Reworked Orion Nebula (M42) - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/29/2006 09:28:04 PM · #1

Due to the proliferation of cloudy nights recently, I went back to some shots of M42 taken in February of 06 and started from my raw images and reworked a new M42:

Two 3 minutes shots. Used PSCS2's noise removal feature on each, then stacked these images. Then added one 60 second shot in a new layer and masked the original to reveal a bit more detail in the center of the neb, which was a little blown on the 3 minute shots. Various adjustments with curves, then crop and save.

I'm planning to make this one available as a print as I've had some friends asking me if I had any astro shots for sale.

Enjoy!

alfresco

Nikon D700

11/29/2006 09:30:07 PM · #2

Fabulous photo - simply fab!!!

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/29/2006 09:31:20 PM · #3

Ooooh... very nice! I'm impressed by the amount of color you got there, too. Is this full frame or a significant crop?

11/29/2006 09:34:51 PM · #4

This was taken with the 400 and the cropping was slight, mostly for compositon. For an uncropped to compare, see below:

No crop ...................... cropped

Originally posted by scalvert:

Ooooh... very nice! I'm impressed by the amount of color you got there, too. Is this full frame or a significant crop?

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

11/29/2006 09:37:30 PM · #5

Man, these are always awesome.

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

11/29/2006 09:37:51 PM · #6

Really nice processing! You did a great job with it.

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

12/16/2006 10:05:48 PM · #7

Very nice clean image, John! I entered a single exposure shot of the same object a while back and it was very poorly recieved by the voters. Here is my shot:

Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

12/16/2006 10:12:12 PM · #8

Originally posted by ElGordo:

Very nice clean image, John! I entered a single exposure shot of the same object a while back and it was very poorly recieved by the voters. Here is my shot:

Thanks Gordon. I agree that astro shots usually do not do well, other than aurora, which aren't exactly astrophotography.

BakerBug

Canon EOS-20D

12/16/2006 10:29:17 PM · #9

That is an amazing shot! I was hoping to see some shots like this in the "Sky" challenge. Great job!

kenskid

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/16/2006 10:35:45 PM · #10

Beautiful shot. I have a $1000 telescope and an $800 camera and you can bet your sweet A** that I wouldn't have the patience or skill to do this.

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

12/16/2006 10:59:40 PM · #11

John, this is one of your finest! Beautiful! Added to my favorites. Outstanding!!!

Don't mean to hijack your thread, but do you know if they sell star-tracking tripods or mounts like Nexstar for just cameras? I can't afford a nice telescope right now, but was thinking maybe if they had something that would just let me track the stars for long exposure/mulitple stacked shots. Thanks!

12/16/2006 11:03:47 PM · #12

Originally posted by Telehubbie:

Kirbic uses an equatorial mount that is designed to carry a telescope, but he just mounts his camera by itself. A quick polar alignment and he is ready to shoot all night. I think the mount he uses is in the 400-600 dollar range. This is an ideal solution for "piggyback" work without a telescope!

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/16/2006 11:31:27 PM · #13

Cool! Thanks John! I'll do a Google for it. Keep the shots coming too!

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

12/17/2006 02:00:16 AM · #14

Here's one of M42 that I shot with John's 400/5.6 lens last weekend...

Edit:
The mount is a CG5, it's a moderate quality equatorial mount that functions pretty well for this type of work.

Message edited by author 2006-12-17 02:01:37.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/17/2006 02:04:07 AM · #15

FWIW, for those interested in tracking on a tight budget, google "barndoor mount" and start reading. They are pretty easy to build, and can be pretty accurate for short periods.

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/17/2006 06:19:30 PM · #16

Thanks for the info Fritz! Someday I hope to get astro shots like yours and Johns. Thank you!

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/17/2006 07:40:20 PM · #17

So you guys are seriously telling us that a 400mm lens on a FF camera (shorter OK on a cropped sensor) is sufficient to shoot a NEBULA like this? And here I thought those shots required super-duper-killer telescopes...

R.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/17/2006 07:45:07 PM · #18

My shot is cropped quite a bit, but not drastically. This particular object is pretty large. Ideally I'd be imaging it in the 600mm range.
For some nebulae, 1000mm-2000mm focal lengths are required, but for others, you don't even need a long telephoto. There are some areas of nebulosity that are best imaged in the 100mm range.

12/17/2006 07:48:13 PM · #19

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It's a common misconception regarding the size of these objects. Telescopes are needed much more for light gathering power than they are for magnification. The Andromeda Galaxy, for instance, is about 5 times the width of the full moon:

These are both shot with the 400mm, and both are either very slightly cropped or not cropped at all. The issue with many of these so-called deep sky objects is not their smallness, but their faintness.

There are perhaps 20 to 30 such objects in the night sky. If they were a few thousand times brighter, the sky would be a much different experience for us all.