Dark site

[alexbb]

What a difference a site dark site does!!!

Here is a 8-9 hours processed image from the city (several nights, different transparency, different ISOs, different exposure times, same camera. stacked in DSS with HDR.)

And here is a 2 hours and 10 minutes from a dark site (veil visible in binoculars, M33 visible naked eye) 13x300s@ISO1600 - Canon 550D + Canon 450D both on their Tair 3s@300mm F/5.6. Quick(-ish) process.

Links to .tif images.

Clear skies!

Alex

[RSM]

Having only images from the backgarden (fairly dark - dark enough to make out the Milky Way over the last two evenings with the naked eye) this is a great post to show the difference finding a good site makes. Thanks for sharing. Richard. 

[alexbb]

And then this ones:

Luckily I have more data than I can process so this is also a quick process before going to bed. Data seems good on this one, but somehow I messed the stars. Maybe this weekend I have more time for processing... maybe not.

Alex

[ollypenrice]

Totally true. A dark site is worth its weight in gold, especially for the faint stuff.

Olly

[alexbb]

It would take more than 20 times longer to stretch the histogram to the same level as in the city's best nights. Perhaps 50 is a more realistic number in the usual nights.