Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Processing or conditions?


Beardy Bob
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been looking at various images on this site for a while now, and I've noticed how greatly images of the same targets can vary even when the exposure times and equipment used are very similar.

Can light pollution and bad conditions really mess with the image quality (and therefore the quality of the final image) or is it just a case of getting 'enough' data and therefore all in the 'dark art' of processing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all of the above and more.... local conditions, sky quality, light pollution, equipment, tracking, wind, mount stability, image stacking, post processing, personal preferences to how an image looks or should look... they all affect how the final image appears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed so, it will all affect "how it looks". I can also understand in simple terms how water vapour etc can refract and diffuse light to reduce the detail visible in the final image.

So let's take light pollution - does light pollution (or indeed the filters that need to be used to cut it out) actually affect the clarity and quality of raw data?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that is quite a dark/light polluted comparison! But I'm guessing that if the problem in a light poluted area is simply increased random noise that photos can be of comparable detail and clarity (i.e. being able to pick out fine dust lanes, etc) as a dark site by increasing the number of subs. (Apart from stuff emitting in the sodium emission regions or whatever the LP filter will cut out - but I'm guessing that doesn't contribute to images much.) I'm guessing I'd need to ask someone who's moved into a light polluted site from a dark one and tried to match their results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expert processors can probably drag the same image from a light polluted site.

For me though I got a better result with 70 mins of data from a dark site, compared to 14 hours of data from my light polluted home!

That was enough for me to give up on colour imaging from home.

I only do narrowband at home now, and travel elsewhere for my colour images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star parties are a great way of finding just how much dark skies make a difference. I use a IDAS light pollution filter at home and a conservative estimate would be that I would need to add about 25% to the exposure time using it compared to not using it.

Tony..

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.