Rosette HaRGB with two scopes. Star 71 and 72 EDR with 100D a year apart.

[StargeezerTim]

This image combines the Ha captured yesterday (Star 71) with an RGB image from a year ago captured with my 72 EDR. PS did a fair job of aligning both images and enabling them to be processed (Align layers function). Its come out very punchy, far more so than the original RGB image and I am pretty pleased with it apart from the greeny gungy stuff lining the nebula. I often get this when I cvombine Ha and RGB. If anyone knows how to avoid that, I'm all ears!

Enjoy the rosette at full throttle...

 

[Craney]

It has that 3-D look.....  very good indeed.  Well done.

that greeny stuff..... the data is a year old....it has probably gone off 

[Victor Boesen]

Really like the colour of that one!!!

[MikeODay]

Wonderful image Tim - well done.

[StargeezerTim]

I had a reprocess and managed to get a better colour rendition on the outer fringes, also a stronger yellow though I'm not sure its as 'punchy' or 3D looking as before. Probably more natural though.

[Adreneline]

Hi Tim,

7 hours ago, StargeezerTim said:

Probably more natural though.

Who's to say what is natural? I really like both images - they are amazing.

I've been trying to image the Rosette myself using a 70D and an Atik 428 (Ha) but not achieved the sort of result you have achieved.

Mind if I ask about number of subs, etc.? - and which camera you used?

Thank you.

Adrian

[StargeezerTim]

Hi Adrian,

Here is the link with details about the Ha capture. I used the 100D (modded) on both Ha and RGB.

For the RGB, I used 23 X 5 min, iso 1600, with a UHC filter, I think. I am very new to combining RGB with Ha so its a bit 'hit or miss' for me as well. I stack in DSS and process in Photoshop.

The process I follow is this one:-

https://starizona.com/acb/ccd/software/ps_hargb.aspx

I find method 2 works well mostly, but if not, then Method one will do it OK but the stars are bigger!

Hope this helps... you can always post your stack files on the processing forum and I'm sure some will have a go at processing them so you can see if your on the right track. 

Cheers, Tim. 

 

[gorann]

I like your image more and more, the more I look at it (especially version 2), but I cannot help wondering why you keep the background so dark (it is around 8 in PS terms - most aim at being around 25), Just trying your posted image with curves in PS brings out quite a bit more of nebulosity and I assume you could get much more out from you original data.

Cheers

[StargeezerTim]

1 hour ago, gorann said:

I like your image more and more, the more I look at it (especially version 2), but I cannot help wondering why you keep the background so dark (it is around 8 in PS terms - most aim at being around 25), Just trying your posted image with curves in PS brings out quite a bit more of nebulosity and I assume you could get much more out from you original data.

Cheers

Hi Gorann,

I know what you mean. I guess its subjective and I quite like how the darker background frames and gives punch and depth to the nebula. I have tried with background of around 15-20 but to my eyes, it loses some impact. Though it could also be down to my processing skills... or lack thereof!  Feel free to have a go yourself...

[gorann]

I also see what you mean. Processing always becomes a lot of compromises. It should be perfectly OK to produce more than one version. An interesting aspect of your dramatic version is that I for the first time see a face there (with the three central ridges forming nostrils), and after I saw it I have now difficulties seeing the rose. Out of curiosity I had a go at your image to see what it would look like with a brighter sky, but I worry there may have been some clipping so it is probably better that you do it from your data. You could try to see if you could retrieve some more nebulosity particularly to the left, maybe using Olly's recently posted version as a reference. You could then use layers to merge it with the central parts in your dramatic version (so you do not have to reprocess everything)

In any case, here is my try to brighten up the background of your image

[StargeezerTim]

Looks good. Your right, I could have a go processing the outer whilst leaving the core the same...

[gorann]

1 hour ago, StargeezerTim said:

Looks good. Your right, I could have a go processing the outer whilst leaving the core the same...

You really got some very nice detail in your nebula, it is up there among the best RGB or HaRGB I can remember to have seen (and generally I like them better than NB versions) so I think it is clearly worth wile playing around with processing a bit more.

[FranckiM06]

Wow, it is very nice image with nice colour.

Franck

[Petergoodhew]

A stunning image Tim - so much depth to it.  Very striking. Well done. 

I also get told off for having my background too dark!

[StargeezerTim]

On 03/01/2018 at 14:10, gorann said:

So I think it is clearly worth wile playing around with processing a bit more.

With a bit more playing around! I have tried to leave the core more or less the same but boosted the outer areas. There is nowhere near the detail in the outer reaches achieved by Olly and Tom in their stunning image, but it will do for me!  Not sure if I prefer this or the earlier version.

 

[happy-kat]

Now that I've read the suggestion I can see a skull, it's slightly profile looking left (as you look at it). The first image appears a bit pink on my tablet. Loved the second and the third is even better.

[gorann]

4 hours ago, happy-kat said:

Now that I've read the suggestion I can see a skull, it's slightly profile looking left (as you look at it). The first image appears a bit pink on my tablet. Loved the second and the third is even better.

Yes, it is a really twisted and scary looking face. And well done Tim!

[StargeezerTim]

1 hour ago, gorann said:

Yes, it is a really twisted and scary looking face. And well done Tim!

Thanks... I must be lacking imagination as I cannot see a face there! 

[happy-kat]

Just for you :-) I see it as a skull rather than a head.

 

[StargeezerTim]

8 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

Just for you :-) I see it as a skull rather than a head.

 

Shiver my timbers (or is that pirates...), I'll never see it in the same way now. 

[gorann]

3 minutes ago, StargeezerTim said:

Shiver my timbers (or is that pirates...), I'll never see it in the same way now. 

Yes, that is exactly what happened to me. Once I saw the face in your image I only see the face - the rose is gone. You have changed the Rosette Nebula for ever, for good or bad I do not know.

Cheers

[ollypenrice]

On 1/4/2018 at 17:02, StargeezerTim said:

With a bit more playing around! I have tried to leave the core more or less the same but boosted the outer areas. There is nowhere near the detail in the outer reaches achieved by Olly and Tom in their stunning image, but it will do for me!  Not sure if I prefer this or the earlier version.

 

To my eye the bright nebula here is downright fabulous. Good colour range, tiny stars, sizzling small scale detail. I do think, though, that the faint data is clipped. We see a very black sky and then a very bright nebula and the bit in between is lost. So sure, Tom and I had 25 hours of data to play with but I refuse to believe that you don't have more faint stuff in your data than we can see here. It must be in there! Essentially I'm agreeing with Goran. (Sorry, can't do the umlaut on my French keyboard!)

But you have a super Rosette as is.

Olly

[StargeezerTim]

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

To my eye the bright nebula here is downright fabulous. Good colour range, tiny stars, sizzling small scale detail. I do think, though, that the faint data is clipped. We see a very black sky and then a very bright nebula and the bit in between is lost. So sure, Tom and I had 25 hours of data to play with but I refuse to believe that you don't have more faint stuff in your data than we can see here. It must be in there! Essentially I'm agreeing with Goran. (Sorry, can't do the umlaut on my French keyboard!)

But you have a super Rosette as is.

Olly

Appreciate your comments Olly. I have done some more stretching of the outer regions, but messed up the stars etc in the process. You was right that there was more data there but I think early on in the process, I left myself too little space between black point and histo and that to do a better job I would probably need to revisit earlier processing. Its probably a bit beyond me at the moment but I may go back during the next spell of cloud and rain and try and do a better job of the outer regions. Anyway, here is what I managed to stretch from it. The nice dark frame that showed off the nebula has disappeared! 

[ollypenrice]

The over-eager early clip is an easy mistake to make. I'm sure we've all done that. I now leave bags of room on the left and only make the final black point decision as the very last operation. (Or I try to. My Atik 460 is very reluctant to produce much signal from the background sky so getting any spare room on the left of the histo can be nigh-on impossible. I can only get my background up to 23 in Ps with the greatest of difficulty with that camera, though it's sensitive on the faint stuff.) While processing with a high black point you can always do a test clip in Levels to see what your final result will be. Then just discard the test and carry on.

Olly