Demonperformer

Interesting topic.

Will do some photos later, but thinking about it, I like to complain about the streetlights, trees, parked vehicles, etc. But this is a pic I took back in 2013 from my LP-ridden, obstructed front garden (as it came out of DSS). It's Messier 7, which reaches a massive 4 degrees above the horizon at my latitude, so I guess I don't have it too bad really.

You could always offer to give up the hobby and to spend the money drinking yourself into a stupor instead ...

I recently read The Alchemy of the Heavens by Ken Crosswell. It is a little dated (1994 ... still wondering if the universe would eventually stop expanding and collapse back in on itself), but the basic building-blocks of the universe are still the same (stars, clusters, galaxies) and I found the historical aspect, together with the interviews, a very easy read.

21 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I think there's a place for an image which is way too big to fit the screen but which can be 'cruised around' while zoomed in on. Well, I hope there is since Tom and I spent 400 hours capturing one!

But your images are in a slightly different league to mine.

The old canon lenses can be quite good. Main problem, I think, is finding a suitable connector for the old FD mount. However you did that, it seems to have worked. Nice result.

Very nice result.

It is interesting what people see ... when i first looked at your picture, I didn't see a wizard, but a reptile (probably a lizard, but possibly a crocodilian). Apologies for mutilating your pic, but ...

On 05/07/2019 at 00:25, Mr_42tr0nomy said:

Happy Fourth of July Yall!!

Thanks. I've always said we Brits have more to celebrate of July 4th than the Americans!! (grabs tin helmet and dives for cover)

Excellent image of a well-themed target.

Very nice result, Adrian. Hoping to have a go at this with the duo filter when the nights get a bit longer, but I'm sure the result will not be as spectacular.

I see what you mean. My first thought was it looks like M57 at an oblique angle, but of course, M57 is actually a sphere and we are seeing the edges because they look denser from here. Something is obviously causing the gas to expand faster in one axis than the other - no idea what - similar reasons to NGC 7009 maybe?

On 30/06/2019 at 11:33, Davey-T said:

It's Asteroid Day again, taken some snaps of Ceres and Pallas recently.

Missed it. But they keep missing me, so fair's fair.

Hi, Andrew, and welcome to SGL from another UKAI member (we are a "facebook" group now).

This is a great resource for AP.

A simple Y-mask (I believe the technical term is a Lord Mask) is easy to make and quite effective for focussing.

Enjoy the journey.

Hi, Rick, and welcome to SGL.

Enjoy the journey.

Hi, Mark, and welcome to SGL.

If AP is your passion, this book is worth getting. It will save you time and money in the long run.

Enjoy the journey.

Hi, David, and welcome to SGL.

Enjoy the journey.

Hi, MM617, and welcome to SGL.

If AP is your passion, this book will save you time, money and heartache in the long run.

Enjoy the journey.

On 27/06/2019 at 23:01, ollypenrice said:

Your PC, by default, will probably fit an image to your screen so, if it is cropped, the Horse may fill the screen. If it is not cropped the PC will shrink the entire image to fit the screen but, if you zoom in, you'll find that the level of Horse detail is identical.

When we see that we are looking at an image at '100%' or 'Full size,' what does that mean? It means that one camera pixel is given one screen pixel. And that is absolutely unaffected by cropping.

I agree with what you are saying, but my "astro-snapshot" approach is slightly different. My screen is only 1280x7-something. Having an image that is any bigger than that is pointless because, as you say, the computer will automatically shrink it. So I will tend to either crop the image for framing (my images don't support the use of the word "artistic") reasons, or to resize it, so that I end up with a file that will display "at 100%" on my screen. This file tends to be considerably smaller than the one I get out of the camera, so saves me storage space on the disk and (if anyone should be foolhardy enough to want a copy!) bandwidth (mine and theirs). It also saves space on the SGL servers if I choose to upload it here. Anything bigger is just a waste of resources as far as I am concerned.

Hi, Las Vega, and welcome to SGL.

I did most of my early imaging using a 102slt (on the altaz mount!) and a DSLR.

I like the M57 shot. As for Albireo, I suspect you might get a better result if you dial back the exposure time - the colours have got lost. Experiment a bit, but I suspect you will get good colour results (which is at least half the joy of Albireo shots) in the "couple of second" region. Of course, you won't get as many background stars ...

Enjoy the journey.

That is good to know. We look forward to seeing some great images now ...

Hi, Nikki, and welcome to SGL.

For 30+ years in this hobby I had nothing bigger than a pair of 7*50 binoculars. I still use them to "cruise the sky" while the scope is imaging. So telescope is not vital (but they are nice to have!).

Enjoy the journey.

My contents cover is useless for the astro gear. Well, that's not totally true ... it is all covered as long as it is inside the HOUSE. The moment I take it outside the front door (which I find to be a good first step in actually using it) any item of equipment that costs more than £350 is not covered at all. Costs of policies to cover the equipment in use were stupidly prohibitive. So a few years ago I cut through the entire problem and designated one of my share holdings as "Astro Insurance". If anything gets lost/damaged, that is what I will sell to provide the replacement. In the mean time it is giving me a nice annual dividend, and simple logic would dictate that most insurance is money wasted ... otherwise the companies would quickly go out of business.

Interesting question, to which I cannot provide an answer. But it's got me wondering if there are any papers out there that apply objective math to the question rather than just a subjective "I can see more"?

Very nice result.

Keep them loaded and use what you need.  Although it is not uncommon to use LRGB in rotation (LLLRGB LLLRGB,  etc).

There is a C filter, which is like the L but with (without?) the IR block (can't remember which way round they are).

Some people also have a special IR-pass filters for imaging the moon and planets. And some use a set of UBVIR filters for photometry.

There are also other less usual filters. I have a CH4 filter for (particularly) Jupiter & Saturn. I also have an NE3 filter for (particularly) planetary nebulae.

So that's another nine options ...  where can I get a 16-position filter wheel ?

Initially confused me with the different orientations! Just goes to show what a difference the Ha makes to galaxy shots.