Lee_P

Nicely done, you've obviously got a lot of good quality data in there. I'd be interested to see a version with the background a little darker -- might make the nebula pop even more.

Good job, and I second Bryan's comment about the framing

35 minutes ago, Mike73 said:

I had one of his covers a few years ago and it was really good for the price, like you say Lee it never leaked and even his medium weight cover was very tough material.

I ordered a new one from him last week but haven't heard anything from him, hope he's still making them.

I can say for sure that he was still making them in March! I got replies to emails within a few days, fingers crossed he'll get back to you soon 🤞

Nice pics, first one has the edge I think.

I bought a Cygnus Astro cover. Quite cheap compared to alternatives like TeleGizmos 365s. Hasn't let in a single drop so far! The chap makes them to order so can do custom sizes. Thumbs up from me! https://neilross758.wixsite.com/cygnus-astro-covers

My AAP is under the telescope, similar to yours, and I've never had a problem with it accumulating dew. For what it's worth, I do have a dew heater on my guidescope.

Good job, that's one to be proud of. PI does get easier 😛 Adding in some Flats may make removing gradients a bit simpler for you. Looking forward to seeing more of your pics 😃

Nice pic, you've got some good details there.

Not sure I've seen that one before, thanks for sharing it.

I think this is a rare case in astrophotography of things actually being simple! Just leave the camera on, you're more likely to introduce dust into the system by removing it.

Nice pic, looks suitably ethereal!

2 minutes ago, Sterrenland said:

@Lee_P  That's brilliant...it's always sooooooo handy to find a well-illustrated tutorial.

I found Luke's video a few weeks ago and have been trying it out with my new ASI294MC...it's a great method to process targets and I often find the (pseudo)SHO palette brings out a lot of detail that isn't always visible with a more 'conservative' method (especially, for example,  where illuminated ridges of gas in nebulae stand out against darker dust).

Yep, I totally agree. I've found a few decent L-eXtreme processing tutorials that lead to appreciably different end results. On my to-do list is to write up an article on my website testing out these different methods so the final pictures can be seen side-by-side.

Such a good collection, well done!

15 minutes ago, nephilim said:

@Lee_P I'm certainly sticking with it but christ its hard work 😂

I don't know if this will be helpful or not, but I've written an example PI workflow that I've found to be effective. It's specifically for processing L-eXtreme data, but there might be some handy tips in there.

3 hours ago, nephilim said:

The main issues I'm coming across with PI are that what seems to be an unsolvable problem, ends up been a simple tick box or window de activated etc, but i'm enjoying using it.....Most of the time.

Haha, that's a good summary of PI -- but it does get easier!

That definitely pops more! Just add in more data and it should be a cracking image 👍

I'd be interested to hear how you rate the Askar400 compared to the SW72.

Hi and welcome, looking forward to seeing more of your images

Nice shot! I'm sure it'll really pop with a longer integration time. As it stands, maybe it could do with the contrast being upped a bit? M16 is always behind my house so I can't image it from my garden, I'm jealous that you can!

So crisp, almost like being in orbit 😃

Hello and welcome!

21 hours ago, YellowHound said:

First post, and hopefully not the equivalent of a 'what's the best oil' on a car forum...

I'm a full time professional photographer but new to astrophotography. I bought a Move-Shoot-Move rotator to dip my toe in the water but really found it a faff, so didn't use it very much.

I'm looking to buy a good tracking mount that I can use initially with a DSLR for imaging, and with a view to adding a telescope in dues course.

I don't have oodles of cash to spend and after some keyboard research I've settle on the Skywatcher HEQ5 Pro. From the research I've undertaken this looks like a good compromise for me. A capable mount to start with and something I can progress with.

Before I buy one (amazingly it is one of the few/only mounts I can currently find in stock in the UK) I thought I'd ask whether I'm about to make a 'bad' purchase?

TIA.

Hi from another professional photographer who's also into astro 😃 The HEQ5 Pro is a solid choice, good for DSLR work (overkill, really) and also suitable for light to middle-weight telescopes. The mount I use is very similar in specifications.

5 minutes ago, CraigT82 said:

I must say your website is brilliant (on my laptop and only just noticed the link in your sig - I usually use a mobile device). Love the way youv'e presented single subs alongside the finished images, and the sliders to compare. We may have even briefly met as I went to the planetarium at we the curious a lot (when we could)

Thanks Craig, that's very kind. The website is new and I'm always happy if people find it useful  More content on the way too!

If you ever went to any of the Planetarium Nights shows for adults then we probably did meet, as I presented a lot of those! Feels like a long time ago. I'd sometimes make 1x1 versions of my astrophotos and just blast them up onto the dome -- seeing your images 12-metres across in 4k resolution is a lot of fun 😂

Just now, astro mick said:

Hi.

I process in Photo-shop.

Ok, then I'll leave it to Photoshop users to help with putting the stars back in  

Nice image though, the nebulosity really pops. I'm not sure what your integration time was, but I suspect that a bit longer will help keep noise levels down and let even more detail come through.

Congrats on the new camera! I use one too, along with an ASIAIR PRO. For what it's worth, I've never worried about thermal shock or anything like that. I just take the most direct route to get to whatever temperature I want. So, before starting an imaging run I'll just tell it to go to -10 deg C. And once the imaging run has finished, the 'scope will return to the home position and then everything turns off automatically. Easy, no hassle, and no issues (so far 😂)

23 hours ago, Rustang said:

So after some reading I think Ive understood it a little better and Ive also only just realised I'm not at 480mm fl Im at 510mm fl 🙈

From from what Ive read online it goes like this:

5.4 / 510 x206.3 = 2.2 arc seconds per pixel for my QHY9. Guide camera = 3.75 / 225 x 206.3 = 3.44

If I have a RMS of say 0.7 its apparently goes 0.7 x 3.44 = 2.41 then 2.41 / 2.2 = 1.09 pixel RMS error on final image so if my QHY-9 's arc seconds per pixel is 2.2 and my RMS calculates to 1.09 then is that well with in tolerance!?

 

this is the online paragraph that I got the above calculations from above-

"– First of all, please bear in mind that you can have a pretty ugly looking guiding graph that produces little or no visible effect on the actual image. The opposite is also true of course! You need to convert the pixel lines on the vertical scale and/or the RMS error to arcseconds of error by performing the guider pixel scale multiplication described above. Now compare that to the pixel scale of your imaging rig. You may find that what looks like a major guiding issue is actually less than a pixel or two of error on your final image.

For example, looking at the RA error in the graph above:

0.2 RMS pixels error x 2.67 arcseconds per pixel = 0.53 arcseconds of error on the guider image

0.53 arcseconds of error / 1.9 arcseconds per pixel imager scale = 0.28 pixel RMS error on final image

I can't help with the technical side of things -- happy to leave that to Olly! -- but in general I'd say that if your stars aren't showing any trailing then don't stress over the mount / guiding too much. Sure, things can always be better, but there's something to be said for appreciating when things are "good enough" -- this allows you to focus your attentions (and money!) on another area to improve upon which may actually have a greater impact overall.