Debate: Did that nebula photo need 10 hours of exposure or was 2 hours enough?

Last week I saw two posts of the Orion Nebula - one guy spent 10 hours stacking frames from a dark site in Arizona, another got a decent shot in 2 hours from his backyard in Chicago. The detail gap was real but not huge. Which matters more: time spent or processing skill?

2 comments

2 Comments

karenhenderson6d ago

Haha "still learning" is code for "my stacking attempts look like a blurry potato with noise reduction artifacts." I spent 6 hours on the California Nebula once and my buddy's 90 minute shot from a light polluted yard was way better. Turns out I was using the wrong dark frames and stretching like a maniac. Skill closes the gap way faster than more data honestly.

the_sarah6d ago

I have been wrestling with this same question myself lately. I spent a full night at a state park in Michigan last fall getting 8 hours of data on the Veil Nebula, and a friend of mine got a great result from his city balcony in just 3 hours. The difference was that he knew his processing software inside and out while I was still learning. I think for most of us, skill with stacking and post-processing closes the gap much faster than just adding more hours of exposure time. That 10 hour shot from Arizona probably has a bit more detail and less noise, but the 2 hour backyard shot can still be really impressive if the person knows what they are doing.