Horsehead Complex HaRGB

[ollypenrice]

C'mon, don't beat yourself up, Rodd! This is a good image. Quite honestly I think that two simple adjustments would improve it. Firstly, given that the entire frame is pretty bright, I'd just ease down the stretch. It doesn't need such a hard stretch: what are we going to lose if you bring it down a bit? Nothing would be my guess - except for noise, mostly colour noise, and that would be good. So just ease down the brightness. Secondly I think that the colour saturation is a touch high. Again, the data is full of colour with plenty to spare so ease the saturation down a bit. The colour noise will go but the image will still be stunningly colourful.

Of course, since I haven't actually tried these adjustments they could be completely up a gum tree!!! 

Olly

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

C'mon, don't beat yourself up, Rodd! This is a good image. Quite honestly I think that two simple adjustments would improve it. Firstly, given that the entire frame is pretty bright, I'd just ease down the stretch. It doesn't need such a hard stretch: what are we going to lose if you bring it down a bit? Nothing would be my guess - except for noise, mostly colour noise, and that would be good. So just ease down the brightness. Secondly I think that the colour saturation is a touch high. Again, the data is full of colour with plenty to spare so ease the saturation down a bit. The colour noise will go but the image will still be stunningly colourful.

Of course, since I haven't actually tried these adjustments they could be completely up a gum tree!!! 

Olly

Thanks Olly--your right.  The saturation got away from me.   I made 2 simple adjustments as you mentioned and I do think its a better image.  I probably could go even further I suppose, in brightness reduction--maybe saturation as well.  

Rodd

 

 

 

[Rodd]

I know I said I liked the RGB one better--but I had a go at the Ha again and did it properly this time.  The details are sharper, and NGC 2023 is much better defined.  I tried to keep the relative brightness about the same--though its a tad brighter.  I was worried that the horsehead was too dark--but its about the same really.  Still torn I guess

[wimvb]

Excellent images, all of them.

I'm not sure that L will add anything to the mix. If you've collected that much colour data unbinned, adding L may very likely only result in bloated stars that are difficult to control.

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, wimvb said:

Excellent images, all of them.

I'm not sure that L will add anything to the mix. If you've collected that much colour data unbinned, adding L may very likely only result in bloated stars that are difficult to control.

Thanks Wim--I had that same thought.  The only thing I question is the quality of the color data-FWHM values are pretty high due to the conditions.  Haze plagued me throughout the data collection.  I was able to collect a few decent lum subs (I had to toss more than half for the same reasons I did the color ones) and the FWHM values are much lower-1 to 1.5 arcsec lower.  Not sure what this means to tell you the truth.  Sometimes its hard to really see much of difference in FWHM values that differ by even more than this.  But maybe with really good lum data the stars would not bloat? The medium background levels are more of a concern to tell the truth--10 min lum subs for this part of the sky are too much at this time.  For some reason even during astro dark its not very dark out--and the snow has melted.  Its very strange--almost like a bright Moon but the Moon is down.  Maybe its moisture in the atmosphere.  What ever the cause, I think lum is out.  But it really helped my M33!!  I guess its target dependent?  I am still trying to get a handle on the need for lum.

Rodd

[gorann]

Great image(s) Rodd!

Just noticed that you blew out up Alnitak a bit in that very last one (making it hard to see the double star)

[Rodd]

22 minutes ago, gorann said:

Great image(s) Rodd!

Just noticed that you blew out up Alnitak a bit in that very last one (making it hard to see the double star)

Thanks Gorann! Your right...can't have everything I guess!  It is still visible though.  This data was not great--far from it.  I am amazed that I was able to do as much with it as I did.  Maybe I will revisit....but not for a while.  I havev had enough of the Horsehead for a time 

Rodd

[gorann]

1 minute ago, Rodd said:

Thanks Gorann! Your right...can't have everything I guess!  It is still visible though.  This data was not great--far from it.  I am amazed that I was able to do as much with it as I did.  Maybe I will revisit....but not for a while.  I havev had enough of the Horsehead for a time 

Rodd

But it is fixed in 2 minutes. Just put the old version as a layer over the new one, create a layer mask, invert it, and bring out the Alnitak with the brush tool.

Cheers

[Rodd]

3 minutes ago, gorann said:

But it is fixed in 2 minutes. Just put the old version as a layer over the new one, create a layer mask, invert it, and bring out the Alnitak with the brush tool.

Cheers

Spoken by a true PS aficionado.  Alas--I don't have PS.  But--here's my 2 minute attempt.  Not perfect at all, but a bit better.  besides there are some other improvements (fine scale sharpening)