Kinch

32 minutes ago, carastro said:

That's really lovely.

Carole 

Thanks Carole. This is data from September - but it helped pass an hour or so working on it this evening. 😏

No imaging of late - night skies, even in Spain, are bad!

So - tonight I just played a bit with my September image of the Heart Nebula - did a crop and played with the curves some.....

For some reason today, I thought I should be a little more liberal with how much colour this image should get. The bolder colour helps the depth, I think! (I did not reprocess....just played with the curves some).

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Lovely, and rather like the PacMan in structure.

Olly

Thanks Olly - yes I guess there is, in part, a similarity

11 minutes ago, darthvader said:

that is stunning ! 

Thanks - I am surprised there are not more images of this about......it is quite an interesting nebula.

1 hour ago, Allinthehead said:

Another lovely image Brendan.👍

Thanks Richard - just about had enough data to pull it off....I really had planned on more exposure time .... but then the weather changed!  🙄

Not exactly a rare subject for imaging - but at the same time.....not very common either.

Full info @ https://www.kinchastro.com/sh2-112.html

Lovely work 👍

7 minutes ago, x6gas said:

thanks, as ever, for sharing.

You are most welcome - if I like an image myself (from someone else), I too enjoy having a closer look at it.

The big FLI 16200 is off the scope now - next images will be with my QSI 6120i - with reducer attached. I have started afresh tonight with one I tried earlier in the year: SH2-174. 

Thanks Richard. That camera was taken off the scope today - changed back to the QSI. It does not cool as well as the FLI - but it sure is easier to work with (Sony chip requiring no darks). Nearly time to go out and check the basics - balance, polar alignment and start focus position. I don't think it will be clear enough for imaging - but that is OK - a whole new set of flats to do anyway.

Looks fantastic actually ....you certainly make that Epsilon produce the goods.👏

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

I'm sure about the rationale of adding RGB to a false colour palette, though. I'd have thought RGB added to HOO would be more natural?

I presume you meant "I am NOT sure...."

For me, it is not actually habit, but on many occassions I just go for 1 hour each R,G & B for star colour - when an opportunity for getting reasonable RGB arises. (I need a dark nights and high target - out of the light pollution). This is generally only used if there is little colour in the stars of the final NB image. I said it on another thread, that it is just a dislike of mine......seeing stars all simply white (or nearly so) in narrow band images. On this occassion, I don't really think I needed to colourize the stars so much....but I had the data and the time....so I put it in. I don't think what I did on this image made any huge improvement / difference and I think it was more a matter of using the RGB - just because I had it. Having done so - I just recorded the fact that the RGB was in there.

Brendan.

5 hours ago, Xiga said:

Out of curiosity, do you downscale your images? I notice it's not possible to zoom in. 

ps - Do you know what the little blue thing is at left of centre? A Planetary Nebula of some kind maybe? 

Yes - I have to downsize....the final images are just huge even as JPEG. Even on my own website, I rarely put up the full image (even in the link to higher resolution)

What you refer to is indeed a PN and I believe I am correct with saying it is:  PN G135.6+1.0 (WeBo 1)

Here is a crop from the full resolution image that shows it better....

Just now, gilesco said:

Yes, when I have enough subs my workflow will discard them

👍....wishing you clear skies (which I don't have until next week 🙄)

2 minutes ago, gilesco said:

some bad data in there still, but will improve over time

For sure...if you know there is bad data in there, you should get rid of it. Less time with better data always gives you a better foundation if you are going to add more time to it. I am sure you will get it sorted ... but do add as much time on it as you can bear to run with. 

1 minute ago, MarkAR said:

Another great image Kinch. Well done.

 

👍....Thanks Mark.

Just now, Kon said:

Amazing and breathtaking! 

Thanks Kon - I like looking in on this one (on my computer - in high resolution)....I am very happy with how it turned out.

1 hour ago, x6gas said:

Is this a mosaic, I wonder?

Thanks for the comment and to answer your question......no - not a mosaic. In fact it is trimmed slightly. This is with a 16200 chip on the FSQ130ED - no extender even. Shooting at 1.9 ArcSec/Pix - so still able to get some nice detail on a wide field shot.

Thanks Steve. Yes sometimes, I spend 3 hours on RGB data to put star colour in because I really dislike ALL white stars. But sometimes there is just no need. I don't know how it works out but here you can see coloured stars - but it is false colour in the sense that there is no RGB in this image.....it is, as it says above, simply 22 hours of NB data.

Brendan.

9 hours ago, Spongey said:

PN G101.5-00.6

Thanks for the comment. Yesterday was an extremely busy day and when I processed the data I had not the time to go check out that planetary - so happy you have also given me a name/number for me to go check it out. I usually do an annotated image for my website - but it did not actually show up in that.

Not the easiest target - not the best image of it.....but happy to have tamed all the stars in this area.....too may to count 🙂

This is 8 hours Ha + 7 hours each SII & OIII = 22 Hours.

I do recall saying on several occasions that I was not into 'cartoon colours'. This comes close (in my eyes). As I processed the data it more or less just jumped out at me like this - of course I played with curves etc. to end up with an image quite colourful for my style.....but that I actually like too!

It will go up on my web site later today - if anyone is interested in full details and higher resolution. (In brief: 8 hours Ha, 7 hours each SII & OIII...and then 3 hours of RGB thrown in.)

Yes - in general the stars are smaller via NB filters, most especially in the Ha. But as you see, this area is awash with stars and the best you can do is to reduce their overall impact on the image i.e. make the nebulosity stand out. Some areas are much harder than others and the veil is definitely on the hard half of the list.

This is mine from just over a year ago -  not the best but at the time, I was happy enough to get a finish on the images - because if you overdo it (star reduction) ...then the stars start looking like noise.

https://www.kinchastro.com/veil-nebula.html

30 minutes ago, BrendanC said:

I have a strong feeling most of the 'starless' veil images I've seen are taken using filters that just capture the nebula, not the stars.

No - I don't believe there are such filters that any amateur is using.

I see you have tried StarNet - surprised that did not work for you. Perhaps you can find another programme that I remember: Straton

I am not sure if that is a free programme or not - I have not tried it in years.

Sometimes things just come together beautifully - all equipment working in harmony, fantastic subject matter and superb processing of the data. This one ticks all the boxes for me. Great result/depth for less than 12 hours data 👍