Are filters a wise investment for a locale without much LP?

[montereyboy]

Hello all,

I'm new to SGL and wanted to first say how much I've gotten out of this site in such a short time. I've been reading various threads here and wanted to get some input about filters.

Just this week, thanks to the help of SGL members, I had my first sightings of M81, M82, M51, the Leo triplet, NGC4565, and M13. So exciting! I'm fortunate enough to live in a rural area where LP is not much of an issue, but I was wondering if I would still benefit from some filters.

I'd love to enhance the images of planets, galaxies, nebulae, and globular clusters, but I don't know if the benefit I would see from narrowband filters and such would be worth the investment. What do you all think? Should I bother with filters given I live in an area with minimal LP? If so, do I need different filters to enhance different kinds of images? Thanks!

[pvaz]

I have the same scope you do and pretty much the same observing conditions.

As far as I know there aren't any filters to help you on glaxies. Only narrowband filter I ever tried is a Baader OIII and it does help on some nebula. However I find it too strict and, from what I read, I think now I would have spent the money on a UHC filter instead. Lumicon seams to be the one most people recomend, but the skywatcher one is much cheaper and I also read good reviews on it. The veil nebula in particular is awsome with one of this as you can see the structure (even so, it's still very faint and requires dark skies and good dark adaptation).

As to planets/moon I only like to use a ND filter to reduce the glow. Color filters do make some details more noticeable but I hate the false color so I rarelly use them.

[Dimitris]

You have little LP! How lucky. Then no LPR filters for you. I would aim at a Contrast Booster, but as the previous friend also said, those filters help you with nebulae and not star formations (clusters or galaxies). O III is a harsh filter that bring-up details of nebulae but dims the overall image. I didnt like it much, and sold it. The rest of the norrowbands are dedicated to photography I think, no much use in observation.

I have found out that the Baader "Moon and Skyglow" filter, works fine with planets and deep sky absorbing much of the glow. I liked it very much.

And.....Stay away of the colored planet filters. Yes they do help some with detail, but most of the time they are useless

Regards

Dimitris

[John]

I've tried a number of narrowband filters including the OIII and UHC types. I agree that the Baader OIII is pretty "harsh" but others such as the Lumicon and Astronomik OIII's (which I own) are effective on nebulae when used with an variety of scopes - particularly planetary nebulae such as a famous Veil Nebula already mentioned.

Of the UHC narrowband filters I've tried I think the Orion Ultrablock was the most effective, again on nebulae. As has also been said the best way to improve the views of galaxies is to view from a dark site, buy a larger aperture scope or ideally both !.

[Mark at Beaufort]

Hello Christopher and welcome to SGL from the UK.

You appear to have a ND filter which is clearly good for viewing the Moon. You might consider a variable polarizing filter which can be useful on the Moon and the brighter planets. Basically by turning the filter you can adjust the amount of light entering the eyepiece.

I prefer a UHC filter which will improve objects like Orion, Lagoon, Swan and of course the Veil.

With no Light Pollution a filter will not improve views of galaxies etc.

If I was you I would invest in a UHC filter and then its just a matter which manufacturer you choose.

Mark

[Glider]

If you have a local Astro Group then looking through other peoples kit first and judging things that way has never gone wrong for me.

[Astro_Baby]

I have an OIII and a UHC (Skywatcher ones) I find they arent used much in the main. Actually they work better with low light pollution because you need the best possible image before they can be effective BUT on the whole I'n not see them as any kind of priority purchase.

Colored filters can help with planets but I find (as a very general rule) they seem to work better in longer focal ratio scopes than they do in my 8" Newt. No idea why but a light yellow filter gives quite a contrast boost in my Nexstar 4SE and TAL 100RS but makes almost no difference at all in my 8" Newt.

[ollypenrice]

I quite like the Baader O111 but it gives a green caste. Previoulsy I had a Lumicon UHC but the coatings turned to dust and fell off. Not happy!

I use it only selectively. It is wonderful on the Veil in anything from a 70mm Pronto upwards. It also reveals the Rosette. UHC is probably a better bet, though.

Olly

[Talitha]

Hi Christopher, i live in rural northcentral Wisconsin and also have no problem with light pollution. There are only two filters that i use on a regular basis with my 8"SCT. One is light red, which is good for daytime lunar observing (improves contrast and cuts babyblue skyglow). The other is a Lumicon O-III, which is good for diffuse nebulae and planetary nebulae.

Here's the best resource i've ever seen regarding nebula filters:

Filter Performance Comparisons For Some Common Nebulae by David Knisely

Regarding planetary filters...

When i was a newbie i got a good deal on Orion's complete 12-color filter set (IIRC it was only $110). As advertised, they did make certain features a 'bit' easier to detect but TBH, they never showed me anything i couldn't already see.