IC6960 - the 'Veil'

[centroid]

Having now aquired the necessary extra adapters to use a camera/focal reducer combination, simultaneously on two scopes, I had a late night session last night, finishing at 02.00hrs, to try out the new wide-field set-up.

I set-up the ED80 with an F3.3 focal reducer (never tried the 3.3 on the ED80 before), with the SXVF-H9C.

For guiding, I set-up the 10" LX with an F6.3 FR and the DSI.

With the 6.3 FR on the ED80, I'd not been able to contain the 'Veil' within the FOV, hence giving it a go with the 3.3.

The attached image, which was taken in groups of one's and two's with periods of waiting in between for the cloud to move through, is the result of 9x600 sec subs, combined in AA4, and 'tweaked' in P/shop.

More subs would have been nice, but by 02.00, I was 'nodding'

Dave

[FLO]

Oh my word :shock:

That is fantastic! I never tire of images of the veil and that is a belter 8)

[CELESCOPE]

Oh thats excellent Dave , very nice colour and a super smooth image , well done mate ,

see you next week

Rog

[peonic]

That's a touch of class Dave - really love the delicate colours - gorgeous!

Chris

[legion48]

Brilliant capture Dave.

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

That's a cracker. I didn't realise the 3.3FR would work with an ED80, I might have to get one of those. Any idea what focal length it brings it down to in your setup?

Kaptain Klevtsov

[geppetto]

Outstanding image Dave 8)

[jcm]

I like that image a lot. You seem to have brought out the variations in colour.

I have a 0.8X reducer , which gives F4.8 on my scope. Hope to try some more images with this set up. ( only done one so far)

John

[centroid]

I didn't realise the 3.3FR would work with an ED80, I might have to get one of those. Any idea what focal length it brings it down to in your setup?

Nor did I KK, I thought I might have run up against some coma problems, but was pleasantly surprised when I didn't.

As the ED80 is f7.5 and 600mm FL, a quick 'fag packet' calculation brings me to something around 200mm FL, but taking into account the spacing between the CCD and the focal reducer, the 3.3 might be seen as something other than 3.3..

BTW, your idea of using AC646 to hold a IR filter in place, works a 'treat'. This afternoon, I cut off a short length of of eyepiece barrel in the lathe, put a nice finished edge on it, and 'bingo', one filter holder as per the KK patent .

Dave

P.S. The Meade 3.3FR is now £109 (less 10% from Steve), which makes it a very good deal. When I bought mine back in 2002, it then cost £169

[centroid]

Thanks for your kind comments guys.

I'd always wanted to capture the whole of the 'Veil' through the scope, but until now, hadn't been able to achieve a large enough FOV.

Like KK, I'd always assumed the 3.3 FR would be a 'no-go' on the ED80.

Really pleased with the FOV, as on the 10" LX, the 3.3 doesn't give anywhere near that sort of FOV, but then it is an f10 scope to start with, and has focal length of 2500m.

Thanks again.

Dave

[CELESCOPE]

well i have learnt something now , nor did i Heck i can get it in easy with the 6,3 and ed 80 , so blimey , all excited now ,

Rog

[MartinB]

Well that's a thing to think about Dave. I'll have to give that a try.

Love the witches broom. Lovely colour and detail. The stars seem a little prominent though.

[jonifive]

Great image Dave, as always.

JV

[centroid]

The stars seem a little prominent though.

Yes they do Martin, I agree, and there's an awful lot of them in that part of the sky.

I did reduce them a bit with 'Noel's actions'.

I guess I could take them down a bit more, but then I suppose if removed the fainter one's, it would be a bit unreal, for an image taken within the Milky Way.

Difficult to know whether to go for a more aesthetically pleasing image, or an accurate one. A finite balance between reality and artistic licence I guess.

Might have another 'play' in P/shop 'layers', any suggestions most welcome.

Thanks for your comments.

Dave

Dave

[CELESCOPE]

Is this any better Dave

Rog

[MartinB]

Nice Rog, what did you do?

[centroid]

I think we've gone down a similar route Rog, but you've taken the stars a bit further down than me

Dave

[centroid]

And a bit further down even!!.

Now where do I stop?

Dave

[Astroman]

Leave the stars. It's an accurate image of the view. the stars are more prominent than the nebula in the EP. Leave the stars. mho.

[CELESCOPE]

I think its just a matter of Taste AM, as you say its the more natural image , trouble is it turns into , art presentation with this imaging, what with narrow band stuff , etc etc , i like to see the prominant feature myself , the nebula , but have to agree on very wide imaging , leave it to the more natural image taken.

Cheers

Rog

[MartinB]

I think the last one is just superb Dave. You have quitened the stars down, improved their natural colour and brought the nebulosity to prominence. That image gets my vote by a long parsec

[centroid]

Thanks guys, I think its great how 'posting' a picture on here can evolve into some really constructive discussion. Just what the forum is all about in 'my book', and I'm sure it adds to everybody's understanding of the 'imaging game'.

I tend to agree with Martin, in that in the original image, the stars, although a representation of what is actually there, do detract from the object of interest, which of course is the Nebula. So a degree of 'artistic licence' is perhaps acceptable to correct this. A bit like when in a photograph, we use a large aperture to reduce the depth of field, to blur the background, and make the subject of interest stand out.

In an eyepiece, stars will never appear as more than 'pin points' of light (the Sun excluded of course ), and the fact that in CCD images they appear larger than this, is a characteristic of the CCD and exposure time. If we were able to see the nebula through our scopes, in the same detail and depth as the CCD does, then the same amount of stars would be visible, but as points of light, as opposed to their enlarged appearance in the CCD image.

So, yes Astroman is right, if you look through the eyepiece of the scope, you would probably see the same proliferation of stars, but somewhat less prominent than in the CCD image.

Therefore, a degree processing 'trickery' can be justified, to try and restore the balance. How far we go with that, is I guess down to personal choice. For example Astroman prefers the original, Martin prefers the final image, and others perhaps something in between.

So, in this one 'thread', we now have a variety of choices on display, so that should please most people

Thanks again, for all of your inputs, its a fascinating subject, and I love it!!

Dave

[MartinB]

Spot on Dave

[Astroman]

Well stated, Dave. I do not intend to detract from anyone's imaging efforts, and I'm not really "right", per se, just opinionated. The discussion is important as you say, and may help someone else decide what's their best interpretation. Artistic license is exactly what it is. Check out Wally Pacholka for examples of going "too far". (I saw an image of his lately that shows the LMC above the Palomar 200" dome!

It's all good, and that's also mho.

[centroid]

Yup, I reckon that we all learn from our mutual discussions on the forum, I know I certainly do.

I guess none of us know how the DSO images should really be presented, especially when it comes to the colour. We tend to go with what we think looks right, and how we see some of the 'top imagers' present them, but we could all be totally wrong.

There has to be signifcant degree of 'artistic licence' in the images we produce, and I guess that leads to a bit of creativity.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and as such, we all see things differently, which is the 'spice of life'.

I've seen people pay out 'Mega Bucks' for a painting, that I wouldn't give 'house room'.

Dave