Some Ursa Major Galaxies

John O'Mahony · Post by **John O'Mahony** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:56 pm

I managed to take some shots of M51, M101, M109 and NGC 4088 (complete with supernova) last night.
Here is my attempt with M51 and M101 and the NGC 4088 supernova

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3323/345 ... 762d_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3603/345 ... 1c11_b.jpg
M51. 20 x 60 second exposures at Iso 800

M101

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3403/345 ... 1379_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3606/345 ... a180_b.jpg
9 x 2 minute exposures at ISO 800 stacked in DSS

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3368/345 ... fdab_o.jpg
5 x 2 minute exposures

There is virtually no extra processing apart from trying to darken out the vignetting. My attempt at taking flats failed miserably.
I am impressed with the mount though. It can just take 120 second exposures at prime focus unguided and no PEC without significant star trailing. Having an accurate Goto makes imaging these faint fuzzies much easier as they ae not visible in the eyepiece where I am living.
More to follow.....

Conn Buckley · Post by **Conn Buckley** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:27 pm

Howdy John, I enjoyed viewing your latest 'captures'. You got great detail there in M51 -- I would be proud to manage to get images like that just for the fun and enjoyment of building a personal collection. Nothing like a good start to build momentum.
I was out last night with my LX200R 10" and could only manage to see NGC 4088 about midnight when the light pollution eased. I have seen various figures for its Magnitude and my Autostar Controller had it at 10.5
It was more easily viewed with averted vision and I persuaded myself that I could see the S/N but to be honest if I did not know it was there I would not have picked it out. I put the camera on for the hell of it for a few minutes ... just to see if the S/N showed. Despite the crazy streaking/blurring I could clearly make out the S/N. Your image captured it well.
Your set up seems suited to developing your astrophotography skills. I look forward to seeing your next results. Terrific work ... keep it up.

John O'Mahony · Post by **John O'Mahony** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:07 am

Thanks Conn

I'm glad I bought a decent mid-range equatorial mount with the C11 now. Its more hassle to set up but you can see the difference when you put a camera on it. Its the same mount used by Dave Grennan, Carl O'Beirnes and Steve Roche and they have taken some amazing images- so I have along way to go yet. My processing skills are pretty non-existent.
The SN was interesting to image. It was right overhead so that helped. As Saturday was clear most of the night there will probably be a flood of images on the IFAS boards.

John

Dave Lillis · Post by **Dave Lillis** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:02 pm

Thats fab stuff John,
You're really getting the hang of it, long may it continue.

Frank Ryan · Post by **Frank Ryan** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:08 am

Heya John.
They look great.
What camera set up did you use?
Was it prime focus?
How is the live view for focusing?

Well done on capturing a supernova!

(which point of light is it?)

You are doing extreemly well to capture those images
if you are taking them from Ardnacrusha.
The CLS clip filter is the biz.
On my screen there is a green tinge in the middle of the shots,
I'm sure this is an artifact of the filter/photoshop.

I'm sure when you get to shoot from a darker location
you will get excellent images.
Well done. It's not easy what you are doing and you
seem to be a dab hand at it.

You should bring them along to the next meeting to show them
if you like.

John O'Mahony · Post by **John O'Mahony** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:13 am

Thanks Frank

The set up is at prime focus wth a F6.3 Meade focal reducer. The mount was polar aligned using the internal routine. No guiding or PEC correction. 2 minute shots.
Live view is the biz. It takes only a minute to focus. Simply goto a nearby brightish star (unless there is one in the field of view already) and focus using the 10x zoom in the 450d, do a goto back to the object in question and viola !

The biggest problem is the processing. I am only using DSS and the program that came with the Canon camera.

John

Frank Ryan · Post by **Frank Ryan** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:18 pm

My God, that live view sounds like heaven.
The biggest pain for astrophotographers for years was
focusing! (along with PE)
You really need photoshop for the processing.
Slight learning curve with it but there is no better tool
for what you are doing.
I would go so far as to say it is essential.
You don't need the full package (very expensive)
One of the free versions would be good to start with as
it would have the basic layout and tools.

If I can make next wednesday I'll bring in my laptop
and show you a few tricks if you like.

John O'Mahony · Post by **John O'Mahony** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:38 pm

That would be great Frank. Thanks.

John

Conn Buckley · Post by **Conn Buckley** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:55 pm

Hello Frank, Would you care to suggest which 'free' version of Photoshop is suitable for beginning level-- I would be interested in trying it out. Conn

Frank Ryan · Post by **Frank Ryan** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:04 am

Hi Conn.
Often you will see photography magazines with a CD Rom
which includes a basic version of Photoshop for free
usually an older version of 'Photoshop Elements'.
Another one to look out for is the Sky at Night Magizines CD rom
which sometimes includes free photo editing software.
One totally free version which Sky at Night often call the 'free'
version of Photoshop is 'GIMP'.
It's perfect for the job but it does come with a steep learning curve.

For astrophotography the real winner is Photoshop but as long
as the programe you use has the basic tools such as
Level Adjustment, Colour Adjustment, Saturation, Hue,
sharpness etc then it should be fine.

Adobe website has more>
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/

I also reciently bought this CD rom book by Jerry Ludgrass
on astrophotography and found it invaluable>
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/K_MISC/BOOKS.HTM

He makes it very easy to understand and follow
with practice files and walkthrus which are a great way to learn.

I have not read yet this one but if his other books are
anything to go by then it is a must
http://www.astropix.com/PFA/INTRO.HTM

I wouldn't ever be one to recommend people to go off and buy
expensive progs like photoshop but when it comes to
digital photography I think it is needed if you are any way
serious about getting the best out of your
(probably already expensive) camera.
In the past we just shot on film and left it up to the
chemist to do the processing. now in the digital age it's up to us to do
it so these kind of tools are required to get the best out of our images.

Hope this helps.

Conn Buckley · Post by **Conn Buckley** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:59 pm

Hi Frank, Thanks very much for taking the time to put this reply together and that is indeed helpful. I have plenty of info there to start with and look forward to investigating.