Bugdozer

I have an Astronomik UHC filter. It's the only nebula filter I have used so I can't compare with other brands. However, it definitely improves the view of all emission nebulae I have observed with it - M42 and the Crab included. The main difference using the filter is twofold - it increases the contrast with the background sky, and it seems to bring out more structural detail. This first characteristic was invaluable when I was trying to observe the Eagle nebula, which I literally could not see without the filter. I have only used it in skies with moderate to low light pollution, so I cannot speak to how it would help if you were in an area with higher light pollution. 

The universe is full of amazing stuff. And I just want to see it all. 

1 hour ago, Wolfgang101 said:

@ BugdozerI Sorry for the late reply, I converted it to infrared removing the filter, and it worked for some months then I got an error, I took it apart again and when putting it back together, I damaged a delicate connector for the sensor.  It's still worth doing but I'd buy an old second-hand DSLR to do it to next time.

Ah right! I have a converted DSLR for my infrared uses. I wouldn't dare try and convert anything myself though! 

That's a wonderful image. Superia 100 was a great emulsion with very little grain to it and it was popular among all photographers for its colour rendering, as you say. I have used it for some untracked shots of the sky, but not at that large format. 

I have no regrets at all with any of my astronomy gear. It's always been what was exactly right for me at the time. More of an annoyance than a regret was that a couple of months after buying my Meade ETX, they brought out the Goto version, which I would have preferred. But I didn't regret the telescope I did have. 

On 05/02/2024 at 10:03, Mr Spock said:

Software for processing digital images is continually improving. I've been using DxO Photolab for quite a while - I don't get on with Lightroom or Photoshop. The latest version of Photolab has noise reduction so good I've been able to 'rescue' my old D70 6mp images. Despite being only 3008x2000 px they look more than acceptable on my 1440p monitor. 

My recent infrared moon shot in the Lunar Imaging section was taken on a D70. They can still hold their own with good processing. 

1 minute ago, StarsWorld said:

If it's really kind of a panoramic image, of lets say 220 degrees, shouldn't we see the view distorted and squashed in the horizontal direction? I look at the trees, and the buildings in the background and they looks completely normal to me...
 

No. Panoramic images don't squash more in one direction than another, that's why their aspect ratio is elongated. 

I put my finder on and off every time I set up and take down my scope, and it seems to always remain exactly on target. 

You certainly shouldn't be embarrassed, that's a great picture. You have processed it well with a smooth range of tones and no highlight blowout and avoided the trap of going bananas with oversharpening. 

I have generally been using quite a high ISO setting when trying to image objects such as nebulae and galaxies, to try and capture as much faint detail as possible per sub. My understanding is that using a high ISO reduces the overall dynamic range of the image. This isn't such a problem with an extended target where the detail doesn't go to the extremes of black or white and stays more in the middle of the range, but I can imagine for good images of stars, where they are a bright point, a wider dynamic range might be beneficial. 

Therefore, would it be sensible to use a lower ISO when imaging something like an open cluster? 

Welcome, you will get lots of useful tips here! 

Welcome, and congratulations on being Forum Member Least Likely To Get Aperture Fever! 

4 hours ago, Knighty2112 said:

 

https://www.space.com/green-flash-earth-sunrise-sunset

This obviously isn't what the OP is describing though, is it? 

15 hours ago, cajen2 said:

The ironic thing is that I used to have exactly that dob.....and I sold it. 😆

I found myself not going out some nights because the scope was heavy and awkward, and I'm not, shall we say, in my first flush of youth....😉

This is exactly my point. Everyone on this forum falls into one of two types: those who say "no scope is ideal for everything" and those who say "get an 8 inch Dob" regardless of the needs of the person. 8 inch Dobs are great, but they're not good for people who lack space, people who need to travel to observe, people who have difficulty finding faint objects, and people who may have trouble with large tubes. There's more to the ideal telescope than simply "it's a fast scope with a big aperture that doesn't cost much".

It's possible the lists can be wrong. Look at NGC - even after they revised it to correct duplicates, things in the wrong place and things that didn't exist, they STILL had errors in it. 

On 01/02/2024 at 13:55, cajen2 said:

No scope is good at everything....

I was going to joke that one of the Dob Squad will imminently be along to say "an 8 inch Dob is good at everything" but the post immediately after yours beat me to it! 

On 29/01/2024 at 10:40, Carbon Brush said:

Agree absolutely.

Reading these discussions, there are some semi-related memories that I recall.

Within our family we have a set of encyclopedia, published in the 1920s.
There is no Pluto. The planets (and known distant objects) stop at Neptune!

Around 2004 I attended a course by a local astro society. At the time the first named object beyond Pluto had been located.
There was talk of maybe another one, or two. There are now rather more!

When NASA planned to launch New Horizons to flyby Pluto, they thought they ought to take a closer look at the destination.
In doing so they discovered more moons. The huge (compared to the other moons) Charon had only been known since 1978!

More recently I read of someone in the UK being involved in constructing a solar system model. Planets on plinths with explanations, spread around a village.
I forget the exact details. The Sun was about football size and Pluto a biro ball size about 3KM distant!
Just how do you find similar gravitationally insignificant, tiny and dark objects?
Off topic. I think if Alpha Centauri been included in the model, the plinth would have been in California!
 

It's interesting reading books from the past where things are yet to be discovered. I am lucky enough to have inherited an original edition if John Herschel's book from the 1830s, in which he speculates on the distances of the stars being "many hundreds of miles" and Saturn's rings being a solid opaque substance - and of course there's no mention at all of Neptune, with Uranus having been discovered by his father as the last planet. Although I am unsure if Ceres was still considered a planet at that time. 

On 29/01/2024 at 06:30, bosun21 said:

He means that the focuser can sometimes be pointing in very awkward positions due to using an EQ mount with a reflector. This can marginally be aided by when in the home position pointing the eyepiece straight up. This means that when you slew to either side of the meridian the eyepiece will be at a more respectable angle.

Oh yes of course, that makes perfect sense. For some reason I was imagining rotating the eyepiece within the focuser! 

I don't understand what you mean by "when I find a target, the eyepiece/finder needs to be rotated". Why? 

1 minute ago, Ags said:

Pluto is 1/1000 the mass of Neptune. From Pluto's point of view it hasn't started clearing it's orbit. From Neptune's point of view Pluto is just the moon that got away 

That doesn't really address my point. 

On 27/01/2024 at 19:42, Michael Kieth Adams said:

Document the area of space where we think it might be, multiple times.  At some point it should block out a star or other astronomical object.  There might be quite a lot of orbiting junk in similar orbits but once one knows a target we should be able to tell if it is something else or a planet.  There are probably tons of scientists already doing this.

 

There's a fundamental problem with detecting an object purely by occultation. You would need at least one more, and preferably several more occultations to determine an orbit. The advantage of a visible object, even if it's faint, is you will always be able to see it. If we detected an object by occultation, but then didn't see any further occultations, you have then pretty much lost it entirely. It could have gone anywhere at any speed. 

22 hours ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

I am in favour of Pluto being the ninth planet as I grew up with the sky like that.

It is a perfect spheroid  but my understanding is that it was kicked off the planet list because of its orbit. I read somewhere that at one point its orbit is inside Neptune's? 

Not to mention how we classify anything orbiting farther out than Pluto. There is a suggestion backed by observation that TNOs are orbiting in a way that shows they are being shepherded by a large unknown body.

Marv

Pluto failed to meet the criterion of being gravitationally dominant in its orbit, I believe because its orbit crosses over with Neptune's. 

However, this makes me question whether Neptune should therefore also be eliminated for the same reason. It hasn't managed to boot Pluto off, so... 

This reminds me of the Japanese classical musician (unfortunately whose name escapes me) in his 80's who was asked by someone why he still practiced every day after being at the top level of performance for decades already. To which he modestly replied "because I think I am starting to become quite good at playing". 

The point being, when you consider yourself to be a "real imager", but not others, you are losing sight of the fact that it's a journey, not a goal. There will always be stuff to learn. We have been "real imagers" from the moment we started, we are just at different points along the journey, using different tools and progressing at different speeds. 

Welcome Frank, you will get good advice here! 

2 hours ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

Conkers 

Doesn't work. My mum believed this for a while, leaving conkers in the corner of her rooms, until I pointed out a spider had actually built a small web between two of the conkers...