steviemac500

Yep, I see it now, can't believe I missed it but in fairness you have to look pretty hard or be looking for something anyway to see that!! I never noticed it first time round and I don't think it detracts from the image if you're not looking too hard. At a loss to explain it though as APP normally is faultless. Don't ever hesitate to offer criticism though otherwise how do we learn and this will be something I will scrutinise more in the future, Still, AN have published it so I am going to remain happy with that!

Thanks for all the support. The latest edition of Astronomy Now has published the image. Well chuffed!!

Thanks Dave, the camera has been recently serviced so I’m not sure it’s that. It’s only on the bigger stars too.

A friend of mine has asked why there are spikes on some of the stars. I’m assuming it’s something in the processing and my money is on deconvolution but I’m not sure. Any ideas?

A widefield shot of the Crescent. This is a 6 panel mosaic consisting of 5hrs in Ha and O3 in each panel giving a total integration of 60hrs. The mosaic was constructed in APP and then processed in PI minimally with a little noise reduction and then colour combined with the standard mix. I added the Ha layer back in PS to bring back some of the detail. I have attached the Ha as I like it too!! Hope you like them, C & Cs welcomed as always! https://astrob.in/mcv66q/B/ Steve

Thanks for the comment. Could you explain the procedure for adding the stars in with pixel maths please?

This is my last image before heading back to the cloudy skies of Scotland for a few days. Biclolour rendition - 10hrs in each of O3 and Ha. I've tried to minimalise the processing this time and used my Ha as a final layer to add back in the detail. ****No stars were harmed in the production of this image!! @wimvb the Starnet++ module is very good. I tried it on this image and the results are excellent, it just didn't suit this picture. Thanks for looking. Steve

Thanks Wim, I’ll have a look at the other file later. Your mask generation is very interesting, I don’t understand it, but it’s interesting. Why the 3x3 element, everything I’ve read has said to use a 5x5? Funny, I like starless nebula images but for some reason in Cyprus, no one else does! By the way, what language is that bottom line written in and where do you go to learn it?

@carastro, sorry I wasn’t being offensive, I was trying to be funny about how this post kept going round the same conversation. Morphological Transformation is usually used to dilate or erode stars. It can create a splotchy effect with the filaments present if it’s used badly, as in my image. I tend to use it to draw more attention to the nebula but I may not anymore.

Personally, I’ve nothing against PS, I use it frequently for bits and pieces but most of my processing is done in PI. Could just never get to grips with PS and I even bought a book to help!!

You better hide @ollypenrice

Thanks for the support guys, the learning curve as ever remains high. @Xplode, sometimes you need a shove to refocus and quit bad habits, I may lay off MT for a while . @Datalord, thanks for your help and finally @carastro, just to be clear, it was the Morphology causing the artifacts not the noise reduction, in case anyone else was wondering.

Here you go. I've re tried MT and it does produce the artifacts.

I’ll have a look. It’s on the other computer.

It is quite bad when you pixel peep . I’ll have to have a look at the data later as it’s on the on the other computer. I may just forgo MT altogether.