Rodd

1 hour ago, Kinch said:

I like the colour on this one (top)......looking back on my own from some years back, I now think I oversaturated it. I much prefer yours - rich but subtle in its own way.

Thanks Brendan.  I need much more data. I like the crescent, but the background is lacking 

4 minutes ago, Whistlin Bob said:

That's really lovely- I especially like the clarity on the Oxygen bubble.

Thanks Bob.  I find this target to me amazing.  I stll can';t believe we can take pictures of such things. 

I know this one is too dark--but I think it looks bvetter on some of my monitors

I finally got a clear night and decided to add OIII to the Ha I previously collected for the Crescent Nebula.  The decision was easy, becuase after this clear night it is forecasted to rain for a week.  So, I decided to maximize the utility of a single night.  This waay I could render a bicolor image instaed of collecting just another nights worth of mono that I wouldn't be able complete as an image for a long time.  Seeing was poor, but seeing for the Ha was decent.  I need much more of both to achieve what I envision, but this is a decent start.  I always have trouble with background in bicolor images, and this one is no exception.  Its not terrible, ust not as full as it should be.  I am kind of stuck becuase I really don't like this target in the SHO palette.  I like this one in Ha-OIII, which mimics RGB.  Some nebula just have to be reddish/blueish IMO.  I botched up the framing a bit.  I wanted the soap bubble to be further in the frame.  However, the FOV is restricted and if I pushed it further to the right, the main  target wouldf be too close to the right hand edge.  I need a 2600 camera.

TOA 130 and ASI 1600. Ha: 37 300sec; OIII: 52 300 sec.  About 7.5 hours.  Need to triple it.

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Maybe 8 hours without luminance just isn't enough with the 11 meg Kodak CCD. It only has a 50% QE.  I've done hundreds of hours with this chip and like it in all sorts of ways, but it isn't fast. I'd always shoot luminance on a target like this.

I wonder how the data are calibrated. On mine it was best to use a bad pixel map and a master-bias-as-dark.

Olly

I kinda thought 8 hours was a bit light. 

9 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

The blues look odd to me. The background seems a little colour-cold and the stars tend towards cycan. There's also a lot to like in the image and its a unique target.

Olly

The data set is compromised somehow, which is not unusual for data from there.  I’ll have another go at it and see if I can get the wrinkles out 

10 hours ago, Vroobel said:

That's a lovely image, I'm jealous. Because of a lack of access to the object I have to settle for seeing another tarantula... 😏 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. 😇

 

 

That’s amazing processing, it looks almost exactly like a spider!😄

9 hours ago, Roy Foreman said:

I prefer the second version. I too was disappointed with downloaded data, mine was from telescope live. Only 3 subs per channel, and 5 hours integration from a pristine mountaintop in Australia produced less dust around M42 than I can gather in 30mins from murky somerset. Same with M57  and M27. But, of course, for objects like the tarantula nebula, this was your only option.

thanks Roy. Two things confound me, the differences in screens, and the differences in what my eyes see, which is dependent on how many breaks I take. 

Well--never satisfioed. n Looks cartoonish, so I backed off the palette a bit

I added a bit of color.

Once again not impressed with insight observatory data, which came from a 17" CDK in Chile and a 110000 CCD camera.  I marvel at how my calibrated stacks from data cozilly swaddled in the jetstream can look way better than  stacks from a Bortle 1/2 location.  I lose almost 30% of the frame.

Anyway--this is about 8 hopurs of RGB.  I really wish I had access to this target.  I also wish they had thought to capture Ha.

8 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Re backgrounds, I wouldn't hesitate to use the 'add noise' filter on special occasions. You can feed a bit of texture into an over-polished looking background.

Olly

The thing about this image is the surprisingly sparse true background - which only appears in a few patches due to dust.  For an expansive background, smoothness sticks out along with darkness.  For background patches that are not that extensive, I think darkness stands out, but there is limited expanse for the eye to gauge smoothness.

2 hours ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

Wish my backgrounds were a touch to smooth like this

The 32 hours didn't hurt, though even with lots of integration I often have poor background due to LP.

4 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Wow, a feisty image, Rodd, with lots to say for itself. Very impressive indeed, the main spiral looking more contrasty and dramatic than we usually see.

One of your best in my view.

Olly

Wow--thanks, Olly. I'd like to capture this one with the C11Edge.  Despite having obtained that scope for galaxies, it seems to be always in its case during galaxy season.  I think the main reason is the number of imaging days I get and the length of time it takes me to collect data for a given image.  

4 hours ago, Earl said:

I think the background is just a touch to smooth thats all

Wow--THAT was not on my radar.  Perhaps you are right.  I tend to think of background in terms of brightness values (in PI its .07 or so).  Like a dope, I forgot to measure it!

4 hours ago, tomato said:

Tremendous detail right to the core.👍🏼

Thanks Tamate (eliminates the need for debate!).  

4 hours ago, AstroMuni said:

Wowsers 😍

Thanks, Pramod!

4 hours ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

Don't think you botched the background at all this looks great.

Thanks Tiff.  I admit it's hard to tell at times since each screen is different.  

It’s amazing what a little tweak can do for an image. There were several tweaks in this case. I’m starting to see a bit of depth in the galaxy structures.  I botched the background. I know. A tad too dark. 
 

TOA 130 with asi 1600. About 33 hours HaLRGB

2 hours ago, alan potts said:

A stunning image Rodd and the first time I have seen such a close-up.

Alan

Thanks Alan.  

14 hours ago, Whistlin Bob said:

Wow- that's just a remarkable image! Love everything about it.

Thanks Bob.  

11 hours ago, Pld said:

A fascinating image, my son has an aquarium that looks just like that.

It's an excellent image.

Thanks, Pld. Lucky kid. Realm of the Kraken 

8 hours ago, Kyuss said:

Beautiful image!!! Worth all your time invested imo.

Thanks Kyuss! Would that the exposure time was the extent of it!

It always amazes me when data from the FSQ 106 reduced by .6x looks so sharp.  It’s deceiving how fine a brush even the smallest of scopes paint with

FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and ASI 1600 About 24 hours

3 hours ago, simmo39 said:

Stunning!

Thanks!