Light pollution

[darknightsky]

Hi Guys, I recently bought a canon 700d and have been doing some imaging. If I do long exposure the images are completely full of light pollution due to my town centre position. Even if stack the images and remove the light pollution using pix insights DBE tool do you think the milky way would be visible?

[Shelster1973]

It should be.  There are several examples on here of peoples images taken in very heavily light polluted skies that have all come good with some post processing.

Are you using the cCanon on it's own or is it attached to a scope?  You can always look at getting a Light Pollution filter to add to your imaging train.  These range from mid £30 odd up to silly money, but as with most things, the more you pay the higher the quality is (allegedly).  One thing to remeber is that adding a LP filter will increase the exposure times needed slightly too.

Personally I would give it a go and see what you end up with.  If you don't have PI and DBE to use, am sure if you let people have your data they will be able to run it for you and give you an idea of what is hiding under 'the sand'

[damnut]

Hi There,

Doubtful, if the lp is that  bad then it will have obliterated the Milky Way not letting the light from the stars being recorded. Its always worth a try though.

Have you tried  imaging from outside the city??

[wxsatuser]

A decent LP filter will increase your exposures by 2 to 3 times.

If you can afford it try an Astronomik CLS clip filter., they are well worth the expense.

Just remember to exposure so the histogram is somewhere between 20 and 40%.

Like this example.

[darknightsky]

It should be.  There are several examples on here of peoples images taken in very heavily light polluted skies that have all come good with some post processing.

Are you using the cCanon on it's own or is it attached to a scope?  You can always look at getting a Light Pollution filter to add to your imaging train.  These range from mid £30 odd up to silly money, but as with most things, the more you pay the higher the quality is (allegedly).  One thing to remeber is that adding a LP filter will increase the exposure times needed slightly too.

Personally I would give it a go and see what you end up with.  If you don't have PI and DBE to use, am sure if you let people have your data they will be able to run it for you and give you an idea of what is hiding under 'the sand'

Just on a tripod with the stock lens 

Yeah i was looking at the LP filters £130 quid! 

i'm going to give it a go tonight if the clouds stay away, i will take a look for some examples too.

thanks 

[darknightsky]

A decent LP filter will increase your exposures by 2 to 3 times.

If you can afford it try an Astronomik CLS clip filter., they are well worth the expense.

Just remember to exposure so the histogram is somewhere between 20 and 40%.

Like this example.

Thanks Mike, I was reading an article on exposure to the right helping in light polluted areas?

I'll give it a go, I could do with getting out later at night I think as well

[wxsatuser]

I would not expose to the right, you could go to a maximum of 50% if you want.

[dph1nm]

It is pretty difficult to overexpose a RAW file with light pollution. Most of the bright orange pictures people show are jpegs, which are scaled to look bright by whatever software you happen to be using.   If you are really near saturation in RAW, then just half or quarter your exposure times and stack 2 or 4 times as many subs. There is no downside to doing this.

NigelM

[JimS]

Just on a tripod with the stock lens 

Yeah i was looking at the LP filters £130 quid! 

i'm going to give it a go tonight if the clouds stay away, i will take a look for some examples too.

thanks 

Buy direct from Europe. With the exchange rate at the moment it is closer to £100.