Horsehead Nebula seems impossible

[adder001]

I have been trying to image the horsehead nebula for ages now and all I can get is the Flame nebula and a load of noise in the area that I think the horsehead should be.

I know it is a faint target but I have read peoples reports and seen pictures that people have taken with similar equipment to mine that have turned out ok.

I have so far managed to image quite a lot of DSO's with my humble setup, these include Andromeda galaxy, whirlpool galaxy, pinwheel galaxy, ring nebula, the coathanger asterism and finally orion nebula last night.

This is my fifth attempt and the sky was good as it gets here (although Urban environment) and there is over 1 hours worth of images

I have enclosed the photo of the flame what I thought should be the horse next to it for you to look at and also the orion nebula that I took last night to show you what kind of images I can get with my setup.

I have also really cranked up the colours/contrast etc on the flame picture just to see any detail.

My two questions are :-

1. Is the horsehead realistically  out of reach with a canon ef-75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens ?

2. secondly why can I get the flame ok and not the horsehead ?

(BTW, both these images were taken at 100 x 30 seconds 1600 ISO and stacked in DSS.)

(30 seconds is about as long as my EQ2 mount will manage before trailing and wobbles occur)

Thanks

 

 

[steppenwolf]

The Horsehead Nebula is notoriously dim - in fact, the only way we can actually see this dark pillar of dust and gas is because of the background which is rich in Ha emissions albeit rather dim. The Flame Nebula on the other hand is an emission nebula in its own right and a relatively bright one at that which is why your short exposures have succeeded in capturing it. You will need much longer exposures to capture the Horsehead Nebula, I am afraid.

[D4N]

You have the horsehead there but it is very faint and the big gradient isn't helping, I have circled it below.

 

[adder001]

Thanks for your advice steppenwolf, at least I now know why the flame is always there. I would love to get a better mount so as I can do longer exposures but at the moment theres no chance of that. It is just the polar alignment that is very very difficult with an EQ2 and then the drive on the RA is not super precise. I will just have to improve my alignment technique to get longer exposures.

 

 

[adder001]

18 minutes ago, D4N said:

the big gradient isn't helping,

 

D4N Thanks for taking the time and effort to circle the image and point out the horsehead. The gradient I have noticed is always there in all my other images of this as well. Do you have any idea what may be causing this as I only get it on this target

[GTom]

Question #0: is your camera modded? The ic 434 behind the horsehead is mostly H-alpha.

 

[steppenwolf]

Luckily, there are lots of objects up there that are sufficiently bright to allow you to use multiple 30 second exposures - we all enjoy a challenge but sometimes it's nice to just capture some data from an easier target for the satisfaction of getting a great image!

Not sure about that gradient, it is surprisingly strong.

[D4N]

Perhaps it is a reflection from a nearby light that that shines into your lens when it is pointed in that direction?  Also do you have the viewfinder masked?  Light leaks through the viewfinder can cause this type of effect as well.

I would be happy that you caught it however faintly, and getting 30 second exposures out of an eq2 is a good achievement as well!

 

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I suspect the gradient may be a local light source that the lens is picking up, from somewhere left of where you are aiming.

[adder001]

27 minutes ago, GTom said:

Question #0: is your camera modded? The ic 434 behind the horsehead is mostly H-alpha.

 

Thanks. No its not modded, its just the standard straight out of the box as I use for general photgraphy as well

[adder001]

D4N and Knight of clear skies, Thanks for your advice. I will try again from a different location

[adder001]

sorry forgot to add the viewfinder is not covered, I did not know about doing that so I will also try that as well. Thanks

[GTom]

9 hours ago, adder001 said:

Thanks. No its not modded, its just the standard straight out of the box as I use for general photography as well

Modding should be the right way then. You can still use the body for daylight shots with WB correction or adding a BG39-type filter. Otherwise it's like photographing IR trough the ICF... Alternative is to pick up a cheap old body and use it for astro after modding. Your lens is already on the weak side at f/5.6, leaving the ICF cuts your H-alpha with a further 2.5EV.

[alacant]

Lens hood? If not a custom hood, black paper wrapped around and held by an elastic band does fine. I've a 300mm lens and the lens hood paper sticks out about 8cm. You could probably go more before it got in the way. HTH.

[cjdawson]

There is a little rubber viewfinder cover on the canon neck straps.  To use it you will need to slip the eye rest off the camera viewfinder.  The rubber piece will then slip in place.

[wornish]

As others have said the gradient is caused by an external light source.   I created my own lens hood out of cardboard it extended about 20cm beyond the lens and was held on with elastic bands it certainly helped.

I tried to get the same target back in  February see my post here.   https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/264342-still-learning-horsehead-flame/#comment-2894712

Its not brilliant but I got the horsehead to show after some post processing.

 

 

 

 

 

[adder001]

Thanks for all your replies. I dont think I will go down the modded route just yet but thanks for your advice Gtom it is appreciated, it might be something for the future. I do have a lens hood but as you say it might be worth extending it with black card. I have wondered what the point of the viewfinder cap on my strap was but now it has a use☺so thanks for that info. By the way wornish that image is brilliant I would be so pleased with that.

[newbie alert]

Think its your exposure time thats letting you down..i use iso 800 with 2 min unguided..

A friend used a 135mm lense to do a awesome image of all the orion targets..but again 1 min exposures..

[adder001]

9 hours ago, newbie alert said:

Think its your exposure time thats letting you down..i use iso 800 with 2 min unguided..

A friend used a 135mm lense to do a awesome image of all the orion targets..but again 1 min exposures..

 

9 hours ago, newbie alert said:

Think its your exposure time thats letting you down..i use iso 800 with 2 min unguided..

A friend used a 135mm lense to do a awesome image of all the orion targets..but again 1 min exposures..

Wow That is brilliant. Is that the image that is 1 minute exposures or is that the 2 minute. I have managed 1 minute exposures before but it took some serious minute adjustments to polar alignment and lots patience but if I could get something like that it would be well worth it.

[newbie alert]

Thats a friends image..not mine...hes abit of a whizz at it isnt he...from memory i think it was 100x1 min exposures...

[adder001]

Thanks for replying, I am going to try that view even though I am only interested in the horsehead, I can always crop it after. So armed with all that new knowledge from all you top folks this is my master plan to have another attempt:-

I have already covered my viewfinder with the rubber cover thingy on my strap. I am going to make a add-on for my lens hood to extend it, change location to avoid a possible light source and knock the lens  down from 300 to about 135 and try and get 1 minute subs. I will post on this thread if I get success. Now all I need is time and of course the weather to play ball