Possibly the best lager.... sorry worst image of M51 ever?

[iapa]

8 images, of 100, barely useably from last night from 00:30 - 02:35.

Massive vignetting.

ISO1600, 90sec, unguided.

Moral:

• Don't waste your time at this time of year as the Sun is still too bright.
• GET FLATS

What is your worst ?

[StargeezerTim]

Much better than my worst images! 

[scross86]

Can always get worse that that... at least there is fuzz :P. Agreed that the sun is making it a bit hard for total darkness shots.

 

[Astroscot2]

At least your making the best of the good weather.  I stop imaging from this latitude mid April and restart at the end of July, The sky is far to bright to do any worthwhile broadband imaging.

[Stub Mandrel]

I was disappointed by this one, after seeing how gloriously it comes out in everyoin else's pics!

[iapa]

@Stub Mandrel

That doesn't even qualify as 'disappointing', too good.

[iapa]

@Astroscot2

 

I'm at Lat 55.85N, but still enough low light for about 90min

[Stub Mandrel]

53 minutes ago, iapa said:

@Stub Mandrel

That doesn't even qualify as 'disappointing', too good.

There'smore hidden in your image, this is only five minutes work. Try Gradient Exterminator:

 

[calli]

My worst and best (because I was only one time able to capture...). AND I was happy! I did not expect any structure but only two blobs.

Mak127 on NexStar SLT Goto, Nikon D3100. I think I used 20 subs, darks maybe. Too long ago. DSS had (obviously) not enough stars, so I manually registered in PI (which I evaluated that time).

Cheers,
Carsten

[Stub Mandrel]

5 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

There'smore hidden in your image, this is only five minutes work. Try Gradient Exterminator:

 

Well that one didn't survive uploading, did it?

[iapa]

@Stub Mandrel

Problem is the web site download link is broken - I've been trying on and off for a while

[iapa]

Everyone - can you also note 

equipment, ISO, exposure etc for your images.

 

Someone with a £10K mount, 30K worth of optics, liquid nitrogen cooled CCD etc , getting the same poor crap as mine - deserves 'worst image in the world'.

 

Handheld smartphone -- gets world's best

[Stub Mandrel]

57 minutes ago, iapa said:

Everyone - can you also note 

equipment, ISO, exposure etc for your images.

Not always possible... I have to clear out the original subs from time to time as my HDD gets too full.

[gnomus]

22 hours ago, iapa said:

 

What is your worst ?

 

Very disappointing iapa.  It is still recognizably M51.  Plus, the focussing and tracking look OK.  No, no.  If you are aiming for 'art' I offer you ... M31

This masterpiece was created in Nov 2014.  Notice how I have composed the image such that the galaxy is framed in a slightly 'disorientating' manner.  Clearly, the artist is drawing attention to our place in the universe and the slightly unsettling feeling one gets when contemplating such matters.  To emphasise this concept, I have chosen to have M31 'out of focus' (if you get my drift) and with imprecise tracking - achieved by very precise polar misalignment.  The processing has been carried out in such a manner as to leave it nearly devoid of colour - these are binary, if you will, black-and-white concepts that we are dealing with here.  Yet there is that muddy brown patch bottom left - I will leave you to figure out the meaning of that for yourself.  Final flourishes include careful bloating of the mis-shapen stars.  This is, perhaps, the only thing I would change - way too obvious, don't you think?   

Steve

 

[Demonperformer]

In an effort to get this thread back on topic (most of the pictures posted are far too good to qualify as "worst" pictures ) ...

I have chosen for my example (one from a vast collection) a picture taken on the evening of 4th June, 2013, using my 102SCT + Canon 1000d, just above "streetlight alley".  27/96x 20 second exposures stacked, stretched and curved. Clearly, the target is M83.

For those of you who don't believe me, maybe a little orientation will help you check it on CdC/stellarium:

The bright star towards the upper left corner is HD 118646.
The slightly fainter star below it is HD 118600.
The line of three faint stars at roughly the 10-4 position from this star are (from left to right) UCAC4-301-073462. UCAC4-301-074345 & UCAC4-301-073399. [Don't be fooled by the much brighter line of three stars below them in an almost vertical row.]
Perpendicular to this line of stars, above the middle star, at roughly the same distance from this middle star as it is from each of the other two in the line, is another faint dot. This is the centre of M83.

When it comes to taking pictures of inferior quality, that were a complete waste of effort, you should all kneel before your master!

[iapa]

@Demonperformer

now we are talking

LOL

@gnomus

explanation seems a it too contrived - way more effort in that than the image.

 

[michael8554]

Demonperformer, I've been thinking of reprocessing some of my images using the "Darks for Lights" technique, thanks for posting your definitive image.

Michael

[Stub Mandrel]

I thought we were restricted to M51... how's about this stunning image of the North America Nebula?

[Demonperformer]

9 hours ago, michael8554 said:

"Darks for Lights" technique

Sorry, not acquainted with that one

[iapa]

20 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I thought we were restricted to M51... how's about this stunning image of the North America Nebula?

Any target - as long as reasonable effort was taken to obtain the lights, and the result is particularly horrendous 

Re image - are you sure that was your target? Looks like a street light and fireflies  Possibly a better example of less that satisfying results than my attempt... I'll let other do the judging LOL

[Stub Mandrel]

You can actually (just) see the 'Gulf of Mexico' near bottom right!

[michael8554]

On 6/5/2016 at 06:33, Demonperformer said:

 

 

[michael8554]

On 6/5/2016 at 06:33, Demonperformer said:

On 6/4/2016 at 21:15, michael8554 said:

"Darks for Lights" technique

Sorry, not acquainted with that one

That's what you do on cloudy nights, you shoot Darks, then when you stretch them you get lovely starfields.

Don't know why but they never Platesolve ...........

Michael

[iapa]

19 hours ago, michael8554 said:

That's what you do on cloudy nights, you shoot Darks, then when you stretch them you get lovely starfields.

Don't know why but they never Platesolve ...........

Michael

I always get better results doing that

[Scott]

On 6/3/2016 at 21:50, Demonperformer said:

In an effort to get this thread back on topic (most of the pictures posted are far too good to qualify as "worst" pictures ) ...

I have chosen for my example (one from a vast collection) a picture taken on the evening of 4th June, 2013, using my 102SCT + Canon 1000d, just above "streetlight alley".  27/96x 20 second exposures stacked, stretched and curved. Clearly, the target is M83.

For those of you who don't believe me, maybe a little orientation will help you check it on CdC/stellarium:

The bright star towards the upper left corner is HD 118646.
The slightly fainter star below it is HD 118600.
The line of three faint stars at roughly the 10-4 position from this star are (from left to right) UCAC4-301-073462. UCAC4-301-074345 & UCAC4-301-073399. [Don't be fooled by the much brighter line of three stars below them in an almost vertical row.]
Perpendicular to this line of stars, above the middle star, at roughly the same distance from this middle star as it is from each of the other two in the line, is another faint dot. This is the centre of M83.

When it comes to taking pictures of inferior quality, that were a complete waste of effort, you should all kneel before your master!

this is by far one of the best constructed posts I've read for a long time and fear not DP, it by chance your image is beaten in this thread, your post will not be