alacant

16 minutes ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

Photoshop

No. We're strictly Linux.  It may have something similar.

7 hours ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

im not a million miles away

In fact you're there.
Even with the jpg, the detail is there. With a 16 bit tiff, you'll do even better. All you need is to go easy with the levels. Exaggerated so you can see what I'm on about:

1 hour ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

More stars = better I assume

Not really. You can have a sky which looks amazing. Diamonds on velvet I once saw as a description. But, if they're bouncing around all over the place... Nada.

With your 72ed/dslr though, you should be able to go with most conditions. Here for example, it's rare to get more than say two nights per month good enough to hold up 1000mm focal length at decent resolution with any camera. Otherwise, we recommend something shorter. Enlarge it if you have to. The shorter the fl, the less fussy (and easier) it becomes. There are arc second per pixel  types of stuff to describe all this if you like, but we prefer just to go out and do it. Hands on and experiment.

1 hour ago, AstroMuni said:

you dont need a 'premium' scope to get good images.

+1. 

To which I would add that clear, stable (good seeing) skies also help enormously. The mount I would also place of higher importance than the optics. Probably the camera too.

It depends on the data. For your image, I used StarTools. 

FWIW, we gladly allowed our PI trial to expire.

@TiffsAndAstro I really think you're doing great. Your data is fine. Keep it simple. With processing, perhaps don't overthink it.

5 minutes in StarTools gave me this. Rough around the edges? Yes. But if you have the patience (I haven't!) , there's the basis to make a good image. Just keep adding frames.

Cheers and HTH

5 minutes ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

I don't quite follow,

May I help? If you compare the galaxies, you see this:

2 hours ago, pipnina said:

It still refused to point properly.

Hi

You can trace what happened from the log at:
~/.local/share/kstars/logs

Although I'm sure you'll know, a few pointers anyway...
If you're certain the computer clock is correct and your park position is toward the pole, don't sync. Rather, slew somewhere away from the pole and solve there. e.g. for m101, Mizar would be good. Finally, kstars EKOS uses local time or perhaps better said, whatever time the computer is set to use, usually local time. Make sure kstars time is synchronised with computer time and that the computer clock is correct (kstars -> time -> set to now). My money would be firmly on the time being wrong. 

Cheers and HTH
 

gso203: 50 x 90s,  120s
Lost a lot of the fainter stuff around the edges, I'm certain 50 x 300s would work better.

Hi everyone

Experiment with loadsa short exposure frames rather than fewer longer.
Not sure.

Thanks for looking.

9 hours ago, Andy56 said:

rubber rings

Three at 120º around base and four in the focuser itself, 1 in each corner labelled -rather hopefully- fixing screw  in the reference you cite. If you're serious about it and you don't like the idea of metal to metal, you may wish to fit a paper gasket instead of the rubber.
HTH

8 hours ago, Andy56 said:

strange shaped stars

Hi

Tilt is certainly a contributory factor. When you attach the camera, the focuser axis moves; a well known issue with the budget swds focusers. If you haven't done so already, remove the (7 off and usually damaged) rubber washers in the focuser. Take the slack instead using the push-pull pairs of adjuster screws alone.

You can't properly assess the sensor back spacing until the tilt is fixed and you are certain of collimation.

Cheers and HTH

On 16/04/2024 at 14:58, OK Apricot said:

how to remedy

Loafsa stuff to do to a budget Newtonian to bring it up to imaging standard. All of it quick, cheap and easy.

As well as take flat frames, to address the ring artefact you could start with... velvet lined tube and focuser. Shower cap covering the 1° end of the tube, darken the edges of the secondary, tape the focuer drawtube... Some would advise a dew shield, but since you have a 800mm model already fitted, any longer may be overkill.

The next stage is modifying the the tube and its elements so that collimation is retained at all tube angles.

The next stage, correction of the star shapes etc etc. It just depends upon where you decide enough is good enough.

Cheers and HTH

On 14/04/2024 at 01:13, OK Apricot said:

250P Quattro

A proper telescope. Nice!

Excellent m51. The aperture makes it a lot easier, but did you take flat frames? They're not really optional and you'll find it much easier to process. 

Cheers.

On 14/04/2024 at 01:13, OK Apricot said:

Quattro 

On 11/04/2024 at 21:04, gonzostar said:

pointers for improvement

Hi

Well done. There's some nice detail.
Maybe have a look at the individual frames and remove any with clouds. Then stack again. Be ruthless!

Keep it simple. Go gently with the processing. Be careful not to delete faint stuff. It needn't take hours sat in front of a screen. A quick go with the latest ST:

On 08/04/2024 at 11:49, alacant said:

62 hours. Wow! 

Inspired by @Clarkey's excellent zoomed in image above...

Couldn't manage 62 hours -not nearly enough beer- alas just five; 203mm f5. It makes seven hours with the 70mm f6 look decidedly lacking.
This must be because f5 is faster than f6. (Sorry. Couldn't resist!) 

44 minutes ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

will take me some time

It's much quicker than you may think. Be cautious though. A search for help will throw up all manner of material of varying usefulness...

Perhaps go with the official start guide. If you've a decent computer, it should take around 30 minutes. Less on subsequent runs. A multi core Ryzen with 32Gb ddr5 under Linux is the most instantaneous I've tried so far.

Cheers 

46 minutes ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

try this out via the scripts

JTOL

By the time you have worked out how, tested the new script... and it still doesn't work... Perhaps better to use Siril manually. This puts you in control rather than being constrained by a script. Quicker too.

Cheers 

On 09/04/2024 at 09:11, 900SL said:

F8 is too slow

Hi

It isn't f-ratio which makes a telescope fast or slow.

Cheers

https://es.aliexpress.com/item/1005006370292413.html

1 hour ago, 900SL said:

No coma corrector required on a 533

No. It's fine. Even over aps-c. It also focuses fine with room to spare using a dslr.

I've never looked through one, so can't comment on its visual capability.

15 hours ago, WolfieGlos said:

I've been considering a Sky-watcher 150PL

Hoping this reply will also be of use to the OP, if not apologies for the noise and @devs please remove it.

The main issue with the long sw is the awful 1-1/4" focuser. A better choice for imaging would be the  Bresser 150 f8 which comes with a hefty 2-1/2" rack and pinion model. Great for galaxies. Don't cringe the f8 though; you'll find it just as good if not brighter than any 5" refractor.

Oh, and this may be important to the OP. It's only just over 6kg.

Cheers and HTH.

46 minutes ago, tomato said:

photogenic gas and dust

Yes, that. I suppose that which the galaxies lose in instant wow factor, they make up for with their thought provocation.

Cheers