Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_through_the-_eyepiece_winners.thumb.jpg.236833c5815bb321211a43f4d5214ba8.jpg

glowingturnip

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    1,500
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

glowingturnip last won the day on March 19 2014

glowingturnip had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,049 Excellent

2 Followers

About glowingturnip

  • Rank
    Sub Dwarf

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    London
  1. I use ST4, and set my PHD aux mount to 'ask for coordinates'. You then get a little pop-up at the start of calibration asking for the declination and side of pier. It's easy.
  2. for what it's worth, back when I started and was using an old unmodded Nikon with serious amp glow, I was never able to calibrate it out even though both darks and lights showed it - temperature differences between the darks and lights meant they would never match, and the longer in total I imaged for, the hotter it would get. I'd assume this is better with temperature controlled cameras though... ?
  3. an erudite member of this forum gave me a tip for magenta removal in PI, sadly I can't remember who invert the whole image, apply SCNR (green), re-invert it. Works a treat
  4. 2018 was my first foray into narrowband imaging - lots more to come hopefully. A fairly light year for me, an unpleasant dose of real life back in September got in the way. Equipment as per sig.
  5. fwiw, planetary with the 200pds, with, ahem, one barlow in the back of another, qhy5liic
  6. I think you're arriving at a decent decision for 150PDS + HEQ5. I've got a 200 but it is a lump and needs a stronger mount, but I do like the zoom it gives me - I like my nebulae in my face, not lost in a star field. The 150 sounds like decent middle ground if you've already used a 130 and want to go longer. You'll need a coma corrector, as above, and you should spend some time in the field experimenting with different spacings to get it right, mine ended up needing a whole 1mm longer than the default. You'll also need to be on top of your collimating, I would suggest getting both a Cheshire and a laser collimator and spending the time learning how to nail it. My 200PDS was quite far off-collimated when I got it. Also check for light spill round the bottom of the tube, try taking a quick picture with a light shining at the bottom end, see if you get any light spill on the photo - I bought some blackout blind material and a bungee cord to fix mine
  7. that last pic reminded me of this... they happened in the same week
  8. maybe captioning the photo is the way to go - a small caption in the corner saying 'composite image' would do it. If someone down the line chooses to take your photo and crop that off, well we know who the cheat is there
  9. awful lot better than my first ! Careful, it's a slippery slope towards a black hole in your bank account.
  10. I think that's a very good example - with the explanation, it makes it an informative and very good shot, but without the explanation, it would be an undeniable cheat. Sometimes we see similar shots with the full moon added to a picture for scale - looks like a cracking shot with the moon in there, possibly suspiciously so, but with the explanation it's understood and contributes to the information given by the image. I guess that's where narrowband processing comes in - the colours are false, widely understood to be false so doesn't create an issue, but that by doing so the image imparts much more information than it could do otherwise. @Olly - just wondering how you feel when guests take and produce a really nice final image taken with your gear - does it feel like it's still part yours, or do you let it go ? (not trying to make a point, just curious)
  11. I was thinking about that concept of ownership of a photo. A few years back, when my own equipment still had a lot to be desired, I fancied a go at processing some good data for a change, and narrowband at that, so I went on to the Nasa Hubble archive site and downloaded a bunch of raw data to process. The data was in varying states, I had about 8 different filter's worth of stuff to use, so it was a proper full processing job, very enjoyable and the end result undeniably beautiful. I put a caption right on the photo saying what it was so that there was never any confusion. However, not once did I ever feel like it was my photo. In fact in the end I found it embarrassing, like I was passing it off as my work - I'd be scrolling through my work showing someone new - "Wow, look at that one !" "Oh no, that one's not mine, I processed it from Hubble data", "oh". I ended up deleting it from my Flickr account in the end. I imagine I'd feel the same if I was renting time on a remote rig - pay my money and get back a set of perfect subs in the post. In fact I reckon I'd end up sending in odd coordinates just so I could check they actually took it for me and didn't just mail me the same data as the last person who asked for the Cats Eye. Conversely, over on the Beginner's forum, we occasionally get people posting up asking for processing help - they attach a link to a set of raw data and then various people have a go, bringing back various renditions of a final product. Are all those renditions still the OP's photo ? Yes, 100%, every time !
  12. I think I may have cheated on this one, sorry !
  13. I think that raises an important point - there is a tendency, especially amongst people outside of the hobby, to 'anthropomorphise' our perception of the night sky and assume there isn't much colour there because we can't see it, because of the way our eyes respond to light and our nighttime colour-blindness. Consequently a common criticism is to assume the colour has been added, or made up. Of course, as anyone who's ever pointed a camera at M42 knows, there's loads of colour out there. For me, just enough NR to take the fizz off, don't over-stretch to show what's borderline not-really there, stop sharpening before artifacts start showing, and avoid the clone-stamp !
  14. Wow, surprised you managed to make such a difference ! I did deconvolve all three channels as a very first step, but didn't get it making that much of a difference. Maybe I should have another go - mind you, I'm not sure I want to go through all the processing steps again, it did take ages ! Although I suppose I only have to do it for the lum... Mind sharing what deconv settings you used ? Obviously they'd be different for the raw linear data.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.