a fairly bad area for LP and the street lamps were put in about 10 years ago. Not sure what this makes them (I told you....unscientific) but the LP does seem to be reduced. It may not work as well with newer lamps.

I am sure some seasoned pros will have just fainted at the basic comparison, but I hope this is of some use to anyone wondering whether the SW LPF works.

[Alien 13]

Looks like a good result to me.

Alan

[nightfisher]

Good post, shows a marked difference

[LukeSkywatcher]

I have the same LP filter and it works for me. 

[chris_suffolk]

interesting - thinking of getting the same myself

[Marky1973]

Certainly seems to work and was good enough for me on my budget. Perhaps the CLS CCD filter is better for people with modded DSLRs (from what I have read) but this should keep me going for a while!

[BillPickle]

That's great.

I have been looking online tonight for one and was reading about the baader neodymium but the 2 pics you have posted is a perfect example as i had the exact same problem with a longer exposure.

I'll order one of those.

I also read setting a custom white balance on the camera helps further so gonna try that as well.

Thanks

[Roy Challen]

Thanks for that, I'm considering which LPF to buy and seeing as we have the same scope and mount I'll add the Skywatcher filter to the list of potentials.

[bish]

I don't do imaging but to me looks like a very good result when you are on a budget.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I don't do imaging but to me looks like a very good result when you are on a budget.

I also dont do any imaging but visually i have found it works as well also. It is a nice budget filter. I also own a Skywatcher UHC and OIII filter which also cost around the same as the light pollution filter and they work amazingly well for observing Nebulae. The UHC is more useful as it covers a wider range of nebulae then the OIII. The UHC enhances the already visible nebulae, while the OIII makes the invisible nebulae visible.

[Marky1973]

Yes, I suspect it will do a nice job visually, and I'll most likely keep hold of it for that purpose if I upgrade to bigger and better equipment!

[LukeSkywatcher]

Yes, I suspect it will do a nice job visually, and I'll most likely keep hold of it for that purpose if I upgrade to bigger and better equipment!

All of my filters work well on all my scopes (70,90,130 and 200mm).