Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

M16 and Veil...Double trouble...

StargeezerTim

By StargeezerTim
in Imaging - Deep Sky

Recommended Posts

StargeezerTim

StargeezerTim

Posted
Posted

Here are two images from a few nights ago. The first decent imaging condition for ages... even a bit of astro dark thrown in.

 

Both were imaged with the Star 71 and Modded 100D. Both used a UHC filter. The M 16 and NGC 6604 one was processed after adding an extra evenings subs, giving a total of 19 X 5 min, iso 800. I think the extra subs made for a more contrasty version than the previous one.

The Veil was 25 X 5 min subs. This is definitely the best veil image from me to date, probably due to using a quality scope. It did take ages to process it and I'm not sure I'm 100% happy with it but progress, not perfection, is the key for me.

Messier 16 and NGC 6604

59836ef2bc345_M16.thumb.png.269707541a713984d8e5b1925fd7efd4.png

 

 

The Veil Nebula

59836fe92e1c3_Veilpartprocessed2.thumb.png.8e08151d92f7dc58549a622aff4155c2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Craney

Craney

Posted
Posted

Very, very nice.....  excellent captures. I never knew there was that much going on over in Scutum.

M16 for me is wallowing in urban glow and all attempts so far  have been orangey wash outs,  even with a LP filter.  To be fair there was passing high level cloud.

Is the UHC worth considering to boost performance ??

 

Sean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StargeezerTim

StargeezerTim

Posted
  • Author
Posted
42 minutes ago, Craney said:

Very, very nice.....  excellent captures. I never knew there was that 

Is the UHC worth considering to boost performance ??

 

Sean.

I'd say it is. I also have Harlow and London skyglow to contend with when imaging south. Using the UHC enables longer subs in the same manner as a lp filter, but it also gives richer and lusher reds. Dont use it for galaxies though as it stops the yellows and blues showing through. Tim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tommohawk

Tommohawk

Posted
Posted

Hi Tim - that's very nice and as you say its all progress! 

I think there might be a bit more blue in there though? Last year you did a tweak on my Veil effort which really brought that out.

Also I seem to remember last year you were using ISO1600 - I wondered why the switch to ISO800?

M16 is great too - the background looks really good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StargeezerTim

StargeezerTim

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, Tommohawk said:

Hi Tim - that's very nice and as you say its all progress! 

I think there might be a bit more blue in there though? Last year you did a tweak on my Veil effort which really brought that out.

Also I seem to remember last year you were using ISO1600 - I wondered why the switch to ISO800?

M16 is great too - the background looks really good.

Thanks Tom, I did use iso 1600 on the veil. I used 800 on M 16 as 1600 would have blown it (lots of LP imaging south for me).

There might be stronger highlights there, but I am loathe to stretch too hard these days! I did notice that the blues all ended up as green so have had a little play and also noticed a gradient that I have tried to fix, not very successfully I think!

Here is version 2378...

59849a825eff9_Veilpartprocessed3postDBE.thumb.png.e37110653014e50f02285df242bc9808.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

Great to see the Eagle framed with NGC6604 for a change. Most widefields pull in the Swan instead. Original thinking!

Smashing Veil as well, but I do think your greens are high. It's not just in the nebulosity but in the star colour.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StargeezerTim

StargeezerTim

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Great to see the Eagle framed with NGC6604 for a change. Most widefields pull in the Swan instead. Original thinking!

Smashing Veil as well, but I do think your greens are high. It's not just in the nebulosity but in the star colour.

Olly

Thanks Olly,

I've had a go at the green in the stars as well now. You were absolutely right, some were very green! I think the UHC filter may have affected the green/blue balance? 

5984b1924a7e1_Veilpartprocessed3postDBE.thumb.png.ae791390f9aa43e3b9d1486721a08c48.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, StargeezerTim said:

Thanks Olly,

I've had a go at the green in the stars as well now. You were absolutely right, some were very green! I think the UHC filter may have affected the green/blue balance? 

5984b1924a7e1_Veilpartprocessed3postDBE.thumb.png.ae791390f9aa43e3b9d1486721a08c48.png

Now you're talking. Maybe even a bit more of the same, but who knows?

Stunning.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StargeezerTim

StargeezerTim

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Tommohawk said:

Yes, much better to my eye - just had a look at full size and that's really nice.

BTW not sure how long you've had the WO, but how do you reckon it compares to your camera lens?

I've only had the Star 71 for a few weeks and I love it so far. Its very easy to use and gives a nice flat field. I'm not sure you can compare lenses vs the scope. The Star 71 is 350mm focal length and the longest lens I have is 300mm. I think lenses come into their own at shorter FLs. Given the same focal lengths, my hunch is that a scope would be better than the lens for the same or similar price points. I use my lens to get a wider perspective on DSO's. Here is a thread I started on the widefield forum that has the veil imaged at 135mm at the same time I was imaging the Veil with the scope. Lenses are also much better at multi-tasking! I'd have a bit of a problem attaching a scope to a camera and walking about snapping on my hols.... :icon_biggrin:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tommohawk

Tommohawk

Posted
Posted
On 04/08/2017 at 22:29, StargeezerTim said:

I've only had the Star 71 for a few weeks and I love it so far. Its very easy to use and gives a nice flat field. I'm not sure you can compare lenses vs the scope. The Star 71 is 350mm focal length and the longest lens I have is 300mm. I think lenses come into their own at shorter FLs. Given the same focal lengths, my hunch is that a scope would be better than the lens for the same or similar price points. I use my lens to get a wider perspective on DSO's. Here is a thread I started on the widefield forum that has the veil imaged at 135mm at the same time I was imaging the Veil with the scope. Lenses are also much better at multi-tasking! I'd have a bit of a problem attaching a scope to a camera and walking about snapping on my hols.... :icon_biggrin:

 

Agreed about the dual use of camera lenses - that said my Tamron 300mm is so heavy its a bit of a beast on the camera, and in practice I seldom it use other than for Astro.

I was just thinking that the 350mm Star 71 isnt a million miles different from the 300mm camera lens, and I was curious to know if you felt the image quality was perceptibly better with the dedicated scope. Focusing must be easier I guess too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.