(Viewed 2,507 times)

[starbux]

I had previously tried to image M45 in my 8" LX-200 classic but having no focal reducer only a small part of the cluster would be imaged rendering it unrecognizable. So I decided to try it with my C102 f/5 on my EQ-2 mount (yes you heard correctly the EQ-2) and single axis EQ-2M drive. Well with added counterweights it tracked surprisingly well, contrary to those who would argue that you would need a more substantial mount to do anything but piggyback photography.

When shooting I immediately saw horrible skyglow from the light pollution where I live. At f/5 it is even more pronounced. So I decided to try shooting with a Baader Moon-Skyglow (neodymium) filter as well as a Celestron LPR (broadband) filter. The results exceeded my expectations.

No photoshop post-processing other than some cropping and resizing. C102WA f/5 on EQ-2 mount. 32mm Plossl eyepiece. Canon Powershot A510 15 second exposure on all images (camera's slowest shutter setting). Unless otherwise stated, sensitivity set a ISO 400. First two images here are unfiltered for comparison.


M42 unfiltered. Still poking thru the trees.


M45 unfiltered


M45 with the Moon-Skyglow filter


M42 with the Moon-Skyglow filter


M42 with Moon-Skyglow filter shot at ISO 200


M42 with Celestron LPR filter

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Malcolm,

What a great comparison shoot-out you did with the filters. I was never a great fan of Light Pollution, or nebula filters, but you just may have changed my mind.

Did you notice any difference visually in the eyepiece with the filters?

Orion's nebula is cool, but I think the seven sister shots are the best here with the higher contrast.

Excellent!...

[starbux]

I think from here on the Baader filter will be mandatory for my future deep sky imaging efforts, and the LPR filter for selected objects.

I would recommend both filters by all means. I've had both for a few years now. The Baader Neodymium (aka "Moon and Skyglow" -- note this since I believe Baader makes more than one kind of neodymium filter) has a mild effect visually on the deep sky but is worth investing in not only for photography, but as an outstanding filter for planetary viewing. The color shift is mild compared to most planet filters but the increase in contrast is considerable. It is also fairly inexpensive compared to some of the other specialty filters out there. I think Celestron also sells the same filter under their own label.

The Celestron LPR (broadband) filter is a decent compromise between competing broadband filters and the more narrowband UHC-type filters. I had not been using it so much since I had aquired a Meade Narrowband filter, but in fact the performance difference on nebulae is only slight. I've still been able to use the Celstron LPR filter in viewing galaxies, though I don't think it would help in the actual detection of them. I have been able to see objects such as the Owl Nebula with it whereas I was unable to see it without it, though the Meade filter is more agressive for that kind of object.