Dumbell Nebula

[jaspalchadha]

Hello all I have taken 5x10 minutes with a qh8yl and 10 inch meade lx200 acf

[nytecam]

Nice image but I'd expect more from long 50min gross exp :-)

[jaspalchadha]

I don't know anything about processing it

[RogerTheDodger]

Gave it a bit of a brighten with levels and curves in PI

[Pete Presland]

whoops this is the wrong section (planetary imaging), but i am sure one of the mods will move it for you.

you have a nice image with plenty of detail yet to be exposed as shown by Rogers brightening, which for my taste is a little overdone but certainly shows stacks of extra detail!.i am no expert in processing either but there is no substitute for prcatice, have a play with it and see what you get. well done with your capture.

[RogerTheDodger]

Indeed, just wanted to emphasise there was more there... good for an F10 scope

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Moved it.

Nice image, indeed. A bit of contrast stretching helps, but I think RodgerTheDodger's effort is a bit harsh. I think some folks are forgetting you are using an F/10 scope, so 50 minutes on that is similar to 18 minutes in your regular F/6

[Pete Presland]

i do like to sometimes go a little overboard with the levels/curves just to see what is there, at least then i know the limits of my image.

[x6gas]

I think that looks nice. I tend towards subtle processing myself, although it looks to me like this data does have more to give. Follow Martin B's levels and curves tutorial on here and you won't go far wrong.

As always more data will help, but personally I like this a lot. Tight stars and nice colour...

[jaspalchadha]

thanks chaps for the comments.

Moved it.

Nice image, indeed. A bit of contrast stretching helps, but I think RodgerTheDodger's effort is a bit harsh. I think some folks are forgetting you are using an F/10 scope, so 50 minutes on that is similar to 18 minutes in your regular F/6

for a F10 how long should I be aiming for a very detailed picture.... hours?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

thanks chaps for the comments.

for a F10 how long should I be aiming for a very detailed picture.... hours?

That depends on the surface brightness of the object. Faint objects obviously need moire than brighter ones. Rule of thumb is that an F/10 scope needs 2.8x the exposure time of an F/6 scope to attain the same signal to noise per pixel. I think your image is not that bad at all. I had a little play at contrast stretching without changing the background too much, and this is the result:

Not bad at all, I would say

[Gina]

Very good, I would say

[jaspalchadha]

editted little more

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I think that shows a bit more noise in the fainter parts of the nebula than my version. Might be jpg artefacts which depend on level of compression

[jaspalchadha]

Glad you said that mate. I've tired sending Jpegs and sometimes the images come out fuzzy/blurry/blocky. When I save from neb the jpeg compression is 90%

[nytecam]

Glad you said that mate. I've tired sending Jpegs and sometimes the images come out fuzzy/blurry/blocky. When I save from neb the jpeg compression is 90%

90% jpg compression is far too heavy - 5%-10% greatly reduces file size without introducing gross artefacts

BTW - nice data there expanded via our SGL friends. Re my comment on "50min" I didn't appreciate an f/10 image - I use f/3.6 with a 12" so get there, to my modest expectations, much quicker !

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

90% jpg compression is far too heavy - 5%-10% greatly reduces file size without introducing gross artefacts

BTW - nice data there expanded via our SGL friends. Re my comment on "50min" I didn't appreciate an f/10 image - I use f/3.6 with a 12" so get there, to my modest expectations, much quicker !

I think there is a bit of confusion here: 90% quality means 10% quality loss. If you use 10% quality this is what you get:

My previous post was at 90% quality

[jaspalchadha]

I also use a F6.3 reducer....10% shows lack of detail.. I'll stick with 90%