Jump to content



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by steviemac500

  1. @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.
  2. 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!!
  3. 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.
  4. Here you go. I've re tried MT and it does produce the artifacts.
  5. I’ll have a look. It’s on the other computer.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. When you say you agree with xplode, are you talking about the noise reduction causing the artefacts?
  9. I have completely re-processed the image now and this is the result. Hi-res here
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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/
  14. 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/
  15. 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/
  16. Hi, no as it’s the only way of focusing the scope I’m afraid.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  • 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.