Messier 101

[Maxrayne]

First serious attempt at this after accidentally getting it at 55mm six months ago. It's not great, need a lot more data, but I'm happy enough for a first go. Apologies for the quality. Not on my laptop atm and my Lightroom isn't syncing with mobile properly.

Technical Card:
---------------------

Capture Date: 16/12/2018
Sky Quality: 5
Target: M101 Pinwheel Galaxy
Location: Ursa Major
Right Ascension: 14h 03m 12.6s
Declination: +54° 20′ 57″
Apparent Magnitude: 7.86
Estimated Age: N/K
Estimated Distance: 21 million light years
Mount: SW SA
Tracked/Guided: Tracked
Guidecam: N/A
Guidescope: N/A
Imaging Device: SW ST102T
Capture Device: Nikon D5300 (unmodded)
Focal Length: 500mm
Aperture: f / 9.5
ISO: 1600
Sub Length: 45 seconds
No of exposures: 56
Darks: 5
Flats: Nil
Bias: Nil
Total Integration Time: 2520 seconds
Capture Software: N/A
Stacking Software: Sequator
Editing Software: LightRoom
Playlist: Sleeping With Sarah Brightman via Spotify

[paul mc c]

Nice one,and a faint fuzzy in the top corner.

[Demonperformer]

Good start.

As you say, needs a LOT more data.

When I used a DSLR I was never sure if darks made things better or worse - if they are not matched to the chip temperature (which can vary during a session) they will add noise rather than remove it.

Also, on my Canon, ISO 1600 was massively more noisy than ISO 800 - it might be worth doing some experimenting on how noisy a given sub-length is at various ISOs. I know reducing the ISO will mean increased basic imaging time, but with the reduced number of subs you need to get rid of the noise it may well work out to be time-efficient.

But, bearing all that in mind, I repeat my original comment - good start.

[Maxrayne]

2 hours ago, Demonperformer said:

Good start.

As you say, needs a LOT more data.

When I used a DSLR I was never sure if darks made things better or worse - if they are not matched to the chip temperature (which can vary during a session) they will add noise rather than remove it.

Also, on my Canon, ISO 1600 was massively more noisy than ISO 800 - it might be worth doing some experimenting on how noisy a given sub-length is at various ISOs. I know reducing the ISO will mean increased basic imaging time, but with the reduced number of subs you need to get rid of the noise it may well work out to be time-efficient.

But, bearing all that in mind, I repeat my original comment - good start.

Didn't even see that fuzzy up there. I know there's another one in the original image but it's lost in the vignette (not gotten around to learning flats yet) ISO 800 seems to be good for this Nikon when stacking, and the darks are definitely making a huge difference.