Request for Feedback: Beginner - M13 first attempt

Brian LeCuyer · May 13, 2026, 09:47 PM

Absolute beginner seeking any and all feedback on this first deep-sky object attempt.

📷 M13_First Attempt_2026-05-08https://app.astrobin.com/i/a9jx1d/

M13_First Attempt_2026-05-08

by Brian LeCuyer

Published: May 13, 2026

Total integration: 3h

Integration per filter:

- No filter: 3h (90 × 120")

Equipment:

- Telescope: Explore Scientific ED127 Essential Series Air-Spaced Triplet Refractor (ES-ED127075-04)

- Camera: ZWO ASI2600MC Pro

- Mount: ZWO AM5

- Accessory: ZWO ASIAIR Plus

For more information, visit AstroBin:

https://app.astrobin.com/i/a9jx1d

Hello Brian,

I cannot say anything else except that it is a stunning image.

The stars' color is natural, and they are all round. The processing looks very careful, and you even revealed some neighboring galaxies.

I wish I could take images like this when I was beginning.

Your image is stunning. Clear Skies!

I agree on the previous comments. This doesn’t look like a begimmer attempt to me! There are no clipped blacks, stars look round and not over saturated. I like your decent star colors, no need to tweak everything to the maximum. A bit more wouldnt do any harm.
A thing i often see are artifacts from sharpening and tools like BXT. In case of single stars, these tools work differently than in the case of globular clusters, where the stars become too dense to separate. So BXT starts doing some weird things. I dont see this in your image AT ALL, and here is no need to use it anyways. So to sum up, i dont see any flaws in this image.

Globular clusters are stars only. No vague dust, no faint line emission. Just stars. That’s why globular clusters are maybe a bit underestimated i think. But the thing is: There are many many faint stars, which partially can be resolved. To do that, you need a dark night for globulars, with good seeing, just like with galaxies. Perfect guiding and collimation are more important than with other subjects. And bringing up those faint stars to show the cluster in its whole extent, without ruining the things mentioned above, that’s the big challenge and where globular clusters become really tricky.

Great image of M13! You have an excellent setup. I agree with all the other feedback you have received. This is purely personal preference - you may want to a bit more sharpening in your processing workflow (e.g. advanced sharpening utility in PI or local histogram equalization.

You are much further along than I was when I stated. Nicely Done!

Hey Brian,

there are plenty of classical beginners mistakes, lots of them having to do with just overdoing it. Like too much sharpening, denoising, stretching, saturation etc. And in my opinion you did not do a single one of those mistakes. This picture is not only good for a beginner - it´s just good.

Congrats

Looking forward to your other projects!

HR_Maurer · May 14, 2026, 07:48 AM

I agree on the previous comments. This doesn’t look like a begimmer attempt to me! There are no clipped blacks, stars look round and not over saturated. I like your decent star colors, no need to tweak everything to the maximum. A bit more wouldnt do any harm.
A thing i often see are artifacts from sharpening and tools like BXT. In case of single stars, these tools work differently than in the case of globular clusters, where the stars become too dense to separate. So BXT starts doing some weird things. I dont see this in your image AT ALL, and here is no need to use it anyways. So to sum up, i dont see any flaws in this image.

Globular clusters are stars only. No vague dust, no faint line emission. Just stars. That’s why globular clusters are maybe a bit underestimated i think. But the thing is: There are many many faint stars, which partially can be resolved. To do that, you need a dark night for globulars, with good seeing, just like with galaxies. Perfect guiding and collimation are more important than with other subjects. And bringing up those faint stars to show the cluster in its whole extent, without ruining the things mentioned above, that’s the big challenge and where globular clusters become really tricky.

Thanks for the feedback. I thought a couple items might have shown themselves as flaws in the final image.

1. I’m just now getting the hang of getting my tracking tuned-in, so I know tracking was less-than optimal for this session.

2. I don’t have a reducer/flattener in the train yet, and I thought I was pretty oversampled for the conditions at 0.81 scale.

I’ve seen some pretty stunning stuff with my similar setup, so I’m really looking forward to the learning curve.

Brian LeCuyer · May 14, 2026, 05:26 PM

HR_Maurer · May 14, 2026, 07:48 AM

I agree on the previous comments. This doesn’t look like a begimmer attempt to me! There are no clipped blacks, stars look round and not over saturated. I like your decent star colors, no need to tweak everything to the maximum. A bit more wouldnt do any harm.
A thing i often see are artifacts from sharpening and tools like BXT. In case of single stars, these tools work differently than in the case of globular clusters, where the stars become too dense to separate. So BXT starts doing some weird things. I dont see this in your image AT ALL, and here is no need to use it anyways. So to sum up, i dont see any flaws in this image.

Globular clusters are stars only. No vague dust, no faint line emission. Just stars. That’s why globular clusters are maybe a bit underestimated i think. But the thing is: There are many many faint stars, which partially can be resolved. To do that, you need a dark night for globulars, with good seeing, just like with galaxies. Perfect guiding and collimation are more important than with other subjects. And bringing up those faint stars to show the cluster in its whole extent, without ruining the things mentioned above, that’s the big challenge and where globular clusters become really tricky.

Thanks for the feedback. I thought a couple items might have shown themselves as flaws in the final image.

1. I’m just now getting the hang of getting my tracking tuned-in, so I know tracking was less-than optimal for this session.

2. I don’t have a reducer/flattener in the train yet, and I thought I was pretty oversampled for the conditions at 0.81 scale.

I’ve seen some pretty stunning stuff with my similar setup, so I’m really looking forward to the learning curve.

I really see no use for a reducer on your rig with objects like this. Don’t fear oversampling, it’s not going to ruin your image. On the up-side you might gain a bit of detail if the seeing is kind. If nothing else, you’ll gain image scale which can be a positive thing for small subjects.