Rodd

This is a mystery to me. This image has 1 hour of data (12 300 sec Ha). I don't understand why it looks so nice. Generally, I need copious data to avoid a stippley background. But not so in this case. Conditions were not great, as is common, and the Moon was about 75%. I botched the framing somewhat, as I wanted the soap bubble and the Crescent to be displayed. The soap bubble can just be seen near lower left margin. TOA 130 with ASI 1600. 1 hour Ha.

I recently posted an FSQ crop version of this nebula. I think the fsq is better for the whole view, but full resolution for this version is way better. The other thing I notice is the color of the narrow band stars is reminiscent of rgb in a way. I usually replace them with Ha stars in SHO images, but the color here appeals to me. The blue ones might be a tad to OIIIish, but that can be corrected. TOA 130 and asi 1600. About 34 hours

Thanks, Goran. The lightness channel of the SHO image worked well--and I used an extracted blue channel as a mask to protect the reflection nebula, so it wouldn't be diluted. I was pleasantly surprised.

Thanks, Olly. I really need more blue, but time slipped away. Lately (for the last 6 months) I have been averaging about a day/month. It’s terminally overcast.

Yes. The first thing I tried was adding the Ha. It adds detail, but It turns the image light pink. That tends to happen when you use Ha as a luminance (or lightness). I guess I could have added it to the red channel like typically done. Maybe I should try that AND what I did.

Sometimes it pays to be creative. In this image, I added a lightness channel (luminance) from a SHO image to an RGB image. The RGB has about 9 hours of data. It was just an experiment. I think it was pretty convincingly a success. ”L”RGB Original RGB

Thanks Juno

Thanks! Yes, thgose were my thoughts as well.

I seem to live by the adage "throw it in a drawer for awhile and come bac to it." Sometimes I prefer thd original, a sign that further gains are unlikley, and sometimes the improvement is obvious. TOA 130 and ASI 1600, HaLRGB, about 24.25 hours New Image Former version

Thanks. Glad you like it!

They probably won’t fully compensate for the difference in sky quality. The difference I see in data quality between a poor night and an average night is huge. I can’t imagine how much better a decent night under good skies would be. Well, I can imagine (sometimes a good imagination is a bane).

Thanks Olly. You hit upon a couple of the plethora of problems with this image-hence my frustrated post. Here is the final version of this image. better?

Thanks

Thanks Olly. Could use a bit more time for the faint outer regions

Thanks, glad you like it

Thanks. 300 sec, which is very unusual for me for broadband

After years I finally got it. toa 130 about 10 hours

Thanks Bryan....I am fine, ust get frustrated at times. I have come to teh conclusion that 99% of the frustration comes from the conditions, whether it be haze, high cloud, jet stream, smoke, LP, wind, humidity, the Moon, you name it, it's there most of the time. The images that give me the biggest headaches are the ones taken during poor conditions. I am starting to come to terms with this being a part time hobby. I think from now on I have to accept that I will need, on average, two Moon cycles to finish an image. Two nights with each filter. Thats 10 imaging sessions for an HaLRGB galaxy. If I want to use only subs taken during good seeing, I will need to kake it 3-4 Moon cycles. Man, if I am not careful, I will start to lose interest!

I decided to crop it like I did originally. The idea is to provide some size still less than that of full resolution, so the viewer doesnt have to "work" as hard.

Thabnks-glad you like it

Thanks - yeah, I agree. But man, what a harrowing road

Stilll at it. here is a Bin 1 version of this data. I think itrs the best version so far and worthy of posting. there is such a fine line between good and evil, dark and light, victory and defeat, a sound that you can barely hear in the quietest of rooms and one that you cannot, a cumpulsion and a whim. The devil is always in the details, as is his sibling. The big question is why does it take me 100 tries before I manage to process something tolerable? Its as if I am painting by numbers with a house painting brush. Too critical, some say. Perhaps. But I've learned it is very hard to teach oneself to like broccoli (I don't mind it.....too much). TOA 130 asi1600 16.5 hours P.S. There is not much difference between this version and the B in2 version until you view at full resolution, which is the whole point. So go ahead and click.

The 190 is an epic scope. It always amazes

All. I rely on this forum for advise and critique. I obviously processed the above data on no sleep and blurry eyes. It is atrocious. So much so I deleted it from AstroBin and Telescopius. I can’t believe I posted such drivel. Please, don’t hesitate to tell me the image sucks when it does. I made one bad decision after another. Here is a much better representation. I got some sleep and binned the data. I might reduce the brightness a bit and lift the background but at least it’s passable, unlike its predecessor.

Thanks Bryan. See note below