Sh2-134 from Bortle 8

[carastro]

I started this a few weeks ago and got Ha I wasn't sure whether I would manage to get Oiii and Sii from Bromley, but gave it a go.

Atik460EX and Samyang Lens 135mm @ f2.8 on HEQ5
Ha 37 x 600 = 6hours 10mins 
Oiii 21 x 300 binned = 1 hour 45mins
Sii 21 x 300 binned = 1 hour 45mins

Total imaging time = 9hours 40 mins 

Processed in Photoshop, Registar and images plus

For those who are interested this is in Cepheus.  

https://www.astrobin.com/zbt81p/

[Lee_P]

Fantastic, I may have to add this target to my hit list list 🎯

[Sterrenland]

Ooooooo....I like that! Love the colours and the bright clouds are almost 3-D to me...stunning!

[simmo39]

V nice!

[CraigT82]

Beautiful image

[SthBohemia]

14 hours ago, carastro said:

I started this a few weeks ago

The image is amazing... astounding... and something that boggles my mind!  Especially from a near London location.

I looked up the camera you used and fainted- In $AUS around $3600!! Which turned my mind to something I read a few weeks ago- being..

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/254950-why-are-astro-cameras-so-expensive/

The link is somewhat dated, but then again so am I. It enthused me to 'lash out' and buy a Canon 1000D for the exorbitant price of UK 25 quid, maybe one day I will place it on a mount, turn on tracking and let it go for an hour or two, stranger things have been known to occur!

The images presented by members is like something from science fiction to me as my only experience with astro photography being from 1967-8 using a 6" newt manually tracked for 2-3 minutes.

Once again thank you for presenting such a glorious 'image'...

Cheers Rob

[carastro]

Thanks Rob for your kind words.   I am happy to know that my work astounded you. 

I have had this camera for a few years now - it was about £300 cheaper when l bought it.   Add to that an electronic filter wheel and filters!!!!!!    It’s a great camera and l love it so much l bought a second one for my Samyang kens, but managed to get that one second hand. 
 

Carole 

Edited July 10, 2022 by carastro

[SthBohemia]

Carole. Your site-

https://sites.google.com/view/astrophotography-carole-pope/how-to-image-with-a-dslr

Should be incorporated into the 'beginners imaging' sub topic. Tis a brilliant introduction to imaging... Sighs, trust a woman to make things plain and simple with explanations. Instead of the, '..what you need is a round grudnutz attached to a steam powered knob turner'...  Concise and relatively easy to follow procedures.

Impressive observatory showing what one can achieve within a relatively small backyard within London!

Most impressed!!

🙂

[carastro]

Many people have found this tutorial easy to follow and I have had some nice feedback (see the Feedback page of my website).  You can get all technical once you have mastered the basics.

It's pretty out of date now as I have moved on a lot since writing it, but it does for someone starting out and when I moved my website and started again, I decided to move it onto the new site as I knew some people were still referring to it.  

Thanks for your comments, may I add them to the Feedback page?

Carole 

Edited July 10, 2022 by carastro

[ApophisAstros]

7 hours ago, SthBohemia said:

The image is amazing... astounding... and something that boggles my mind!  Especially from a near London location.

I looked up the camera you used and fainted- In $AUS around $3600!! Which turned my mind to something I read a few weeks ago- being..

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/254950-why-are-astro-cameras-so-expensive/

The link is somewhat dated, but then again so am I. It enthused me to 'lash out' and buy a Canon 1000D for the exorbitant price of UK 25 quid, maybe one day I will place it on a mount, turn on tracking and let it go for an hour or two, stranger things have been known to occur!

The images presented by members is like something from science fiction to me as my only experience with astro photography being from 1967-8 using a 6" newt manually tracked for 2-3 minutes.

Once again thank you for presenting such a glorious 'image'...

Cheers Rob

Dear Rob , I also have that camera and have imaged with Carole and Know how good she is with it , I also have a Canon 1000d that I got from an Astro friend for £100 and intend to use it again in near future , although I did pay full price £2100 for the Atik460 ex and agree and sympathise with you,

regards,

Roger

[SthBohemia]

30 minutes ago, ApophisAstros said:

Dear Rob , I also have that camera and have imaged with Carole and Know how good she is with it

Hi Roger.

I am sure that Carole, '..learns ya real good 'bout dem dere cameras' (Aussie language)... and how to take el magnifico photographs. 

To pay 2100 quid for a small camera I would want Aladdins Lamp Genie inside it! Guess I have a mindset similar to the person who wrote within the CloudyNights link as above... Guess I am not a fan (or 2 insane) for the advances within modern technology. My idea of a 'scope drive' is closer to a  hamster within a wheel turning a drive belt 🙂

Cheers R.

1 hour ago, carastro said:

Thanks for your comments, may I add them to the Feedback page?

🙂 Wahaha, Farcebook Carole? I have not even a 'patent pending' on comments made 🙂 Feel free to use as you wish!!

[carastro]

Lol, no on my website feedback page.  Don’t do FB. 

As l don’t know your real name l will quote your Avatar name.  Love Aussie humour, you’re not the first Aussie Astronomer to make me laugh.    

Carole

Edited July 10, 2022 by carastro

[SthBohemia]

On 10/07/2022 at 12:21, carastro said:

Carole 

Writing to you because I trust you to provide honest answers 🙂

Seems the latest craze is imaging, maybe it has been for a few years but I have been hiding under a cabbage leaf. Some images presented by members are a little too 'good' to be truly taken with the specified equipment. The resolving power of say an 85mm refractor, even if Televue, is simply not good enough to be able to resolve details very similar to photographs taken during the 60's with the Hale 200 inch Mt Palomar scope! M57 Lyra visually through a 310mm f12 newt resembles a silver wedding ring at 5 metres, yet an imaged picture of it through a 150mm newt with a fancy camera resembles those taken from Chile with the ELT array!

Methinks some members may be accused of a little 'poetic license'....

Maybe certain base images are simply heavily photoshopped? Sort of a case of, 'not what I can see, but what I would like to be able to see'!?

Sometime or other I shall follow your base  guide and image with the Canon camera through a Meade LX200 250mm SCT, however, only using a single lapsed time shot in monochrome. If lucky I might get a bright image of 'misty patches of dust' that show visually as 'faint misty patches of dust'...

No criticism intended to anyone who takes images, (yours seem feasible), just a tad curious as to what extent photoshop is relied upon to produce some images that are reminiscent of ELT, Hubble etc...

Cheers Rob.

[Roy Foreman]

Love the colours !

I have a Samyang 135 but have yet to use it. Roll on autumn !

[carastro]

4 hours ago, SthBohemia said:

Writing to you because I trust you to provide honest answers 🙂

Seems the latest craze is imaging, maybe it has been for a few years but I have been hiding under a cabbage leaf. Some images presented by members are a little too 'good' to be truly taken with the specified equipment. The resolving power of say an 85mm refractor, even if Televue, is simply not good enough to be able to resolve details very similar to photographs taken during the 60's with the Hale 200 inch Mt Palomar scope! M57 Lyra visually through a 310mm f12 newt resembles a silver wedding ring at 5 metres, yet an imaged picture of it through a 150mm newt with a fancy camera resembles those taken from Chile with the ELT array!

Methinks some members may be accused of a little 'poetic license'....

Maybe certain base images are simply heavily photoshopped? Sort of a case of, 'not what I can see, but what I would like to be able to see'!?

Sometime or other I shall follow your base  guide and image with the Canon camera through a Meade LX200 250mm SCT, however, only using a single lapsed time shot in monochrome. If lucky I might get a bright image of 'misty patches of dust' that show visually as 'faint misty patches of dust'...

No criticism intended to anyone who takes images, (yours seem feasible), just a tad curious as to what extent photoshop is relied upon to produce some images that are reminiscent of ELT, Hubble etc...

Cheers Rob.

I think most imagers would be a little "put out to say the least" at the suggestion their images were at all fabricated.   

Imaging equipment has really improved over recent years and hours and hours of imaging time (images are taken in long exposure over many hours, the more hours spent the better and cleaner the detail) and hours and hours of post processing is what is needed to produce the images that people do.  Not to mention many 1000s of pounds spent on equipment, hours and hours making it work and many years learning the craft.

The accepted concept is you can post process to bring out the best of what you have captured without putting anything there that wasn't there in the first place.  It is acceptable to combine images you have taken yourself at different times.  

I hope this answers your question.  I may not be able to answer further on this as I shall be off on holiday tomorrow at the crack of dawn and may not be able to access the internet for the next couple of weeks, it depends how well wifi works on a cruise ship and how much time I have.  

Carole 

Edited July 17, 2022 by carastro

[carastro]

PS: Nice dark skies help too.  I image from a LP locattion, so many of my images are in narrowband.  I have to travel to a dark location with all my kit to capture LRGB (Broadband images) and this has to coincide with the weather and the Moon phases, so dedication is another quality that can be assigned to imagers.

Carole 

Edited July 17, 2022 by carastro

[SthBohemia]

7 minutes ago, carastro said:

I think most imagers would be a little "put out to say the least" at the suggestion their images were at all fabricated. 

🙂 Simply my opinion- re-' Images that resemble Hubble etc'.. I DO appreciate the time and effort that surely must go into making the images, was simply curious as the the overall quality that images can be doctored using various tools that I know virtually nothing about. 

Remember, I know nothing of producing images as I come from the era of Rameses II... (and am happy to remain there) 🙂

Enjoy the break, Rob. Who has been accused of having such a thick skin that attempts to insult him are akin to attempting to drown a fish!!

[carastro]

@SthBohemia  If you want to take a look at post processing, take a look at some of my You Tube tutorials (there's a page on my website).  This will show you the sort of things that can be done to am image once captured.

Carole 

[SthBohemia]

9 minutes ago, carastro said:

take a look at some of my You Tube tutorials

I certainly shall, however, for now I will get back to the final figuring of a cassegrain secondary (they are a pain)! In reality I like making telescopes more than using them as it is dark at night and wild wombats maybe on the prowl 😞 

[tony210]

Great image - I have wondered about narrow band as it offers a partial antidote to light pollution - a lovely result - Tony.

[DaveS]

32 minutes ago, SthBohemia said:

🙂 Simply my opinion- re-' Images that resemble Hubble etc'.. I DO appreciate the time and effort that surely must go into making the images, was simply curious as the the overall quality that images can be doctored using various tools that I know virtually nothing about. 

Remember, I know nothing of producing images as I come from the era of Rameses II... (and am happy to remain there) 🙂

Enjoy the break, Rob. Who has been accused of having such a thick skin that attempts to insult him are akin to attempting to drown a fish!!

There you go again Rob. No reputable imager will ever "doctor" their images. They will, however spend many hours patiently teasing out the information contained in their data, often collected over 20-30 hours (Been there, done that) over many nights, sometimes even over more than one year (Done that too).

In addition to the hours taken capturing and processing their data they will often have spent many years learning and refining their processing skills.

[Elp]

Ref post processing of images, even NASA space images are post processed to present something for people to see translating data into RGB pixel information and utilising software to achieve this is a tool for getting an end result. This Hubble SHO pallet is a prime example of this.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Elp

[SthBohemia]

5 minutes ago, Elp said:

utilising software to achieve this is a tool for getting an end result. This Hubble SHO pallet is a prime example of this.

Thanks Elp, I heard that some of the recent Webb 'scope images were 'extra coloured' to enhance their attractiveness. Seems NASA, ESO etc touchup images but amateurs don't... Hmmmmm 🙂

 

[Elp]

All AP images are post processed to some degree otherwise you wouldn't see much detail. I think any reference to not altering images refers to not adding anything that isn't in the original image (eg adding in an active supernova or a celestial body). Adding in narrowband data is also true to the original image as the gasses are present though sometimes invisible or hard to image with RGB cameras.

[carastro]

We amateurs will increase the colour too by lifting the saturation (or similar), we stretch images to bring out the faint stuff, we sharpen images etc etc, but we don't put anything into the image that isn't already there.  

HTH

Carole  

Edited July 17, 2022 by carastro