Leo Triplets LRGB

[gorann]

6 minutes ago, Rodd said:

But for what its worth, which might be nothing other than another meaningless statistic--there are certainly more people using PS (at least on SGL and I think elsewhere too)--and very definitely more people using ONLY PS than those who only use PI.   If there was not a subscription requirement, i would try to learn PS too.  Both is best from what I can gather.

I got PS CS5, the last one before Adobe introduced the dreadful subscription system. Maybe you can buy it "used"?

[Rodd]

2 minutes ago, gorann said:

I got PS CS5, the last one before Adobe introduced the dreadful subscription system. Maybe you can buy it "used"?

From what I understand the PS used market is tightly controlled and fraught with scams.  besides, it is very expensive as a stand alone.  

[ollypenrice]

2 hours ago, Rodd said:

Looks amazing indeed.  Don't know how to do that--and I am not sure there is all that much for to try.  I know I have seen decent images in PI.   I note that the stars are not as good as they could be--even in Olly's workup.  Allot of red rims.  Is that because of differences in the quality of the data between the various filters, or is it because this is just a quick exercise and the time needed to polish everything up was not expended.   Also--how about the LP filter--how to incorporate it.  It seems to be a rather slippery thing to figure out.  

Good work from John (and Goran later on.) John, the blue extensions to the Hamburger are very pronounced and also some ot the outlying blues in M66. (BTW, is M66 not the most gorgeous galaxy??) I did, in my own version, find just a hint of blue extension in the Hamburger. It can be seen in the fullsize here but it really is only a tiny hint - which I still found exciting.

https://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/i-NNsK787/O

There is no reason to doubt the possibility of a little starforming in the extended outer arms seen edge-on here.

I, too, didn't spend too long on the stars because I didn't think the data was inherently 'right.' I think something has got to it but I don't know what. The blue stars don't seem to be getting much of a look in other than those two very bright ones. You could fix the red rings easily enough. I only spent a bit of time on that. (I'd probably run a star reduction just on the red channel and save that image, which would be over-corrected. Then I'd just blend it with the unmodified one at the optimum opacity. But without the blue stars in play I decided not to bust a gut on the starfield. I wouldn't want to go round inventing star colour! (If mine's wrong for some reason I just reduce the saturation! (Tell nobody!)

So, Rodd, are you feeling a bit more inspired?

Olly

PS I used the histogram compression NR technique on this one in two directions. Usually I pin the upper background sky level and then lift the Curve below that. This time I also did the opposite because the background sky range was so high. That is, I pinned the background at around 22 and below then pulled 24 down to 22 before restoring the rest of the Curve. This had to be done as a layer and retained only for true background sky. It would have damaged the extensions, the tail and the fuzzies otherwise. That background was a real fight. John got it flatter than I did.

 

[gorann]

15 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Good work from John (and Goran later on.) John, the blue extensions to the Hamburger are very pronounced and also some ot the outlying blues in M66. (BTW, is M66 not the most gorgeous galaxy??) I did, in my own version, find just a hint of blue extension in the Hamburger. It can be seen in the fullsize here but it really is only a tiny hint - which I still found exciting.

https://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/i-NNsK787/O

There is no reason to doubt the possibility of a little starforming in the extended outer arms seen edge-on here.

I, too, didn't spend too long on the stars because I didn't think the data was inherently 'right.' I think something has got to it but I don't know what. The blue stars don't seem to be getting much of a look in other than those two very bright ones. You could fix the red rings easily enough. I only spent a bit of time on that. (I'd probably run a star reduction just on the red channel and save that image, which would be over-corrected. Then I'd just blend it with the unmodified one at the optimum opacity. But without the blue stars in play I decided not to bust a gut on the starfield. I wouldn't want to go round inventing star colour! (If mine's wrong for some reason I just reduce the saturation! (Tell nobody!)

So, Rodd, are you feeling a bit more inspired?

Olly

PS I used the histogram compression NR technique on this one in two directions. Usually I pin the upper background sky level and then lift the Curve below that. This time I also did the opposite because the background sky range was so high. That is, I pinned the background at around 22 and below then pulled 24 down to 22 before restoring the rest of the Curve. This had to be done as a layer and retained only for true background sky. It would have damaged the extensions, the tail and the fuzzies otherwise. That background was a real fight. John got it flatter than I did.

 

Olly, lots of good tips there, including reducing stars in the single colour channels - need to remember that one next time (=all the time) I run into star trouble.

Rodd, an oddity just struck me: you have star spikes on the larger stars in an image from a Televue np101 - is that not a refractor?

 

[Rodd]

12 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

 

So, Rodd, are you feeling a bit more inspired?

I have always been inspired--perhaps too much so.  But I am feeling encouraged about my acquisition skills--which need some tweaks, but I won't start worrying too much about that until they become the limiting factor in my images (long way to go for that!).  But I am still a bit frustrated at the PS/PI issue.  I find this forum to be for me and the PI forum to be...not for me.  To try and put the PS processing techniques into corresponding PI techniques is a major stumbling block, for without PS, it is very difficult to learn it. My stars have always been problematic with respect to color.  I certainly don't know why.  I appreciate all the input from everyone.  I find that I can only learn so much from processing and reprocessing an image.  I need new data to really move forward, and I think this data has yielded all it will give up until I process a few more batches and maybe come back to it.

[Rodd]

4 minutes ago, gorann said:

Olly, lots of good tips there, including reducing stars in the single colour channels - need to remember that one next time (=all the time) I run into star trouble.

Rodd, an oddity just struck me: you have star spikes on the larger stars in an image from a Televue np101 - is that not a refractor?

 

1 word--microlensing (so I have been told).  I don't see them in the C11Edge due to pixel scale.  So I have been told.  If you take a look at TAK images you will see a characteristic "lighthouse" refraction feature on brighter stars. 

[ollypenrice]

2 hours ago, Rodd said:

1 word--microlensing (so I have been told).  I don't see them in the C11Edge due to pixel scale.  So I have been told.  If you take a look at TAK images you will see a characteristic "lighthouse" refraction feature on brighter stars. 

Indeed you will. It doesn't bug me at all but I'm a notoriously 'broad brush' kind of imager. I don't get upset about a few stellar artefacts provided they are fairly systematic.

Olly

 

[wimvb]

FYI, the separate colour channels background corrected (one pass) and STF permanentaly applied. (Same stretch for RGB)

The red and green channel behaved quite nicely, it was the blue and lum that were trouble.

The luminance has a lot of noise left after DBE, which is to be expected for a high level of light pollution. I think that a light pollution filter in the Lum position of your filter wheel would get you better results.

Getting the tail to show is possible, but keeping the bright stars under control at the same time is a pain in the lower back.

And here's my final version.

Oh, and here's the DBE settings I ended up using:

[Rodd]

16 minutes ago, wimvb said:

FYI, the separate colour channels background corrected (one pass) and STF permanentaly applied. (Same stretch for RGB)

The red and green channel behaved quite nicely, it was the blue and lum that were trouble.

The luminance has a lot of noise left after DBE, which is to be expected for a high level of light pollution. I think that a light pollution filter in the Lum position of your filter wheel would get you better results.

Getting the tail to show is possible, but keeping the bright stars under control at the same time is a pain in the lower back.

And here's my final version.

Thats a nice demonstration.  I knew the red was decent.  I think I have to be more careful with where in the sky I shoot.  East and south is a red zone--north and west is a green, so I probably should limit my broadband work to the north and west (or overhead).  This project took so long because of the weather that it is difficult to go back and do new flats--In fact, I had to reshoot some lum flats for some of the 10 min subs (There are 24 5min  subs in there for lum as well).  But one set was acquired a month after the first, so the flats were no good--there was a big donut that I could not figure out why it was there.  New flats solved it.  But its too late for the rest of the stacks.   Maybe I should shoot flats every night so if I am delayed I won't have a problem.  They are a pain though--especially in the freezing weather.  I have a light panel that rests on the scope pointing to meridian.  I have to use pieces of paper between the panel and scope to modify brightness when reducing/increasing exposure time does not cut it.  To make matters worse, teh cable for my 5" panel broke so i have to use my panel for the C11Edge on the Televue--a bit of a balancing act.  And for the C11 I have to take off the dew shield first, so shooting flats is a pain.