New Image: Second Deep Sky Image - Pleiades

[JSBach1801]

This was taken the next evening after my first night imaging the Orion Nebula. This was 100x30 second exposures for 50 minutes of total time. I actually captured about 2 hours worth of data, but as the evening went on, the target kept getting closer and closer to the bubble of light pollution from the city. When I stacked all two hours of data, I had some nasty color gradients that I assume are from the pollution. My skills were not up to processing it out. So, I started over with less light frames, but cleaner light frames.

I feel like I had to stretch this one quite far to bring out the detail in the nebula. That is why it ended up so noisy. I definitely want to revisit this one from a better shooting site one day.

[ApophisAstros]

Lovely,
Rog.

[Butterfly Maiden]

That is still a beautiful image Lyle.

It will be interesting to see what result you can get from a different location.

[JSBach1801]

That is still a beautiful image Lyle.

It will be interesting to see what result you can get from a different location.

Thank you! So, am I.

[JSBach1801]

Lovely,
Rog.

Thank you, Rog.

[messier 111]

love the nebulosity , thx .

[Makuser]

Hello again Lyle. Another beauty from you and this time of M45 (Pleiades or Seven Sisters). Excellent contrast, well framed and the blue reflection nebulosity is very nice, including the Merope Nebula. Thanks for sharing this wonderful capture with us Lyle and it was a pleasure to view as M45 is my favorite DSO.

[Greenman]

Nice one Lyle - well done.

[Jockinireland]

For only 50 mins thats really not bad at all. You have some of the nice whisps showing well.

I think that you could get more out of it with the 2 hours of data and some background extraction. What software are you using - someone may be able to give some pointers on how to handle the gradients with your software. There would also be ways to tame the noise a bit.

Let us know what you are using and we may be able to give some pointers. Or even share your raw stack (in dropbox or one drive for example) and someone may take a crack at it to see if they can pull more out and give you some ideas for processing it.

[Juno16]

Pretty image JSB.
I think that you mentioned that you use Photoshop???
In my Bortle 6-7 skies (worse last night), I need 4-10 hours on a target to produce a decent image.
I don’t recall, but did you say that you were in a B5 zone?
If so, good for you! Light pollution definitely makes processing a bunch more challenging.
For 50 minutes of integration, your image is amazing.
Nice work!

[JSBach1801]

For only 50 mins thats really not bad at all. You have some of the nice whisps showing well.

I think that you could get more out of it with the 2 hours of data and some background extraction. What software are you using - someone may be able to give some pointers on how to handle the gradients with your software. There would also be ways to tame the noise a bit.

Let us know what you are using and we may be able to give some pointers. Or even share your raw stack (in dropbox or one drive for example) and someone may take a crack at it to see if they can pull more out and give you some ideas for processing it.

Jock, thank you for your reply! I'll give a detailed explanation of my process this evening. I was selected to serve on a jury today, so I have been and will be busy all week.

Fun...

[ic_1101]

Nice capture. Regardless of the noise you brought out a lot of the nebulosity, well done!

[Ylem]

That's beautiful Lyle!

[JSBach1801]

Pretty image JSB.
I think that you mentioned that you use Photoshop???
In my Bortle 6-7 skies (worse last night), I need 4-10 hours on a target to produce a decent image.
I don’t recall, but did you say that you were in a B5 zone?
If so, good for you! Light pollution definitely makes processing a bunch more challenging.
For 50 minutes of integration, your image is amazing.
Nice work!

Thank you, Jim!

I took these images from a Bortle 4, actually. Looking east, north, south, and straight up from that location, the sky was very, very dark. However, my target were low and to the west back across the city of Logan. So, saying it a B4 area may not be 100% accurate because it really depended on which way you pointed the scope.

There are B3 areas within a reasonable drive nearby, if I only I can find somewhere to actually shoot from. A lot of it is farmland (private property), so not easy to just pull up somewhere and unload my gear.

[JSBach1801]

For only 50 mins thats really not bad at all. You have some of the nice whisps showing well.

I think that you could get more out of it with the 2 hours of data and some background extraction. What software are you using - someone may be able to give some pointers on how to handle the gradients with your software. There would also be ways to tame the noise a bit.

Let us know what you are using and we may be able to give some pointers. Or even share your raw stack (in dropbox or one drive for example) and someone may take a crack at it to see if they can pull more out and give you some ideas for processing it.

So, I was in the process of typing out this huge post explaining everything I did in detail and preparing the stacked image with more lights to share, when I decided to play around with the stacked image again. Well, 2 hours later, I actually think I was able to keep the gradients under control and keep the noise down more. The change was drastic enough that I decided to post a new thread showing the before and after. You can find it here: viewtopic.php?p=237511#p237511