Rodd

Thanks Wim. The addition of SII really gave it some depth. In an Ha image you have to struggle to realize the dark nebula between the NA and pelican nebula is foreground dust and not background space. With the full colored version it becomes quite obvious. Rodd

Thanks Gav. As usual, I have tweaked a few details in my efforts to capture depth. I managed to impart RGB like color to the stars (most of them), and I cleaned up the red channel a bit as it was the grainiest (least amount of data). Those tweaks were fine--but I heightened the contrast a bit and that is hat I am questioning--have I lost that gentle softness? Rodd

Its funny, but I have always thought that Planetary imaging is MUCH harder than deep space imaging. Maybe because seeing is so important to planetary, an my seeing is typically terrible. But even on nights of decent seeing when I am able to take pretty sharp lunar images, decent images of the planets elude me. But I know exactly how you feel--it was a dream of mine since middle school--long before the invention of the CCD/CMOS or the computer. Your off to a great start. Keep at it. Start with "easier" targets (targets that do not have huge dynamic ranges that require HDR approaches..that is multiple stacks of various exposure lengths. I agree that PA is important, but its not critical to get sub arcminute accuracy right off the bat. Get to know your camera and your scope, so you can find the sweet spot of exposure duration, and the number of exposures you need. Focus IS critical. But good results can be had with a B-mask (an electronic motorized focuser is best--even if you use it manually with a hand controller). The BOSS II kit I have has a temperature probe and after you make a model for a specific scope/camera, you may only have to focus once or twice per night as temperature related focus shift is linear. Any way--keep up the good work. There is an entire universe out there waiting for you Rodd

Thanks morimarty. I used a straight HaSHO mixture (Hubble Palette with Ha added as luminance). Rodd

how did you achieve F11? A powermate? or the 1.5x extender? Very nice. Rodd

Thanks Vlaiv. Rodd

FSQ 106 with .6x reducer, ASI 1600 mmcool with 3um Astrodon filters Ha: 49 5min OIII: 38 5min SII: 32 5 min I was finally able to collect some SII for this target.

Thanks Wim--yeah I think its the one. Regarding the masked stretch, I did use masked stretch to start off--then I modified it as I grew the image. that was on the non drizzled versions. Most of the non drizzled versions (there have been many beyond what I posted here) were started using masked stretch--something I don't use very often. That's probably why I don't use it very effectively--not much practice. Rodd

I jut took a look--the stars in the OIII stack are actually smaller than the Ha stack. I had better conditions and the FWHM values are less over all. Rodd

I can live with the last iteration until I get the SII data. Its not the stars per se--its between the stars--noise or maybe clouds. Not sure. I find that with some targets HOO images have a blue haze. OIII is used for blue and green. I think this happens with very faint OIII targets. The veil did not exhibit this--but SH2-129 did. SII is the answer--or, LRGB of course. Rodd

Thanks Miguel. It took me long enough!

Well--I was finally able to same some of the interference from the plethora of tiny stars--there are so many! They were bothering me a bit. This is the best I can do--a histogram tweak, a reduction in saturation of the stars an a tiny boost of the nebula . I am calling this it. I don't think its possible to cover all the bases with 2bchannels of data. But this I can live with.

I will try this when I get a new external drive (mine broke)--and now I am left with using about 75 gigs--that is enough for me to finish collecting and processing until the image is complete, then deleting the non calibrated subs, the aligned subs and basically everything but the integrated stacks so I can re-process at will. Rodd

I botched it- here is a drizzle version with less blue halos. I think better. I forgot a step. But you are right--I can't seem to get a version with everything. Maybe the SII is the snawer. To answer your question--I don't save projects. I work on an image for a week or so--hard. then when I want to come back to it, I start over from scratch (actually from having the integrated aligned stacks).

Here's a drizzle integrated version--no upscaling--just to round out the stars, which I think it did wonderfully. A bit subtler, but more realistic I think. A bit less Roger Rabbitish. 2 versions--the original, and one with a .3 exponential boost to give it a bit more brightness. Not sure which is better.