Horse Head nebula

[Moonshed]

Hi all,

The season is almost upon us and once again I need some help.

I started taking digital images of DSOs for the first time last winter and was pleased with the images I took of the Orion Nebula and the Andromeda Galaxy etc. I started astronomy with my first scope back in the 50's, graduated to taking film pictures in the 90s's and have now gone digital. This winter I would love to take images of the Horse Head nebula but don't know if my gear will be up to the job.

I have an 8" Celestron, a Bresser Messier Exos 2 EQ5 mount and a Canon EOS 1100D camera. I polar align with a PoleMaster. By attaching the camera to the scope with an off-axis guider the combination is about F5.  Since adding the PoleMaster I have been able to extend my subs from 90 secs. to 150 secs. The sky here is good for observing, the Milky Way and Andromeda for example are easy naked eye objects. My camera is unmoded and I am wondering if I should get it moded? If I do will it limit the range of objects I can image or simply increase them? I will of course give it a go with it unmoded, but if you all say to get it moded then it leaves me plenty of time to get that done,

I have enclosed my best image of Orion to give an indication of what my current set up can do in case that helps decide if it is worth getting the camera  moded. It may well be that the gear just wouldn't be up to the job anyway, not that that would stop me trying.?

As always any advice would be welcome.

 

[John]

I'm no imager but I'd have thought, from the above image, that your gear is going deep enough to get the Horsehead. I believe (the imagers can correct me on this, if I'm mistaken) that it's not too difficult to image the Horsehead ?

It's darned hard to see it visually though, I've found

 

[Moonshed]

Thanks John. From what I have discovered it would seem that it is difficult to eyeball but not that difficult to image. However, "not difficult" is very much a moveable feast, depending on the equipment used and skill of the observer. My digital skills are still somewhere on that beastly learning curve and the equipment still in shock. After owning the Celestron for 25 years it had settled nicely into its fireside chair in a comfy pair of its favourite carpet slippers. It really had the huff with me when I screwed a new fangled fancy high and dandy digital Canon to it, and deliberately, out of spite, did everything wrong it could possibly think of. We are back being pals again glad to say, telescopes are thicker than water ?.

[Starwiz]

I looked up my settings from last December.

SW200P reflector on NEQ6 guided, modded Canon EOS 1200D.

This was from my back garden in town.  There was moderate light pollution and the horsehead was low in the sky and required a CLS filter, so I extended the exposure times to 400s at ISO1600.  If you're in a low light pollution area you may get away with less and you could always try upping the ISO so you get something more quickly.

John

 

[wimvb]

If you want to use your canon for deep sky photography, I think it's better to have it modded. A lot of targets have hydrogen (Ha) signal, that benefit from the increased sensitivity. Depending on how it's modified, you may still be able to use it for daytime photography. You will definitely be able to use it for all sorts if astrophotography.

[PeterCPC]

Agree with Wim. You will find the HH much easier with a modded camera.

Peter

[ollypenrice]

The HH is seen because it lies against an Ha background, so a modded camera would be a big plus.

However, your M42 (can I say this nicely? ) has been massacred in the processsing! I'm not being mean, but it has. It is the victim of an error called 'black clipping.' 

Healthy:

Black clipped:

Olly

[wimvb]

With your equipment and location (dark sky), you have all that is needed to make great astro images. The only item I would add is a coma corrector for the scope. To get the best out of this equipment, you will also need to look at software that can transform the data into stunning images. Mastering the software and image processing often is the hardest part of this hobby.

[Moonshed]

Hi Olly,

I appreciate your comment about my image being back clipped, I need more practice using PS.? Massacred! ? Don't hold back Olly, tell me how it is, I have to learn! I take it that's a highly technical term reserved for use by only the elite few? ?

That image is far from perfect, I am well aware of that, and as Wim said I could really do with a coma corrector. It did though give people an idea of what my gear can and can't do. I do find the final processing part difficult, harder even than getting the image in the first place, and I have been looking at some PS tutorials on YouTube for DSOs. This year I will try to do better and start using layers too.

John, your image of the Horsehead is amazing! With my gear though I could never get away with 400s subs as I am unguided. My max is around 150 s. I know, I know!

Peter, Wim and John, From what you guys have said I will get my camera modded, definately looks like a good idea. I am not concerned with daytime use, the camera was purchased for astrophotography only.

Thanks all for your help. Much appreciated.

[Starwiz]

13 hours ago, Moonshed said:

John, your image of the Horsehead is amazing! With my gear though I could never get away with 400s subs as I am unguided. My max is around 150 s. I know, I know!

Thanks Moonshed.

I still consider myself a novice, so I'm sure you could get something pretty decent with your dark skies.  I'd be tempted to push up the ISO to 3200 and take lots of lights to see what you can get with the shorter exposures.  As the others have already said, a modded camera would be a big plus.

John

 

[ollypenrice]

On 16/08/2017 at 10:06, Moonshed said:

Hi Olly,

I appreciate your comment about my image being back clipped, I need more practice using PS.? Massacred! ? Don't hold back Olly, tell me how it is, I have to learn! I take it that's a highly technical term reserved for use by only the elite few? ?

That image is far from perfect, I am well aware of that, and as Wim said I could really do with a coma corrector. It did though give people an idea of what my gear can and can't do. I do find the final processing part difficult, harder even than getting the image in the first place, and I have been looking at some PS tutorials on YouTube for DSOs. This year I will try to do better and start using layers too.

John, your image of the Horsehead is amazing! With my gear though I could never get away with 400s subs as I am unguided. My max is around 150 s. I know, I know!

Peter, Wim and John, From what you guys have said I will get my camera modded, definately looks like a good idea. I am not concerned with daytime use, the camera was purchased for astrophotography only.

Thanks all for your help. Much appreciated.

I'm always tongue in cheek, don't worry. Really, do try very hard to keep some flat line to the left of the histogram peak in Levels. This is your faint data. Don't throw it away, you've spent ages catching it. Some will say bring the black point in to the start of the peak but I would stop short of that. in ninety-nine images out of a hundred.

There is often a big temptation to use the black point to clip out light pollution and darken the sky, but don't do that. Instead aim to get the brightness the same in all three colour channels, then you can think about bringing in the black point.

In the frame of your M42 there is, quite literally, no background sky at all in the field of view. It is entirely filled with nebulosity.

Olly