meryck

Yeah, very possibly. I'm no expert in photo editing - I just play until it looks nice - something to work on!

Thanks very much! I'm really looking forward to another dark sky session, but can be grey skies for months on end here!

Thanks! What's your question? (Not sure I'll be able to answer, but hey.. ) :)

Thanks for the comment! Iris nebula could really have used a deeper stack, but I was pretty happy given the short integration :)

Thanks for the comment! Yeah, the handset is a bit annoying. You have to press hard, which is exactly what you don't want to have to do :). But nothing too bad. I use a standalone intervalometer (cheap one from Amazon, only annoying thing is the timing is off. If you set to 3 minutes, you get 3.03 - weird, given that's ITS ONLY JOB haha).

I think the limiting factor in my setup is the camera now - it's probably the next thing I'll upgrade!

Lovely backyard capture - hard to do a lot better than that without a dark site or much longer integration. Nice work!

Had a chance to image at a dark sky site for the first time (Møns Klint in Denmark). Previous attempts were always ruined by equipment failure or fog. This time everything went to plan, and it was an excellent experience. This was also my first time properly using my standalone autoguider (Synguider 2), after getting the hang of its eccentricities in the backyard. Have to say that once you figure out all the important info that's not in the manual, it's s fantastic piece of kit. Not having a laptop out in the field made things much simpler. Two main targets for the night. Horsehead n

Haha, yes, it's been a long grey wait for clear skies...

Yes, I know what you mean. I don't autoguide, or do any kind of precise polar alignment technique, so it's around a 50/50 chance of round stars for me at 120s. Most of the time it's just about good enough to do something nice with though.

Lovely shot! It's always hard to battle light pollution, and you've done a great job here. Apart from the vignetting (covered by other comment already), the other problem is that the white parts look a bit saturated. Not sure if that is in the subs themselves, or caused by the post processing. I'm no expert here, but I'd suggest maybe take more subs at a lower ISO. Possibly as many subs as you can get at ISO 800, and be a bit less aggressive with the levels adjustment in your photo editor. I'd welcome anyone else's comments on this - this is just what's worked for me when I've had similar

Beautiful clear night in Denmark on Sunday night, so got out there in the cold for a few hours: (Skywatcher 200p, EQ5 goto mount unguided, Canon 450D, [42 x 120s subs @ iso 800, 16 x darks, 16 x flats, 16 x flat darks], DeepSkyStacker + Gimp for levels adjustment) Polar alignment was a bit off, so some trailing. But I feel it's much better than my first attempt below (didn't do flats, so horrible vignetting, and focus was off, though alignment was better):

Absolutely beautiful. Well done!

Actually, I'm going to try software vignetting correction, just to see how good it is. Not substitutes for flats though...

The Canon 450D is a great versatile and robust camera, and a top choice among astrophotographers. One reason, as you say, is that it's cheap, very easy to mod compared to other models, and can be remote controlled and scheduled easily from infrared enabled smartphones. I haven't modded mine, and it still does a great job. But if I ever get more serious, and get an autoguider, I'd like to get it modded for the very long exposure shots. The only trouble is it's my wife's camera, and I just 'borrow' it for astro-work... Not sure she'd like me to steal it completely!