Jump to content



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by steviemac500

  1. 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.
  2. Yes, you’re absolutely right, they are without doubt a by product of processing. So the MT happens very late in the processing, in fact it’s usually the last thing I do. The final image is the result of only 1 iteration with MT with .20 amount and 0.75 selection. To my eye, it was the best compromise as any higher settings increased the artefacts a lot.
  3. When you say you agree with xplode, are you talking about the noise reduction causing the artefacts?
  4. I have completely re-processed the image now and this is the result. Hi-res here
  5. It could be, I wasn’t overly happy with any of the masters to be honest. I have a very dark garden too but some of this was shot under strong moonlight so it could be the data. I’ll revisit tomorrow.
  6. Thanks xplode but I’m afraid you’re way off. Noise reduction was very minimal through MLT - the amount of data helps here. The filaments you refer too are a by product of morphological transformation to reduce the stars and this was caused by my inability to produce a star mask of any value. I’ve been reprocessing this all day and I’m not sure whether my initial DBE is causing issues right at the start or not but there is something in my steps that isn’t working. Have a look at Sara’s version on her web site, her colours are far better.
  7. Ran into all sorts of issues with this and couldn't quite get the colours right. Star masks were nigh on impossible so I skipped deconvolution altogether. There is a lot of data in this (2 panel mosaic, 10 hrs in each HA, O3 and S2 for each panel) but I feel that the HA wasn't as sharp as it could have been. It may still have something but I'd be interested in other's opinions please? Thanks for looking, Steve
  8. Actually, now that I've seen this on the forum I decided to take out the green and brighten the image up a little. https://astrob.in/413804/B/
  9. I've been trying to find different things to image so I had a go at what is technically HH555 (visible as a small jet) which I first saw on Sara's website (inspiration). This is 30 x 1200s n each of Ha, S2 and O3 - 30hrs in total. Minimal noise reduction and main processing in PI. This is actually version 12 or so as I've been trying different ways to achieve the Hubble palette with some very varied results. I left some green in as I think it adds to the colour transitions. Comments welcomed as always. Hope you like it! https://astrob.in/413804/0/
  10. This is my updated version of the Cygnus Wall. 10hrs each x 1200s in HA, Sii and Oiii. I've gone for far stronger colours this time to try and create something that stands out more. Might be too much for some but I think it works. Processing done in PI with colour adjustments in PS. Star reduction at the end. Just a spot of MLT noise reduction as i'm finding that with 10hrs in each filter, it hardly needs any. Thanks for looking! Comments welcomed as always. Steve https://astrob.in/411918/0/
  11. Hi, no as it’s the only way of focusing the scope I’m afraid.
  12. Hi, I’m now in a position to sell my ED80. It’s the Pro package so comes with the flattener, diagonal and eyepiece. I bought this with a Hitec DC focuser then upgraded to a moonlite. The moonlite is not available so I will be supplying this with a brand new, still in the box Hitec DC focuser which will need to be fitted. There will also be the finderscope that came with my 100 Triplet as it’s surplus. It’s in the original metal box which is a bit tatty but still ok. The scope itself has been in my observatory for a couple of years but was used extensively for astrophotography up until March wh
  13. This is what I like about narrowband. You choose your own palette and no one can say you’re wrong. To me, this looks way over saturated and I thought my version was bordering on over cooking. But does it matter? It’s a lovely image that’s pleasing to the creators eye and that’s what matters
  14. IC1396 in Hubble palette. 10 hours each in Ha, SII and O3. Small noise reduction as the data didn't need much. Gradients removed, not much background so it was quite difficult to do effectively. Combined in PI, colour adjustment in PS then back to PI for final colour tweaks. I left the green in as I prefer the transitions between the colour, SCNR turned everything a bit 2 tone for my liking. Hope you like it! https://astrob.in/409612/0/
  15. This is my take on M13. It's an HDR composition of 300s and 30s subs in LRGB. I did originally have 60s to add in as well but the colour went strange so i left them out. All processing done in PI. Total integration of around 11 hours. Thanks for looking. https://astrob.in/408780/0/
  16. Thanks. Anyone have any comments about the star colours? I'm new to the SW 100 Esprit and I don't think the colours look correct?
  17. This is my take on M101. 36 x 600s Lum, 12 each RGB @ 600s. Processed in Pixinsight. Comments and criticisms welcomed as always. i@v encluded a cropped version too although there seems to be a lot of things going on in the background of the widefield. Link to hi-res below. https://astrob.in/405374/0/
  18. This is my take on these two popular targets. I used 600s exposures instead of my usual 300 to see if it made much difference. Total of 36 x 600s in Lum, 20 each x 600s of RGB. Processed in PI. I have cropped the image to show more detail in the galaxies. Comments and criticism welcomed as always. Link to hi res is below. https://astrob.in/404237/0/ CropV1.tif
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.