M5 - RGB

[fwm891]

Taking Olly's advice and not adding luminance to GC's - I tried M5 last night: RGB channels 15x60s subs each)

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Looks good

[David Smith]

Great image

[fwm891]

Michael / David,

Many thanks

[JamesF]

Very pretty, Francis

James

[Tom OD]

Looks very good. I actually have the Lum for this, (270mins) but no RGB. I want to see what difference LRGB verses RGB has with GC data.

[fwm891]

Looks very good. I actually have the Lum for this, (270mins) but no RGB. I want to see what difference LRGB verses RGB has with GC data.

Hi Tom, Olly commented on an M13 image of mine a while back where I had compared an LRGB and RGB. the L data tends to burn out the star colour, it makes the GC look crisper but the colour is reduced.

Thanks James

[andyo]

good shot and the colour looks fine

[Gina]

Nice one Francis

[Tom OD]

Hi Tom, Olly commented on an M13 image of mine a while back where I had compared an LRGB and RGB. the L data tends to burn out the star colour, it makes the GC look crisper but the colour is reduced.

http://stargazerslou...rgb-comparison/

Thanks James

I was chatting to Olly yesterday about that too. Crispness and star size are essential for the GC's, so it makes sense. I burnt out my core, I didn't do short exp subs, and HDR only got back so much of it. Just waiting for the clouds to clear to RGB it.

[farunj]

That's come out nice!

[fwm891]

Thanks All.

Tom: I think the 60s subs I did on M5 could have been shorter (30-45s) with my MN190 f5.3, but many more of them - star size and colour have to be the main aim with GC's and 60s caused the stars to star bloating.