NGC 1499 in (Ha)-SHO

[Rodd]

Televue np101is with 0.8x reducer, SBIG STT-8300 with self guiding filter wheel and 3nm Astrodon filters.  31 hours of data

Ha-20 30 min subs

OIII-20 30 min subs

SII 22 30 min subs

I know there are issues with the image which may take me quite some time to work out.  Meanwhile, not too bad for 20 minutes of processing (after calibration, alignment and integration).  I wanted to post the image before I over-process it to death.  I think this is one image where drizzle integration may prove beneficial.  As is typical, I will fill up a few gigabytes of my hard drive with various versions of this image.  Maybe one of them will be better than this one. 

 

[Rodd]

Here's with a slight curves adjustment--brings it out a bit more.

[Rodd]

I like the first because the background is less "shiny mirror"

[Allinthehead]

First for me too Rodd. Lovely image.

[Magnus_e]

I like the first one best, but hen I really like the first one!

Opened the full-size version and spent some time looking at the detail.

A truly lovely image

[Rodd]

23 minutes ago, Allinthehead said:

First for me too Rodd. Lovely image.

Thanks Allinthehead

[Rodd]

11 minutes ago, Magnus_e said:

I like the first one best, but hen I really like the first one!

Opened the full-size version and spent some time looking at the detail.

A truly lovely image

Thanks Magnus_e.  Glad you enjoyed getting lost in the mountains of California!

[Rodd]

I did a drizzle version but with a 1x scale--so the image is not larger.  I liked parts of it better--but not other parts.  So I blended it 50%/50% with the original image 9Actually, I think I blended it with the second image--darn it).  Starting to get there though!

 

[Rodd]

Here's a version I think is better.  I am aware of the processing artifacts in one area and I know why they are there, and I knew how to get rid of them.  Unfortunately my software froze up my computer--which happens quite frequently and no-one can tell me why (its a very powerful computer).  Anyway--I could have reversed steps back to that point, eliminated the step, and then redid the steps after that and the artifacts would have been gone.  But I had to close down Pixinsight so I can't do that now.  I still think this image is better--I will do another and try to avoid the artifacts 9maybe you don't see them?)

[PatrickGilliland]

Think you nailed this on the first outing.  Prefer first version of them all.  Sometimes it's just right.  Lovely depth and detail (run that HLVP script and kill the purple star halos though  )

Paddy

[Rodd]

26 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

Think you nailed this on the first outing.  Prefer first version of them all.  Sometimes it's just right.  Lovely depth and detail (run that HLVP script and kill the purple star halos though  )

Paddy

I have to disagree my friend--I like the first one least of all   Regarding the halos--only 2 stars have them and I find when I run the magenta star removal script the stars get bigger.  Is the HLVP script a different one?  It is not on my version of PI.  But this is blue not magenta--so is it a different formula?  

[Rodd]

47 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

Think you nailed this on the first outing.  Prefer first version of them all.  Sometimes it's just right.  Lovely depth and detail (run that HLVP script and kill the purple star halos though  )

Paddy

Here's the latest version with the magenta star removal script as you suggest.  I do like what it does to the image--but I don't like the fact that the stars (some of then) are bigger.  The bright one lower right is not, strangely.  It does give another color to the pallet along upper region though (turns some of the blue to a teal).

[simmo39]

I like both but the second one has the edge for me.

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, PatrickGilliland said:

Think you nailed this on the first outing.  Prefer first version of them all.  Sometimes it's just right.  Lovely depth and detail (run that HLVP script and kill the purple star halos though  )

Paddy

 

4 minutes ago, simmo39 said:

I like both but the second one has the edge for me.

OK--here is the final version for now.  Mount Crumpet stands tall and CLEAR.  I am a detail man so I know its not for everyone.  Used the purple halo script but limited it s extent with a mask.

[PatrickGilliland]

22 minutes ago, Rodd said:

 

OK--here is the final version for now.  Mount Crumpet stands tall and CLEAR.  I am a detail man so I know its not for everyone.  Used the purple halo script but limited it s extent with a mask.

 

That has a nice all round balance.  Paddy

[Rodd]

4 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

That has a nice all round balance.  Paddy

Thanks Paddy--no offense intended of course.  In a month or so I will probably see that you were right.  I do like the last one though.  Can'y keep my fingers out of the paintbowl though.

[Rodd]

30 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

That has a nice all round balance.  Paddy

I LIED!!!1  Well--couldn't stay away.  Here is the final one--Promise.  Valleys more defined--peaks clearer. 

[PatrickGilliland]

33 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Thanks Paddy--no offense intended of course.  In a month or so I will probably see that you were right.  I do like the last one though.  Can'y keep my fingers out of the paintbowl though.

It's what makes it all fun - we all see slightly different things and have different tastes.  Else we would all be making the same version of the same picture  

 

[Rodd]

Well--here is the absolute last--I can't decide whether this one of the last one is the one I like.  I Feel like I having a conversation with myself--and Paddy of course  

[Rodd]

Now I see the processing artifacts along the bright rim at bottom of nebula.  Darn it--This version seems to be floating in space before my eyes.  Oh well--you can't see them unless you zoom, so that's something I guess.  Back to the drawing board.

[Rodd]

Here's a version with much less processing in the valleys and less all around really--trying to tone things down.  Its hard to do--my data has allot of details.

 

[KY Cygni]

thats a wonderful image wow

[Rodd]

3 minutes ago, KY Cygni said:

thats a wonderful image wow

Thanks KY Cygni.  I think I have found a nice blend--This is a 70% last image and 30% 3 images ago (HSHO-ab) blend.

[Rodd]

Found it--a blend of 5abc (the very detailed one with processing artifacts) and version 6 about--the toned down one.  Processing artifacts gone--best of both worlds.  I know many don't like it (for the life of me I can't figure out why).  To Pixinsightish?  Pixinsight does not create details.  The details are there.  Why not reveal them?

[StargeezerTim]

Lovely image! I like the first version best, its airy, though the last one has the most detail and a 3D feel.