Light Pollution Filter / Nebula Filter

[bigrbuk]

Simple question - worth the money or not? I live in Sheffield, so quite a lot of LP, would the filter make a good enough difference to warrant the outlay?

Heritage 130P and various EPs

[Welrod50]

I'm in semi suburban Stoke-on-Trent. I have a Neodymium filter which is designed to limit the glow from local streetlights etc. In my view at least, it does cut some of the glow out and increases views a little, but there is only so much it can achieve against sky glow from the city in general.

If I had to buy one again, I would. Whether it's worth the outlay is your choice, but for me, it works well - up to a point.

Hope this helps a bit.

Good luck

Scott.

[DirkSteele]

Something to be aware of is that as street lighting migrates to the new high pressure type (white light) from the old low pressure sodium and mercury lights (orange lights), the effectiveness of a general broadband light pollution will diminish further and further. So give consideration to the lighting in your part of the world and council plans for upgrades.

This does not apply to the narrowband UHC and Oxygen III filters which will continue to work on emission nebula.

Still not substitute in either case for jumping in your car and driving to a dark sky site.

Clear skies,

[AstroTux]

+1 for the Neodymium filter, but as said it can only achieve so much. It will make your views of objects like the Orion Nebula and the GRS on Jupiter better but don't expect it to allow you to find the faint objects that can only be seen under a dark sky.

[RikM]

I don't think I would buy a light pollution filter for visual observing again, the effect is a bit too subtle. UHC and Oiii filters for viewing nebulae are quite different and for me are well worth it.

[Stargazer33]

I bought the neo filter a while back and I have to say that I don't really notice the difference with or without it. That may be down to what Matthew said in his post above.

Our street lights were changed last year some time from the orange sodium type lights to these new white lights. The light is better but the distance the light travels is awful! the whole of the house that backs onto our rear garden is lit up by the lamp post on the opposite side of the road from us. We live on a large road which is wide enough to be dual carriageway (but isn't), we have a 20-25 foot front garden, the bungalow and then about 100 foot rear garden, there is then the rear neighbours garden before there house and it is lit up to the roof! When I contacted the council to ask them to put a shade on it they said that there were a lot of amateur astronomers in my road and they had all commented on how much better the new lights were!

[Stargazer33]

Edit: I think my next filter will be a UHC, which I will probably get when we go on holiday to America next month - much cheaper over the pond.

[bigrbuk]

Edit: I think my next filter will be a UHC, which I will probably get when we go on holiday to America next month - much cheaper over the pond.

Bring a few back and make a few quid then

Thanks for the advice guys, I think a UHC is the way to go then and enjoy the nebula

[rwilkey]

UHC definately the way to go now, then perhaps the OIII later is my advice.

[gooseholla]

I have pollution filters in 1.25" and 2". Hold it up to a street light, boom, disappears. Sounds good, right? Shove it on a scope, slightly purple sky... nothing really gained! The only advantage I see for it, is when there is a steetlight glaring down the tube and you get orange around your image as it reflects off the mirror. For skyglow in the sky... I'm not so sure they work that well against a lot of glow.

[John]

UHC definately the way to go now, then perhaps the OIII later is my advice.

Yes, I agree with this. Many nebulae really benefit from a UHC or O-III filter but the former is a little more versatile, especially in a smaller aperture scope.

Such filters only really work on nebulae though. Filterless and dark skies is the best approach for galaxies.