Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

IC1396 Elephant's trunk

x6gas

By x6gas
in Imaging - Deep Sky

Recommended Posts

x6gas

x6gas

Posted
Posted

Hi all,

Several excellent images of IC1396 have been posted on here recently; here's my rendition from a bonus night last night.

Haven't imaged nebulae for ages and it was good to get back to imaging with the Baby Q. I'm not happy with the framing so may start again with a different orientation; as always I welcome any comments.

I could stretch this a bit further and up the contrast but decided to leave it relatively au naturel...

Scope: Takahashi FSQ85ED

Mount: Celestron CGEM DX

Camera: Atik 490ex

Guiding: Atik OAG; IMG0H, PHD

9 x 1200s Ha (Baader 2" filter)

gallery_11821_2457_184069.png

Thank for looking.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites
x6gas

x6gas

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A nice smooth looking result. Have you cropped this much or is the 490 chip really this square looking?

Thanks Sara.

This has had a couple of pixels shaved off of the left and bottom where I had stacking artifacts from a bit of drift. The 490 chip is a bit square for my taste. the 460 is the same, I think. One of the reasons why I love the 383L, but it obviously doesn't have the same sensitivity or noise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
x6gas

x6gas

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks Mark.

Super detail. It is a hard object to frame due to the size and faintness.

Thanks. Yes, I struggled a bit with it for just these reasons. In fact I shot a couple of binned subs with the trunk in the lower left corner but in the end settled on this orientation as I wanted to include the nebulosity in the upper right... might be time to have a first go at a mosaic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
x6gas

x6gas

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Another one of your trade mark images.

Clean, smooth and simple.

That's pretty much the standard framing and looks fine to me,

Dave.

Thanks Dave. Yes this really was simple. Just chucked the subs into AstroArt (every one a keeper) and a bit of curves and levels. Shame I can't squeeze more than three hours out of a night just now but I'll take this for last night - all of the forecasts said cloud so a bonus!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
x6gas

x6gas

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Very nice Ian, lots of really nice detail in there - I'd encourage you to add OIII & SII as well - you've got the basis of a lovely colour image there.

Martin

Thanks Martin, and having the seen the cracking colour scheme that you pulled out of the bag for your version I might just give it a go. I'll be in touch for tips!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
x6gas

x6gas

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK so I couldn't resist posting a version that has been more aggressively stretched. There is a good article by Olly Penrice in this month's Astronomy Now on processing M27 and I've stolen the stretch curve from that article for this. Recently I've been applying more iterations of a gentler stretch... I'm not sure it makes a huge difference (I could have achieved a very similar result with another stretch of the data in my first post) so maybe fewer iterations is better.

post-11821-0-24706200-1372272623_thumb.p

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jessun

Jessun

Posted
Posted

I was staring at this image so long that I almost forgot to comment...

I'm staring for two reasons: It's a beautiful capture, and the framing givers the trunk a different perspective, very nice indeed.

The second reason is that you've used what I've established after what feels like an eon of thinking, to be my dream setup for dark site trips - the kit is a waste for my usual location.

So I've been through it pixel by pixel, and wonder if you have time to help me with these questions:

It's interesting how you don't like the shape of the chip - having two identical - but I'm guessing the specs are hard to surpass? Have you got any initial thoughts on the ol' 460 vs 490 debate?

I believe I see traces of flares around some of the brighter stars, do these require more attention in processing compared to using a more sluggish doublet?

And finally, is the 2" filter what you had at hand, or used for a reason? (The thought of having to get a 2" filter set on top of all else makes me sweat profoundly...)

Thanks for sharing your image and inspiration!

/Jesper

Link to comment
Share on other sites
x6gas

x6gas

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I like that edited version - I think that with the harder stretch the whole image 'pops' more. It's a nice clean image and the detail is showing through very well.

Thanks Sara - yes I agree. As you know I am very much a learner and have a tendancy to "over-do" things so that was one of the reasons for posting the first image... but I also think the heavier stretch brings it to life... It's an interesting target and there is not a lot of contrast in big chunks of the gas cloud. I'm sure more expert processing would yield a bit more, though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
x6gas

x6gas

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I was staring at this image so long that I almost forgot to comment...

I'm staring for two reasons: It's a beautiful capture, and the framing givers the trunk a different perspective, very nice indeed.

Thanks Jesper!

The second reason is that you've used what I've established after what feels like an eon of thinking, to be my dream setup for dark site trips - the kit is a waste for my usual location.

I wouldn't be so sure - this was imaged from my back yard in a fairly light polluted location under a bright moon. Now don't get me wrong, I am certain that this kit would sing from a dark sky site, but I think it really helps in less than idea circumstances too...

So I've been through it pixel by pixel, and wonder if you have time to help me with these questions:

It's interesting how you don't like the shape of the chip - having two identical - but I'm guessing the specs are hard to surpass? Have you got any initial thoughts on the ol' 460 vs 490 debate?

Well, saying I don't like the shape of the chip is a bit strong! Let's just say that I prefer the relative dimensions and size of the Kodak chip in the 383L, but the Sony chips are so much quieter and more sensitive. I don't take darks with the 460 or 490. Even taking into account that I could shoot a dark library using the set-point cooling, it is so nice to have the flexibility of shooting with the camera in different bin settings, at different temperatures etc. without having to shoot a single dark.

As to the 460 vs 490 I can't really comment other than to say that both are superb cameras. I am honestly not good enough or knowledgable enough to be able to make a sensible comparision with the experience that I have. My impression is that the sensitivty and noise levels of the cameras are very similar; I will do a staight comparision at some point soon, but clear skies are at a premium!

I believe I see traces of flares around some of the brighter stars, do these require more attention in processing compared to using a more sluggish doublet?

In fairness I haven't processed this at all save stacking in AstroArt 5 and stretching in PS! This image is all about the kit and nothing to do with the skill of the imager. Also worth noting that conditions were very far from perfect - the weather reports were saying cloudy skies but in reality I was shooting through some thin high cloud which may account for some flaring... I don't have the hi-res version open in front of me to properly check. Also - again - I'm really still learning the dark arts of processing!

And finally, is the 2" filter what you had at hand, or used for a reason? (The thought of having to get a 2" filter set on top of all else makes me sweat profoundly...)

Well I bought 2" filters to try to avoid having to take flats. I am a complete convert to flats now anyway (a recent convert, admitedly) and do the t-shirt job, but it seems to work :smiley:. I also thought that larger filters would be a good idea with the larger chip size in my 383L... However, it is obvious from the results on here that others are using 1.25" filters very successfully and so I am not sure that the larger filters are that much of an advantage.

Cheers, Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jessun

Jessun

Posted
Posted

Haha, yeah a bit strong, I didn't phrase that precise enough, but I can agree that a stretch of the chip horizontally would be most welcome one day...

Thanks for taking the time to give me your thoughts. I wasn't pointing out the faint flares as such, just wondered if they were perhaps rather prominent before processing, i.e. requiring separate curves etc - something I myself only had to do a handful of times using slower telescopes. Alnitak by the HH is a classic one of those. (The whole image of that region came to nothing for me btw...) . I have no experience of really fast optics.

Time will tell how it will work down the smoggy Lyon region...

Cheers!

/Jesper

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jessun

Jessun

Posted
Posted

Great Ian, appreciate that!

I downloaded it and I am playing around in PS, rather bewildered.... The curve panel that used to be familiar is the wrong way up, and I don't have a clue what can be done in terms of processing. I'm stood right next to Mount Mono....

But is sure looks like clean data! Superb!

/Jesper

Link to comment
Share on other sites
x6gas

x6gas

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Absolutely wonderful. Speechless. I aspire to do these images too.

Well very many thanks Kirster. As I said, this one is basically all about the kit rather than the imager, but I do appreciate the comment very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.