ollypenrice

I agree with Alacant: I think your black point is very low, suggesting the clipping of faint data. However, the resolution of the Bubble itself is excellent. Olly

Why cheating? (BTW, no AI on mine, either. It predates StarXt and I don't think it would benefit from further star reduction. I'll certainly have pulled down the outer glow of the larger stars in Ps, though.)

I think you just need more signal for the brown, dusty feature. (Great image from tooth-dr.) You have the emission gasses. Sh2 126 Two panel. ( Olly Penrice ) - AstroBin Olly

That's a serious scope and a good choice. You now need to be able to navigate the sky. There are free PC planetaria like Carte du Ciel and Stellarium but I don't ever use screens outside, not even under red acetate sheeting, because good dark adaptation is vital. You can print paper charts from the planetaria at different scales. I'd suggest that you familiarize yourself with a rendition of your present night sky and then go outside and try to pick out the bright stars shown on the planetarium. It's easy for experienced observers to forget how tricky this is for a beginner. You can look for fainter stars and brighter non-stellar objects using binoculars, too. Learning your way around is both essential and rewarding. Olly

I love the picture and would also like to try a glass of whatever it is that you're having! lly

Very, very nice indeed with invisible processing. The little details are delicious. Olly

Moving is a nightmare and I fervently hope never to do it again! Very best of luck, Louise. Olly

Try reducing contrast in the stars-only when they are a layer on top. You can do this using the Ps Brightness and Contrast tool or do it manually in Curves, lifting the bottom of the curve and pulling the top down. Olly

Well I certainy love the latest renditions but I was really responding to what you said yourself. Great stuff, Francis. I'm glad you have returned to the RASA fold. Olly

This is the Federation of Astronomical Societies' list of affiliated clubs. https://fedastro.org.uk/fas/members/members-location-by-county/ If you were to contact the ones in your area, explaining your situation, I dare say you'd soon be talking to a human being willing to help you and, at the same time, help his friends/fellow members find their way to some bargains. My policy has always been to sell cheaply and sell quickly. I hope you won't be so sheltered as to leave SGL! Olly

It is a nice one. It looks as if you have a bit of the dreaded tile pattern showing through from star removal. I find I can't predict when I'm going to get this and when I'm not, nor do I have any real fix for it. I hope the developer is working on it. In this case it's only slight. Olly

Subtle processing. Nice. Olly

Lots to enjoy in the image, particularly the extended red emission, but the halos would bug me, too. Olly

As with your NAN-Pelican, how about a compromise with smaller stars? In both cases I think your nebulosity is stunning. Olly

Two things have perked up my enthusiasm for imaging (which hadn't left me but was diminished.) 1) Using an automated rig which means I don't have to be up all night. Running Les Granges, the all nighter had become a lifestyle for about 200 nights a year and it became too much as I headed for seventy. 2) Switching to super-fast F2 systems with CMOS cameras. This lets me capture images which are not just shorter in exposure, but which give a different perspective on objects. In a nutshell we get more faint dust and less emission gas for a refreshing new look. The speed also makes large mosaics very attractive. Olly

This is a very good framing and not one we regularly see. Olly

I've had lots of these things and I'd always go for the Telrad. It's quite large but it lasts for decades and uses normal batteries which you can find anywhere and is so logical to use that you can lose the instructions and not worry about it. A circle is way better than a dot because it gives you a scale on the sky. It 'just works,' which is a minor miracle in astronomy. Olly

Me too. Olly

The net is packed full of problem Quarks. When they work they're great but I'm not inclined to risk it. Olly

M31 reaches well beyond your present field of view. This will give you an idea of what's to be had within your field and either side of it. You certainly need a lot more signal but this won't do you much good unless you can flatten your image effectively - that's to say remove sky gradients. In this orientation the upper left half of your image has a very bright patch of background which will probably be coming from LP. It is certainly not signal from M31. Because I shoot from a dark site I'm not very experienced in fighting severe gradients like this but the starting point would be something like Dynamic Background Extraction in Pixinsight or one of the other gradient tools from another astro-specific software. These will all be more successful with more exposure - much more. Olly

Having once split a slab with expansion bolts, I use only builder's epoxy of whatever make they have in the store. I drill a snug hole with a big hammer drill, squirt in the two-pack epoxy and tap in the threaded bar with a hammer. I don't hit the threaded bar, only a nut and locknut threaded onto the top of it. This method has never failed for pier fixings and we have 8 piers here. Olly

I think it would depend on the resolution at which it was presented. At normal screen resolution only pixel peepers would find any difference. Olly

That's exquisite, Rodd, on all counts. How could a NB rendition of this region be better? I have no idea. Olly

I really do like these. To my eye, NB images look so much better with a reasonably light, dusky-looking and colour-neutral background sky, of which this is a perfect example. Olly

That has something to say! Olly