Which poses more of a challenge?

[Naemeth]

I'm going to be getting a HEQ-5 soon (with FF/FR for my ED80 and powertank) so I'll be able to start imaging, both Deep Sky and Planetary / Lunar.

Now, my question is, which has a steeper learning curve - does it matter which I start with?

[nmoushon]

They require different things. Planetary and lunar is best shot with a video camera of some type taking lots of frames per second then combine them. DSO are shot with long exposures. Lunar can be taken with very short exposures but is better with a video camera. They are require different types of post processing as well. Planetary/Lunar is a bit more fickle to get great shots because seeing is such a major factor. Seeing is a big factor for DSOs but not nearing as much as for planetary/lunar.

I'd say DSOs is a bit more challenging than the other two mainly because you need everything to work just right for a very long length of time. Were for planetary/lunar you need everything to work right for a short time.

[IanL]

The basics of lunar/planetary are quick to pick up since you're only really battling with the camera, scope and a few processing techniques to make progress.  With deep sky you have to master the mount, guiding and a whole bunch more processing techniques as well.  You can get basic results early on in either discipline, and get to reasonable results more quickly in planetary than deep sky. Mastering either and producing truly excellent results is hard whichever way you go.

With the ED80 you will want to go down the deep sky route anyway, since it doesn't really have the focal length or aperture for good planetary results.

[Naemeth]

The basics of lunar/planetary are quick to pick up since you're only really battling with the camera, scope and a few processing techniques to make progress.  With deep sky you have to master the mount, guiding and a whole bunch more processing techniques as well.  You can get basic results early on in either discipline, and get to reasonable results more quickly in planetary than deep sky. Mastering either and producing truly excellent results is hard whichever way you go.

With the ED80 you will want to go down the deep sky route anyway, since it doesn't really have the focal length or aperture for good planetary results.

I should've mentioned, the ED80 will be deep sky - it's my incoming Mak (OMC200 F/20) that will be doing the planetary imaging.

Perhaps I should just do a bit of each each night, or just see how I feel on the night?

[Davey-T]

Perhaps I should just do a bit of each each night, or just see how I feel on the night?

So you have clear skies every night in Leeds do you

Dave

[Naemeth]

So you have clear skies every night in Leeds do you

Dave

*Each night it's clear . Roughly every two weeks or so

[ollypenrice]

I think each has its challenges. If I look at a Damian Peach image I realize that I don't have a clue how he gets from where most people are to where he is. And in planetary I don't have a clue how to get to where most people are!

Deep sky is mainly made difficult by the need for so much exposure. You need the weather and the mount and the guiding to play ball. If they do, it is just a matter of knowing an awful lot of not particularly complicated procedures in processing. None is terribly difficult in itself but you need to know them all. The best fun comes in inventing new ones of your own. If you were to compare learning to make a respectable DS image with learning to play a recognizable tune on the violin then you'd see that DS imaging isn't that difficult! In fact it's a darned site easier than learning to ride a unicycle, a more prosaic example.*

Olly

*I am forbidden by law from playing the violin on humanitarian grounds and have knocked myself about too much on proper bicycles to contemplate trying a unicycle...

[Naemeth]

I think each has its challenges. If I look at a Damian Peach image I realize that I don't have a clue how he gets from where most people are to where he is. And in planetary I don't have a clue how to get to where most people are!

Deep sky is mainly made difficult by the need for so much exposure. You need the weather and the mount and the guiding to play ball. If they do, it is just a matter of knowing an awful lot of not particularly complicated procedures in processing. None is terribly difficult in itself but you need to know them all. The best fun comes in inventing new ones of your own. If you were to compare learning to make a respectable DS image with learning to play a recognizable tune on the violin then you'd see that DS imaging isn't that difficult! In fact it's a darned site easier than learning to ride a unicycle, a more prosaic example.*

Olly

*I am forbidden by law from playing the violin on humanitarian grounds and have knocked myself about too much on proper bicycles to contemplate trying a unicycle...

I dislike playing the violin greatly, much prefer listening to it, although the cello is much nicer.

Perhaps then, I can use the simile that the different types of AP are like learning an instrument. Planetary is the piano, Deep Sky is the violin - while they share something small they are completely different beasts... Mind you, learning a second instrument after a first is a lot easier, and I can play three - if you discount the violin of course .

[Davey-T]

Well I used to play violin at school and I think I can say I'm as rubbish at astro image processing as I was at the violin, the only thing about the violin was there were several of us so no one noticed if I  only played  every fourth note, whereas my images are all my own work so nowhere to hide

Dave

[lensman57]

They are very different disciplines to each other, they will both drive you mad and will also bring you  immense satisfaction. Do not worry too much about the hypotheticals and just get on with it.

Regards,

A.G

[russellhq]

When you can do lunar imaging, you generally don't want to be deep sky imaging and vice versa. So I'd say start out on both and make most use of your clear skies I can count on one hand the number of clear nights I've had since October last year

[Naemeth]

When you can do lunar imaging, you generally don't want to be deep sky imaging and vice versa. So I'd say start out on both and make most use of your clear skies I can count on one hand the number of clear nights I've had since October last year

Perhaps I need either a dual mount or two HEQ-5's, just so I can do both at once

[michaelmorris]

Perhaps I should just do a bit of each each night, or just see how I feel on the night?

Unless you've got a permanent setup, I doubt you'll have time to do both in one night. I tend to try just one target a night, and concentrate on getting everything right.

Besides, the best nights for lunar/planetary observing and imaging are nights of good seeing. Such nights are more often than not characterised by the presence of high thin cloud and/or foggy conditions - not exactly ideal for deep sky imaging.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk