IC1396. It's there but it isn't !

[Guest peepshow]

Can someone solve this puzzle please?

Here is IC1396 (Elephant's Trunk), taken on a moded canon 450d.

5 minute exposure at ISO 800.  This plate solution shows the nearby Garnet star too.

Now I know that this is only a single jpeg but I expected to find some slight colouring of the IC1396 as many other good images that I have seen are only short exposures too, albeit many subs. 

But no matter how I process the original image (a RAW one too) there is absolutely no sign of any colour and I am at a loss to know why.

 

It was taken with a 500mm mirror lens and although not the best lens to use I cannot see how this would stop some colour showing.

Suggestions welcome.........

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2014 by peepshow

[Tweedledee]

I know nothing of imaging Richard, but if you look in the deep space gallery you will find other images of this object which have 2 hours or more of data and have had some post processing to bring out the nebula.

[Tweedledee]

I have seen what processing can do, and know that nebula can be teased out from where none is visible in the raw data. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could pull a little out from your single sub, but it might not look like much from just 5 minutes on this faint and elusive object.

[Guest peepshow]

Thanks for all that Pete and I take in all you say which is very true. 

As a beginnerto imaging and as I understand it, many subs lower the noise but not increase what is there to see, so I did expect to

see a little colour at 5 minutes, ISO800, with 500mm f8 mirror lens.

 

Maybe I ought to try M31 when she comes over the trees soon instead of the more difficult Elephant.

  (not with the long 500mm I hasten to add)

 

I daresay it's a case of crawl before I can walk before I can run.   

[Tweedledee]

 

As a beginnerto imaging and ...

 

I daresay it's a case of crawl before I can walk before I can run.   

 

Or some might say a case of the blind leading the blind if I'm trying to advise you on imaging.    :D

 

Hopefully some expert will chip in and put us right.

[Tweedledee]

And another thing, IC1391 is not in there anyway, since it is a 16th mag galaxy in Aquarius .

[Guest peepshow]

And another thing, IC1391 is not in there anyway, since it is a 16th mag galaxy in Aquarius .

Sorry getting my IC's confused.  Have now changed title etc to 1396 in Cepheus.

BTW, for those who know these things, I did take 2 RAW subs of 1396 and have just stacked them in

Deep Sky Stacker but still no sign of any colour at all.

When weather permits I will take more and see if this gives results.

Edited July 7, 2014 by peepshow

[+Ibbo]

I think you might have to increase the saturation

 

have a look at this

 

http://flintstonestargazing.com/2009/06/26/my-quick-deepskystacker-tutorial/#comment-5609

[Guest peepshow]

Thanks for that Steve.  I think now that one big reason for lack of colour is insufficient exposure.

The number of subs only reduce noise and give a smoother look.

So it's exposure, exposure, exposure to dig deep.

[+Ibbo]

data data data is the key you are correct