Tried stacking photos from my backyard vs a dark sky site near Flagstaff

I always thought my editing skills were the problem with my astro shots, but last weekend I drove 2 hours out to a Bortle 2 zone near Flagstaff. I took the same Orion nebula shot with my Canon 6D and 135mm lens from my driveway in Phoenix and then at the dark site. Stacked 40 frames from each in DeepSkyStacker and the difference was insane. The dark site stack had way more detail in the dust lanes and almost no gradient. Has anyone else been shocked by how much darker skies matter vs just taking more frames from your backyard?

2 comments

2 Comments

grantf737h agoMost Upvoted

the difference was insane" is right, man. I had the exact same wake up call a couple years ago. I was shooting from my backyard in a Bortle 5 zone and thought I could just stack more frames to fix the light pollution. Then I went to a Bortle 3 spot up in the mountains and the single frames looked better than my stacked backyard shots. It's like the light pollution just eats up all the faint stuff no matter how many pictures you take. I remember seeing the dust lanes in Andromeda for the first time from the dark site and my jaw actually dropped. Now I only bother with backyard shots for practicing framing or testing equipment. Dark sky is the real secret weapon in astrophotography, way more than any fancy gear or software trick.

jamiew537h ago

Dude right? That first time you see a target from a real dark site it literally ruins backyard imaging for you forever. I drove three hours to a Bortle 2 zone last fall and my single 30-second sub of the Orion nebula had more detail than my backyard stack of 200 frames. I honestly don't even bother with my light polluted yard anymore unless I'm just dialing in my polar alignment or testing a new lens.