ngc 300

[blink138]

well i think it has been about three months since i have done any AP, not through want of course!
as a matter of fact it has been that long that i had almost forgotten how to do "certain things"
admittedly i am a little underwhelmed by my effort here as i was expecting a little more detail
40 300sec lights @ iso800 and same for dark and flats added the next morn.
is this what to expect for two hours work? stellarium says mag 9, but it seems rather more dim than that...... perhaps because it is spread out a fair bit!?
pat

[blink138]

ah just seen andy01 image so that answers a lot of my questions
dont know how he got ten min exposures though!
pat

[Jon]

It's a bloody faint galaxy, that one. The total magnitude is misleading: it's got low surface brightness.

That being said, I reckon you might be able to stretch a bit more out of your 2 hours data in Photoshop. You've got some nice detail in there - it's all just very faint.

[blink138]

thanks jon, i dont understand PS very well but i will give it a go
pat

[Andy01]

I think that this object would better suit mono camera imaging. Anything dimmer than mag 8/9 is a bit of a stretch for RGB in my opinion. It's a frustrating hobby sometimes, but so rewarding when we get it right! :)