Owl Nebula

[Davide Simonetti]

This is a second attempt to image the Owl Nebula - the first attempt, over a year ago, was rubbish - and though I wouldn't say I've nailed it, it does look much better and now it at least bears a passing resemblance to other pictures I've seen of it.

  8 x 8 minute exposures at 400 ISO
11 x dark frames
10 x flat frames
21 x bias/offset frames (subtracted from flat frames only)

Captured with APT
Guided with PHD
Processed in Nebulosity and Photoshop

Equipment:
Celestron NexStar 127 SLT
GoTo AltAz mount with homemade wedge
Orion 50mm Mini Guide Scope
ZWO ASI120 MC imaging and guiding camera
Canon 700D DSLR

[pyrasanth]

Nice second try. The owl nebula needs loads of data so you will need to increase the numbers of exposures quite considerably to improve the image as I'm sure you will go for a third attempt. I had a go at this last year & its a difficult object which requires careful processing. I've posted my attempt below but at least it gives you something to aim for. I think you need to look at increasing your exposures to perhaps 12-15 minutes each (use a LP filter if the light pollution becomes a problem) & get loads more subs. Eight hit the laws of diminishing returns but 20 subs will make all the difference with the noise which you need to mitigate on such a faint object. Your image is a bit dark- you might want to lighten the background a bit.

This image alone is sub standard as the back ground is wrong & so are the stars- I've not had time to reprocess the image but the OWL is quite nice showing the outer shells which you have started to show in your image- you just need more data.

[Davide Simonetti]

39 minutes ago, pyrasanth said:

Nice second try. The owl nebula needs loads of data so you will need to increase the numbers of exposures quite considerably to improve the image as I'm sure you will go for a third attempt. I had a go at this last year & its a difficult object which requires careful processing. I've posted my attempt below but at least it gives you something to aim for. I think you need to look at increasing your exposures to perhaps 12-15 minutes each (use a LP filter if the light pollution becomes a problem) & get loads more subs. Eight hit the laws of diminishing returns but 20 subs will make all the difference with the noise which you need to mitigate on such a faint object. Your image is a bit dark- you might want to lighten the background a bit.

This image alone is sub standard as the back ground is wrong & so are the stars- I've not had time to reprocess the image but the OWL is quite nice showing the outer shells which you have started to show in your image- you just need more data.

Thank you very much for your advice, advice I certainly intend to follow. I agree that the image I posted does need more data and the next time I try to image this object I shall give it much more exposure. Congratulations on your image, it looks lovely

[pyrasanth]

Thanks David- There is nothing in your image that is bad that more data won't correct.

The image I posted was imaged with narrow band filters. I intend to revisit with narrow band & RGB & see what I get. As I said its very rough as it was shot in the days when my imaging processing was just developing- Olly & Sara beat me up & helped me to improve my imaging- they make a good pair- like Batman & Cat woman! but seriously by listening to the experience of others we learn rapidly and your imaging will come on in leaps & bounds- good luck with the journey- it's fun & frustrating at the same time & the biggest spoiler for me is the weather being very unpredictable at present.

[wavydavy]

I second that...............more data is king. But well done on your efforts!