Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_31.thumb.jpg.b7a41d6a0fa4e315f57ea3e240acf140.jpg

Tadpoles, California, Pacman and Plieades


Recommended Posts

Back from a break 🙂

A productive evening was  the 22 November. I have a strange field of view at home, so along session means I get data on several targets, and at this time of year I often can't revisit for more data. This means these images need to be seen as 'works in progress' that will need more subs adding in the future. Also, I've used Jpegs because my broadband is playing up some of the subtleties are lost (he claimed!) 😞

All Baader narrowband filters, except the Plieades, ZWO RGB. 130P-DS, ASI1600MM-pro and HEQ5

The Tadpoles NGC1983 in Hubble Palette:

Tadpoles.thumb.jpg.43ce903b84c6eb29bafc3f3a754d7fb8.jpg

The California Nebula HSO, with the S from an evening a few weeks later. No Oiii under my skies. The FOV is a bit limiting with this setup:

51719217_CalforniaHSO.thumb.jpg.e656d16fb0e556d7556dd1682987e8f4.jpg

Which do you prefer? Pacman in Hubble (SHO) and HSO, in contrast these are crops from a larger frame:

209128722_PacmanHubbleCrop.thumb.jpg.84da0760ad9d4c33323c3a123c4de37b.jpg

887763977_PacmanHSOcrop.thumb.jpg.55ed3d655e1ada133d41cc2972feb6c1.jpg

Finally, the Pleiades in RGB, knocked off at the end of along evening so just 75-second subs and not very deep:

Pleiades.thumb.jpg.07acdb2a8c7da1a26b21925895fd52d4.jpg

All in all, a worthwhile evening, even if my Witch Head was a complete fail and these do need more data next year 🤞

 

 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By JimV
      Hello all,
      TL;DR: are there any cheap ways, including secondhand, of mounting a 130P-DS for not-completely-terrible results?
      I am looking to buy a telescope as a gift for a family member. I had in mind a budget of around £150-£200, and from looking at advice had almost settled on the Sky-Watcher Explorer 130P. But then I realised that there's a good chance that if they get into astronomy there's a good chance that my relative will want to do some photography, and would probably be interested in attaching their micro four thirds camera. I've learnt that the 130P is not great for this as you cannot get prime focus, so you need to look at the Sky-Watcher Explorer 130P-DS instead.
      Great, I thought! It's a bit cheaper, but it isn't available in a kit with any form of mount. OK, I'll need to get one of those too...
      Then I started looking at mounts. Oh my, those things crash through the top of my budget! Even the EQ2 mount on its own, when you can find it, is about £115.
      https://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-skywatcher-eq-2-equatorial-mount-aluminium-tripod.htm
      (Given that you can get the spherical version of the Sky-Watcher 130 on that mount for £155 from FLO, that seems to value the OTA part at somewhere around the £40 mark.)
      So, I'm after advice on whether there is an affordable way of doing this.
      I've read enough on this forum and other sites around the web to know that the main recommendation is that the heavier duty the better. Something like an EQ3 or upwards. And that for AP a lot of people seem to view an HEQ5 as a starting point. But since I can't stretch to that, I'm OK with leaving it as an upgrade path for my relative if that's the way they want to go (or option for future gifts!).
      I know that for next-to-no budget I'm not going to be able to give something that will get the best out of the telescope. I know that getting motors and whatnot to do the guiding that will make DSO photography possible is way out of the realms of possibility. What I'm hoping for is some sort of option that gives acceptable results. Usable rather than unusable. Limiting the results rather than destroying them! Getting this set up so that they can do reasonable observation at first, and maybe give a try at attaching their m4/3 camera to try photographing the moon. If that whets their appetite then mount upgrades can be possible later.
      Since I'm planning on a new OTA, I'd be happy with going secondhand for the mount.
      I've been trawling ebay, and see the odd thing like this come up:
      https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Telescope-On-Tripod-Stand-Model-900114-Spares-N-Repairs/124230022581?hash=item1cecafb5b5:g:Ay8AAOSwSz1e7OCu
      To my untrained eye, it looks like there's an EQ2 mount on that, so I'm wondering whether that would do the trick. (Working on the, possibly faulty, assumption that if EQ2 is viewed by Sky-Watcher as being sturdy enough to supply as the kit mount for the 130 and 130P, it's probably up to scratch for observing with the 130P-DS too.)
      Even that, at another £58 inc postage for the buy it now would be over my budget, but I'm wondering more generally whether trying to grab something like that to essentially discard the tube would even be feasible as an option if I can get one at the right price.
      Or, of course, I'm open to any other ideas and suggestions that the forum might have.
      Thanks in advance, and clear skies.
    • By chriscoles
      Hi, I have taken mono LRGB images of M51 with my new ASI1600mm-PRO.
      I have a mix of 30s, 60s, 120s subs. 100 darks, and 100 flats for each filter. About 4 hours total.
      I Used DSS for alignment and stacking, then Pixinsight for LRGB combination.
      My issue is that i'm not happy with the colours, the stars all appear white and the background is strange.
      I have attached the Aligned LRGB images.
      Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks!

      Green.TIF red.TIF Lum.TIF B.TIF
    • By B4silio
      I went to my family house in the countryside and was able to take some pictures during xmas eve.

      Total exposure: 6h
      H_Alpha: ~3h (730x15s) --> R, G
      Oxigen III: ~3h (710x15s) --> B, G
      I didn't have a view on Polaris and could not spend too much time drift aligning (it was xmas eve after all :D) hence the short exposures. Moreover I dont have the proper connection rings to put my flattener on my mono camera so all stars off center are a mess :_(.
    • By eshy76
      Hi everyone - it's been a while! 
      This has been on my hard drive for almost 2 months and I finally got round to processing it...it was quite optimistic of me to try and image this from my Bortle 7-8 back garden, but I gave it a go! While the nebula itself is clear to see, all those gorgeous dust clouds surrounding it were extremely hard for me to capture from my location without a lot more integration time. I think I'll head to dark skies to capture this one next time, along with some more focal length!
      LRGB shot with ASI1600MM Pro and WO Z73. 2.9 hours of integration time.
      Full details here.
      Thanks for looking!

    • By Thalestris24
      Which cooled mono cmos - 1600MM-Pro or QHY163m?? On the face of it there's little to distinguish between the two. Same sensor, similar price etc. I see the zwo has a 256mb buffer compared to the qhy's 128Mb but I can't see that would make any practical difference for longish exposure dso imaging. Both have amp glow suppression? Heated windows? Usb hub not a factor. I wouldn't be using with a filter wheel - just a filter drawyer with 2" Ha. Is there anything to distinguish between the two that might tip the balance??
      Thanks for any replies
      Louise
×
×
  • 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.