M33 - In all its glory?

[PatrickGilliland]

Hi all,

Been too busy with work, study and exams to think about target selection.  So compromised and decided to go for an 'easier' target but just allow it to run over the last few clear nights and see what I could do with the data.

So here is M33 L 49*600+45*300, Ha 25*300+16*600, 20*180 for RGB) so 165 subs acquired (which i was quite please with when i looked to see how much data was there, very unusual in UK although normal proceeding seem to be back in play with the cloud).

I was pleased with not only the Ha detail but also the detail it resolved.  Its no Hubble image but for an 8" scope under average UK skies think it has done quite well.

Feedback welcomed - though I will say the one area I struggled with was the background; it looked too clean!  So the version above includes the rgb background with no processing applied to try to remove the 'artificial' look of the full version.  I have kept it a little lighter than typical too to try and bring out the details in the outer arms a little, has this worked or shall i darken a little.

Picking up on the DBE thread - this version has none, any attempt to run destroyed the detail in the core and flattened the image into and oversaturated mess.  So not always needed or beneficial.

Thanks all

Paddy

[PhotoGav]

Looking really good Paddy! You've certainly taken full advantage of the longer nights and the recent clear spells we have been enjoying. I like the lightness of the image, which to me is spot on and definitely reveals very pleasing details. Excellent! Especially when clicking to view the full size version.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Lots of detail and bursting with Ha, the ring structures around young clusters are showing well. To my eye though it's over-saturated, personally I'm not keen on the cyan arms. I might consider taking down the fainter parts of the galaxy a touch, to give the arms more definition. Is there perhaps a touch of green in the background? Might be worth checking the balance. Hope that's some help, just my 2p worth.

Edited to add - it looks far better on my tablet screen than my PC monitor.

[mikeyj1]

yeah that's rubbish isn't it...

Seriously?  Looks good enough to rival any Hubble image, If i could have made that.. it would be my best image EVER!

Great job!

Mike

 

[cfpendock]

Yes, that's very nice Paddy.  Perhaps just a tad oversaturated for my taste, but I certainly like the lighter background - it seems to help counteract the bright colours of the inner galaxy arms.

Chris

[alan4908]

Very impressive Paddy - I particularly like the way you have processed the dust lanes near to the core.

Alan

[Knight of Clear Skies]

1 hour ago, mikeyj1 said:

yeah that's rubbish isn't it...

Was this in response to my comments? I can't tell as your post immediately followed mine. As I edited my post to say it looks far better on my tablet screen than my monitor. Please bear in mind we're viewing on a variety of devices and many are calibrated differently or not calibrated at all. I gave my monitor a rough calibration but that doesn't mean I got it right.

[mikeyj1]

No, well I started to write after your first comment, I was being sarcastic as I think you are being super critical of your image, its beautiful.. but the phone rang and two other comments popped up before i could respond   No offence intended

btw: i downloaded it and have it as my home screen on the phone, hope thats ok?

 

[PatrickGilliland]

2 hours ago, PhotoGav said:

Looking really good Paddy! You've certainly taken full advantage of the longer nights and the recent clear spells we have been enjoying. I like the lightness of the image, which to me is spot on and definitely reveals very pleasing details. Excellent! Especially when clicking to view the full size version.

Thanks Gav - tried to create a little depth via the extra luminosity.

1 hour ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

Lots of detail and bursting with Ha, the ring structures around young clusters are showing well. To my eye though it's over-saturated, personally I'm not keen on the cyan arms. I might consider taking down the fainter parts of the galaxy a touch, to give the arms more definition. Is there perhaps a touch of green in the background? Might be worth checking the balance. Hope that's some help, just my 2p worth.

Edited to add - it looks far better on my tablet screen than my PC monitor.

 

1 hour ago, cfpendock said:

Yes, that's very nice Paddy.  Perhaps just a tad oversaturated for my taste, but I certainly like the lighter background - it seems to help counteract the bright colours of the inner galaxy arms.

Chris

Def no green in there (quick SCNR check validates that.  I liked with saturation as seemed to provide more contrast and as a result detail, do have a less saturated version though so here you go . Let me know which you prefer.

 

23 minutes ago, mikeyj1 said:

No, well I started to write after your first comment, I was being sarcastic as I think you are being super critical of your image, its beautiful.. but the phone rang and two other comments popped up before i could respond   No offence intended

 

Thanks for feedback Mike - I took as a joke, but it is nice for people to take the time to offer feedback.  After a while I go image blind and often it can find something I missed.  Sometimes of course it's just personal taste and a few sliders here and there can accomodate that  

30 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

looks far better on my tablet screen than my monitor

Always a challenge this when publishing images.  I have a calibrated monitor and embed that profile into my images.  Of course there is no guarantee that anyone is seeing what i see which is frustrating in this age. 

1 hour ago, alan4908 said:

Very impressive Paddy - I particularly like the way you have processed the dust lanes near to the core.

Alan

Thanks Alan - They were quite tricky actually, the HA made a little blocky so balanced out with extra lum data and fighting the urge to over sharpen.  Glad i am the right track.

Thanks for comments and feedback, appreciated.

[wigggyy]

Great image very nice indeed ?

[MartinFransson]

That´s a spectacular M33! I´m impressed!

[Knight of Clear Skies]

22 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

Def no green in there (quick SCNR check validates that.  I liked with saturation as seemed to provide more contrast and as a result detail, do have a less saturated version though so here you go . Let me know which you prefer.

Very good, like the detail in the dust lanes going all the way to the core. I have a strong preference for the second image when viewing on my monitor and also slightly prefer it on my tablet screen. If your screen is calibrated then I should look at mine again.

In the wilderness of uncalibrated viewing devices pushing colours hard on a calibrated monitor is likely to make a few people jump. As you say, personal preference is the other factor at play.

57 minutes ago, mikeyj1 said:

No, well I started to write after your first comment, I was being sarcastic as I think you are being super critical of your image, its beautiful.. but the phone rang and two other comments popped up before i could respond   No offence intended

No problem. You think I'm being critical of my Pleiades image? Thing is, looking at it critically is part of improving my imaging skills, it doesn't stop me from enjoying it. I appreciate constructive criticism when I get it, so try and return the favour when I think I have something useful to say.

[ChrisLX200]

I liked the first (more saturated) image, maybe slightly OTT in terms of saturation but better than the second which looks a bit flat (maybe it's the comparison!). Anyway the first has everything in it I like the NB components and I find it strange that they show better in the this galaxy than they seem to in M31 - despite the latter being further away from us.

ChrisH

[cfpendock]

Interesting to compare the two.  At first V1 seemed oversaturated, but I agree with ChrisLX200 that the second looks a bit flat by comparison! - maybe perfection lies between the two... Don't get me wrong - they are both superb images.

Chris

[PatrickGilliland]

3 hours ago, wigggyy said:

Great image very nice indeed ?

 

2 hours ago, MartinFransson said:

That´s a spectacular M33! I´m impressed!

Thanks for comments wigggyy and Martin.

2 hours ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

like the detail in the dust lanes going all the way to the core

That was the challenge in the image, getting that detail through sharpening without it becoming to 'splodgy' or false.  Right on the limits of what the scope can resolve in UK i think but happy with the result.

1 hour ago, ChrisLX200 said:

I liked the first (more saturated) image, maybe slightly OTT in terms of saturation but better than the second which looks a bit flat (maybe it's the comparison!). Anyway the first has everything in it I like the NB components and I find it strange that they show better in the this galaxy than they seem to in M31 - despite the latter being further away from us.

ChrisH

The Ha regions interested me as did the general structure.  M33 is smaller than M31 yet has the second brightest (and a number of other very bright) Ha regions.  These are likely more visable simply down to the star density and related star luminosity M33 60kly 40 billion stars (.667 billion stars per kly) versus M31's 220kly and 1 trillion stars (4.5454 billion per kly) so nearly 7 times as much star luminosity.  Of course the star types vary but just a quick estimation, also being closer M31 'light' suffers less extinction etc so the probably ramps it up some more.  Net result is less brightness and density may allow us to see more details such as the Ha areas. A galactic demonstration of less is sometimes more?!

1 hour ago, cfpendock said:

Interesting to compare the two.  At first V1 seemed oversaturated, but I agree with ChrisLX200 that the second looks a bit flat by comparison! - maybe perfection lies between the two... Don't get me wrong - they are both superb images.

Chris

There is always another tweak or 20 to make  that will be left for a few days so that a can look on it with fresh eyes.

Thanks for comments all.

Paddy

[Barry-Wilson]

The saturated version is far better IMHO removing the flat feel that this galaxy has.  Very flat background and great definition in the core - excellent image Paddy.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

7 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

The Ha regions interested me as did the general structure.  M33 is smaller than M31 yet has the second brightest (and a number of other very bright) Ha regions.

The density of gas is higher in M33 than in M31 and the rate of star formation (by area) is higher. I believe the gas density has been mapped out in radio using the 21 centimetre hydrogen line, and there is a strong correlation between areas of high density and star formation.

[PatrickGilliland]

2 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

The density of gas is higher in M33 than in M31 and the rate of star formation (by area) is higher. I believe the gas density has been mapped out in radio using the 21 centimetre hydrogen line, and there is a strong correlation between areas of high density and star formation.

Yes you're quite right - and i did not explain that very well.  M31 is lower density and hard to see 'into' due to luminosity of a trillion star Vs the more sparse 40 billion of M33.  What is in M31 is not only more sparse but effectively hidden from us as well.  Few areas around the outer edges and surface can be picked up but a lot more is obscured.  

16 minutes ago, Barry-Wilson said:

The saturated version is far better IMHO removing the flat feel that this galaxy has.  Very flat background and great definition in the core - excellent image Paddy.

That was my gut feel, without the extra push it all felt a little 1D and was hard to resolve the contrasting detail. Thanks for comments Barry

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Here's a nice radio image of M33:

Image courtesy of NRAO/AUI, taken from here.

Would be interesting to line it up with your image but I'm not sure which way around it goes.

[PatrickGilliland]

1 minute ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

Here's a nice radio image of M33:

Image courtesy of NRAO/AUI, taken from here.

Would be interesting to line it up with your image but I'm not sure which way around it goes.

Ahh, man! You know that will be taking up a chunk of my time now seeing if i can integrate it  

[Knight of Clear Skies]

My work here is done.

[nucdoc]

Very nice image.  I like the detail around the clusters that are evident in your first image, but I am not sure I like the Cyan.  The second image looks more natural, but the nice definition around the clusters is not as evident.

 

Mark

[PatrickGilliland]

7 hours ago, nucdoc said:

Very nice image.  I like the detail around the clusters that are evident in your first image, but I am not sure I like the Cyan.  The second image looks more natural, but the nice definition around the clusters is not as evident.

Here is one more version - i have adjusted a few colours and lowered saturation selectively - ensuring i kept it fairly lively around the core to try to avoid it becoming too flat.

[cfpendock]

I think you've cracked it with this last one.  But you're never going to satisfy everybody!

Chris

[swag72]

A nice M33 Paddy - I felt that the first was too saturated, the second was too flat .... and the third..... is about perfect for me