Rodd

1 hour ago, wimvb said:

Great image. Definitely better than the bin2 version.

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. 

3 hours ago, assouptro said:

Lovely images Rodd

The “hamburger” galaxy is one of my favourite galaxies 

I’ve never quite managed a decent enough image to share and I wish we had more clear skies to have another pop! 
Thanks for sharing your results 

Bryan 😊

Thanks Bryan. See note below

Here is a reprocessed version.  I had a sleep and had at it again.  

I was fianlly able to adda decent luminance to this image.  What a difference it makes.  I was fortunate that seeing during the luminance shoot was the best seeing among all the channels. The tail is still lacking due to my sky, but I don't think I can do much about that with the TOA 130.  I might be able to capture it with a lot of hours using the FSQ 106.  I will ponder that possibility for the future. Not likely to change scopes just for that, and galaxy season is not optimal FSQ time.  Maybe if my sky would permit nice star fields and galaxy clusters, but they aren''t very satisfying with their shortcomings.  Anyway, I am pleased with this image.  While it may not be the most revealing of the tain and the surrounding fain t galaxies and clusters, I believe it to be a decent representation.  It makes me want to bring out the C11!

TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600.  About 16 hours of data.  120 sec and 10 sec RGB subs, and 60 sec Lum subs.

I managed to pull out more of the outer arms and glow

3 hours ago, GTom said:

Piece of art! Reminds me to check it out next time when in the Canaries

Thanks, GT. The Canaries, if only!

3 hours ago, Sunshine said:

Stunning!

Thanks Sunshine

2 hours ago, saac said:

Oh yes,  I do like that last one, that is what I would aim for. I was wondering if your total time would allow more detail to be pulled out and I think you have the balance right .  Do you use SCNR after the photometric colour calibration. I find that it will sometimes knock the saturation down a bit although I think it is mainly aimed at removing the greener tint.  Anyway I think you have a gorgeous image there, reflecting very much the time and effort invested. 

Jim 

I use scnr about every image. Mostly for green removal.  For broadband images, I try not to manipulate the palette much. I will occasionally bump it up if color is almost lacking, and for stars.  I think most color problems gif me are dud to my sky. 

15 minutes ago, saac said:

I think it really depends on what you are aiming for Rodd, colour saturation often is such a personal judgement call. I tend to favour less strong saturation so I am drawn to your last image.  For what it is worth I think that is a cracking image that does justice to your integration time. 

Jim 

Thanks, Jim.  I tend to agree. I was befuddled when PIs photometric color calibration tool resulted in the hyper blue version. The manual CC tool rendered the less blue.  That’s a huge difference. Ad far as the image goes, I am ok with the core and disc. If seeing had been good, I suppose it would be pretty decent. The problem I have is the outer arms. 32 hours is on the long side, and the arms are barely visible and it took me about 50 tries to accomplish it. That means my sky just does not support what I want to do. It’s sad, but I am questioning whether I wish to continue; at least not from CT.  I am working on a move to Australia. Maybe then I will find what I seek. For the record, I have finally processed this image to my satisfaction.  Here is the final version: a bit better. I think I have squeezed all I can out of the data

A vpretty simple question--is it too blue or is that OK. Opinions are like weeds, everybody has them.  Better to share when asks then when its not desired.  I have always considerd this forum a good place for questions.  Thats how we learn. No longer.  Its not worth the effort.  

A little bright in core.  I'd say a histogram tweak downward picture widee will fix it and make it look real

I rfrianlly managed to capture blue with the TOA 130.  I had previously posted a version using FSQ 106 blue data.  There is a significant improvement to the immage, in resolution and in color.  In fact, the color maybe too much.  That is my inquiry.  The first image is nom palette adhustments - this is the palette after color calibration.  I did not change the palette at all through processing.  Changes in dynamic ranfge have an effect on the palette, but that is just teh way it is.  The second image is identical to the first, but I bumped the saturation down just a bit in the galaxy (not the stars).

So, is the hyper blue of the first image better, or was I right to tame the color a bit in the second.  Should I tame it further? A second question pertains to the core - it lacks the reddish/yellowish glow that I expected.  I have a version where I add it by bumping red and green a bit, but that is a horse of a different color, and represents a manipulated palette.  If its correct, I will consider it, but it might not be.  Hard to say

EDIT: To complicate things, I reprocessed the image and did a manual color calibration and wow is it different.  The photometric color calibration made it hyper blue.  The manual one seems n=better to me--its the third version.

TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600.  HDR image using 120 sec and 10 sec subs.  About 32 Hours

Full Color

Slightly reduced saturation

Manual Color Calibration

Another insight observatory dataset. This one was very poor and I don’t think I will use IO anymore. The LRGB data was so bad it couldn’t be used: severe gradients, amp glow, and over exposure.   I decided to just use the Ha and OIII and make a bicolor image.  Even with this I had to crop a large portion away.  Very disappointing.  The Ha and OIII, or what there is of it, is not bad.

12.5” RC with SBIG 11000. I think about 6 hours.  
 

5 hours ago, Gabrielwiklund said:

I like this image, it's stunning but real and natural at the same time!

Thanks, Gabriel.  It will be interesting to see if TOA blue data will make a noticeable difference. 

I have been away for a month in Australia (amazing to see Orion at zenith - inverted, of course!) and prior to that it was cloudy for months, so this image has not been completed.  I have a good Ha and red channel, what I think is a fairly poor green channel, and no blue or lum.  So I used blue data I captured with the FSQ 106 a few years ago to see if it would yield a respectable image.  Jury's still out.   The blue through it out of whack a bit, both in teh galaxy and stars.  If I have time to capture TOA blue and lum (and maybe better green), I think it might develope into a decent image.   

TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600.  Red: 92 120 sec and 90 10 sec; Green 196 120 sec and 90 10sec; Ha 176 300 sec; Blue-FSQ data 60 120 sec.

6 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

That's a glorious image! 'Sharp and smooth' has to be the holy grail of narrowband imaging, not that I know anything about it.

Olly

Thanks Olly! Your “not knowing anything about it” is worth more than the opinions of a 1,000 self professed masters!

19 hours ago, Pld said:

A great image, I had to check one of my Rosettes to see for myself, but it wasn't a patch on yours.

Thanks PID

16 hours ago, WolfieGlos said:

Isn't it in the core of the rosette?

Great image Rodd, amazing amount of detail in there 👍 I'd love to know where you keep getting all of this clear sky time from ... 

Thanks. There is plenty of clear sky in your computer!  Many of the images I have posted lately are crops or reprocesses.  

17 hours ago, fwm891 said:

Hi Rodd, superb imaging great imagination and processing but what object is it please. Sorry my big gripe when images are put up without some ‘common’ I D.

That’s half the fun, seeing if folks can identify the target. That wasn’t the purpose with this one, as I figured everyone was familiar with the menagerie of the Rosette Nebula. 

17 hours ago, glafnazur said:

Wow, amazing detail 👍

Thanks, glad you like it!

17 hours ago, assouptro said:

That's soo smooth and detailed Rodd!

I have a similar image as I am a big fan of the Bok Globules in the rosette but this is another level!

Well done!

Thank you for sharing

Bryan

Thanks Bryan. Yes, I love the Rosette menagerie. Lots of critters in the parade. 

17 hours ago, gorann said:

Wow Rodd, it really leaps out! Great image with as much detail as you could ever which for (being on Earth).

Thanks Goran. I wish seeing was 5/5 so the scopes optics would be the limiting factor