Rodd

Super detail Rodd

Thanks Carol. Yes, OIII wasn't my problem, but SII was bit more scare other than the bridge. Rodd

Another data set that I have been working on for a LONG time. I just could never achieve a satisfactory result. The funny think is, I really didn't do anything different than I usually do--I guess its tiny increments that really make the difference. I found this image difficult to process-the palette for me tends toward the brown, not the ricj golden hues often seen in other attempts. I finally found some golden light. The most problematic ting for me were the tiny stars in the core--they are little more than a pixel wide in the core, and are embedded in SII emissions, giving them red rims if one is not careful. On my lap tops this image is quite dark, but on my iPhone and IPAD it looks just right. Anyway--here is sh2-132 with Televue np101is with .8x reducer and STT 8300 with 3nm Astrodon filters. This is an HaSHO composition Ha: 18 30min SII: 13 30min OIII: 15 30min

That's pobably true....but I really like this framing. I guess the reducer would be perfect. Rodd

Normally when I post in the beginning stages of projects I do so in frustration--noise, or speckles, or ....what ever it may be. To balance out the scales I decided to post this image of the Crescent Nebula taken with the TOA 130 and ASI 1600 with a 3nm Astrodon filter. It only has 3 5min subs taken during an extraordinarily poor evening. I bailed out on collecting Ha for NGC4725 becuase there was so much high cloud haze that it became a waste of time--when the Moon rose, you could see that it simply was not a clear night. Despite perfect focus and steady guiding I could not bet FWHM values much better than 3.0. But before I packed it in, I wanted to see what the scale of the image would be for NGC 6888--as it would be in prime imaging position over the next month or 2. Galaxy season is fast waning and I need to decide if I will stay at 1,000mm, reduce it to 700mm or go back to wide field. I was not expecting much at all. I have resisted posting but it keeps coming back and finally i gave in. Considering the conditions and serious lack of data--I rather like this image. It has been software binned 2x2 to help with the noise and signal, but the scale is still decent. I wanted to see if I could get the soap bubble in the same FOV at this scale--but alas--it is just off the left hand edge. I could push the Crescent over to the right--but the composition would suffer IMO. The image has minimal processing- calibration, crop, ABE and a stretch. I am looking forward to completing this. I guess the moral of the story is "even a bad night can be rewarding. Rodd

This image is the official meaning of the word "wow"! Amazing dedication. A lot of familiar friends in the FOV. Rodd

And even harder to get out of! Rodd

Well said Rodd

I remember when I finally, after many frustrating long hours, figured out how to take a sub it was of M31 and when the sub appeared on my screen (an auto stretch), I hooped and hollered in my back yard before running into the house to show what I had done. I knew at that time that the boat had pulled away from the pier, and I was aboard, for good or ill. Rodd

As a comparison, Here is the Cacoon shot at 1,000mm TOA 130). Remarkably similar star profiles and palette. Too bad the FSQ had a collimation issue. The scope is supposed to arrive today--we'll see if it has been fized.

Goran pointed out that too many stars were blue. It did have a blue cast. Here's my best effort at reducing the blue in the star field.

Thanks Wornish. You should see the image before I dealt with the stars. The above image is virtually starless in comparison. The fact of the matter is there are A LOT of stars in this region. An amazing number. IMO Too much star control is as bad as too much noise control or too much sharpening. Rodd

Thanks Olly. Yes, his is the quintessential Cacoon. I feel that he may have pushed things a bit, though I am sure it was intentional. My benchmark for making the statement (blasphemy though it is) is the appearance of “naturalness, or real”. I think his is remarkable, though a bit beyond what I envision as natural. However, his is the image I had in mind as a benchnark (minus the Ha of course) though I knew I did not have the data to come close to his. I pushed mine a lot further than what I posted, revealing quite a bit more, but it looked....well, “pushed”. Shoved actually. Not enough data (or skill for that matter). I felt like I was squeezing the last drop of juice out of the last lemon while making lemonade. I wonder how much data one would need to have the hard to render details stand out clearly upon integration. Another lemon, as it were. Rodd

What the heck--its worth its own post as opposed to an edit. Lifting the dust was very tricky--too much and it blows the image. More data, of course, is the answer. Not sure how much farther I can take this data to tell the truth. I find the limiting factor in this image is the stars (hard to keep them natural and not overly bright), and the blue reflection envelope--very difficult to bring out without overdoing the emission nebula. I have tried taking it a bit further (the dust lanes)--but it was too much. EDIT: I have included the next iteration--the one I am hesitant to call the final. It may be just over the line as apposed to just in front of the line. But opinions warmly welcomed--My eyes have been looking at this image too long and are not seeing clearly.

Struggled over the last few days--the more I processed the more unnatural things appeared. I just was not satisfied with ful resolution viewing--even with a down sampled version. I'll admit that these changes may seem at first subtle and unworthy of mention. But its the last few honing sweeps that make a blade truly sharp. To my eye the improvement in "naturalness" to the flower are obvious. Also, I lifted the dust lanes without brightening the stars. getting there.

Thanks Geof. I was the same way. I don’t have the Fov to get it widefield until I got the fsq. The nex time I do it I will get a lot more data. Rodd

I was never satisfied with this image. It was one of the first images I took with the FSQ 106 and .6x reducer. This was taken when I did not yet know what was wrong with the setup--either spacing of sensor orthogonality--something was wrong since the stars were deformed in the corners. The good news is I sent the FSQ back to TNR and they recollimated it--it had come to me slightly out of collimation. Cant wait to test it. But the stars were only one thing I could not get right. My inclination was always to push the data too far--trying to bring out faint details, like the reflection nebula surrounding the core. This would invariably cause a background issue around stars. The data could just not handle it. I think I have finally found a middle ground Red: 214 30 sec Green: 168 30 sec Blue: 118 30 sec Lum: 172 30 sec

Looks pretty good to me. Careful use of dbe With a mask could help with the light zones Rodd

No way...that is you first image? You are bound for greatness! Rodd

All you have to do is drop the brightness in the core and you should see details. How did you achieve the sharpness? I deconvolved in linear state and sharpened. Maybe I did not use the right settings (I don’t realize that the pixel scald was .3). Rodd

Thanks! Rodd

Not sure if this was meant fir me or Goran. Thanks either way! Rodd

I like my palette but your image is sharper I think. I am on an iPhone so hard to say. I didn’t realize there was so much data in the image. Loping forward to more data!

I know, but a 7 course meal? A discount would be nice! Rodd

Another learning curve!😳