Captured this last night under very bright Moon lit skies and fast moving cloud.
I got the mount polar aligned good enough to start imaging in about 30 minutes without any problems. I setup the guidescope hoping to autoguide and spent most of the time trying to find a suitable guidestar. I don't know why, but I just couldn't find a guidestar. So this image was unguided.
6 x 1 minute subs with ICNR darks, ISO 800, Stacked in DSS and processed with PS CS3. C8 f/6.3 on EQ6 Pro.
I would like to know your opinion on which image looks the best in terms of processing and colour. The first image was processed on the Laptop and the second on the desktop.
Image 1 is by far the better. You have some nice star colours going, its a bit brighter and image 2 seems to have a red bias. Both are good in that the core is not overexposed which is a common problem imaging globs.
It would be great to go for a much longer exposure. If its not autoguided then go for half an hours worth and if you have autoguiding go for at least an hour's worth.
Matty, technically there should be no difference between the laptop and desktop processed versions if your laptop screen and desktop monitor are calibrated and the processing routine is identical. Its a good rendition of this target. Are you taking flats? If not, this would be a logical step to improving the quality of your output.
The first one looks pretty good Matt and yes flats will get rid of the vignetting or else you could crop it a bit..? Looks like had you not had the near full moon to contend with the vignetting may not have been noticable really?
Nice piccies.....#1 is the better, though. Much darker background and nice colours. The second pic looks like ol' Omega's embarrassed (slight reddish tinge)
Next time I when I get my guiding setup and working, I will definitely go for longer exposures and more of them. I was disappointed because out of about 20 1 minute subs, only 6 were suitable to stack. Too many tracking errors.
