Adreneline

I use a Hoya Pro UV cut filter on my Samyang + ASI1600MM-Pro Cooled combination. I've not noticed any problems at all with reflections. One thing I have noticed however is much better FWHM readings with my Blue and OIII filters, and to a lesser extent Green, compared with Red, SII and Ha. The filter has saved me having to use star reduction as aggresively when processing OIII masters. I would generally agree with @Space Oddities and suggest not using a filter but my experience has been positive overall. Adrian

Hi. The "computer box thing" is an ZWO ASIair and refering to the ZWO website the Canon 2000D has not been tested for use so you might be taking a risk regarding compatibily if you go that route. My view of the ZWO Mini Guide Scope is not that positive but others may have had a more positive experience. I also own an EvoGuide 50ED and that (IMHO) is a much better guide scope and some on here even use it as a light weight imaging scope with very good results. I've only have positive experiences with the ASI120MM-Mini. I am a big fan of the ASIair (I own one of the originals - not the

Did you really I'm flattered. My wife has always told me I'd never be trend setter.

I liked the original colour scheme

Very nice, with amazing detail in the core area. I might suggest that if you pull the black point back a bit you may reveal yet more of the surrounding nebulosity. Did you take flats as well? Adrian

Hi Graham, Click on your Name 'drop down' on the top menu bar and then go to Account Settings and Signature

I am sure there are but I can't advise on that one or who. However, have you seen these or read up on them - might help you confrm if there is an issue or not.

I think it could be but .... The PA routine in the ASIair assumes the optical axis of the mount and the optical axis of the OTA are in exact alignment - as I understand it the whole idea with PA is to align the mount and not the OTA.

I have an ASIair but I still PA with a PoleMaster. The downside is I have to take my laptop out when I first set up but then the upside is I get a very good PA. I've tried the PA routine in ASIair but prefer the PoleMaster. I don't guide either so a good PA is essential and the PoleMaster has proved to be money well spent.

@JSeaman there are numerous threads about this (like this one on CN - you don't really need to read past the second post) and the consensus seems to be that unless you are scaling darks there is no advantage in using bias as it may increase noise. I take flats and dark-flats for each filter, and a small set of darks (180s, 120s, 60s and 30s) and that works well for me. I only use gain 139 and offset 50. There are enough variables in this hobby without adding more than are necessary.

With the likes of the ASI1600 bias frames are likely to increase noise in the image. @Jamgood has provided the info on a dark-flat. Adrian

The perceived wisdom is not to use bias frames - better to use flats, corresponding dark-flats and darks to calibrate. Adrian

As you say a promising start with your first light. There are numerous views on what gain and offset to use on all the forums. I've used a 1600 for a couple of years now and always use gain 139. I use the 1600 with an ASIair and ZWO set the offset at 50 with no means to change it. On that basis alone you might say 50 was a good place to start. Sticking with one setting makes life easier with calibration frames too. HTH Adrian

FIrst off this is a really good image of the HH with some excellent detail in the nebulosity and the structure of the HH. To me the main issue is the stars. You don't say what scope/lens/camera you used so I may be well off the track with my comments so apologies up front. I have had every problem going with RGB imaging, not the least of which was very different fwhm values for stars taken with each filter. I used to suffer from terrible 'blue bloat' giving rise to significant bluw halos around stars. I think it was either a feature of the doublet scope I used or a feature of the filter -

Some people advocate using Screen instead of Lighten - you can do that in PixelMath with 1-(1-R)*(1-Ha). Personally I prefer the result using Lighten but maybe it all depends on the data. Experimentation is the name of the game! Adrian