sh2-216 RHa Gnii BOiii

[Gedan]

Hi,

Taken over several nights between Dec 27th and Jan 09. Consisting of:

Ha 26 x30 min, Nii 27x30 min, Sii 23 x 30 min and Oiii 25 x 30 min.

Not overly happy with it..very faint and tricky one this. I'm going to try a version swapping the Oiii for the Sii as it seemed a bit more interesting.

C&C welcome and thanks for looking.

[Charic]

29 minutes ago, Gedan said:

Not overly happy with it........

Then jokingly, you should go back to visual observations!

I think thats a stunning image, but then what do I know?

Nice image. I wonder if the 'swap' will make  a huge difference. I'd be happy with an image like that on my wall/screen, but I wont, not without asking first 

[Gedan]

5 minutes ago, Charic said:

Then jokingly, you should go back to visual observations!

I think thats a stunning image, but then what do I know?

Nice image. I wonder if the 'swap' will make  a huge difference. I'd be happy with an image like that on my wall/screen, but I wont, not without asking first 

Thanks, just a bit frustrating.. will post when I try the other mix:]

[Stargazer33]

Amazing image! Never seen this one before.

[Gedan]

3 hours ago, Stargazer33 said:

Amazing image! Never seen this one before.

Thanks!

[MikeODay]

Very nice image - it looks a bit like a gas giant, it even has a 'great spot'.  Thanks for sharing.

[Gedan]

3 hours ago, MikeODay said:

Very nice image - it looks a bit like a gas giant, it even has a 'great spot'.  Thanks for sharing.

Cheers Mike, thought that myself- with a leaping hare in the middle!

[ollypenrice]

Another refreshingly original choice of target! I like it a lot.

Maybe a bit too much NR on the background for my taste. I feel that visible smoothing is more intrusive than visible noise.

Anyway, I'm off to look this one up. Thanks for the heads up!

Olly

[RichLD]

Well done sir! That is a very tricky target and I think you've done it proud. Very interesting palette too! 

My only very minor criticism is too agree with Olly regarding NR/smoothing of the background, but that's just personal preference as I tend to prefer a little bit of grain - top shot! 

[Gedan]

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Another refreshingly original choice of target! I like it a lot.

Maybe a bit too much NR on the background for my taste. I feel that visible smoothing is more intrusive than visible noise.

Anyway, I'm off to look this one up. Thanks for the heads up!

Olly

Cheers for the comments Olly- there's a cracking target right next to it that may fit in your fov.

[Gedan]

1 hour ago, RichLD said:

Well done sir! That is a very tricky target and I think you've done it proud. Very interesting palette too! 

My only very minor criticism is too agree with Olly regarding NR/smoothing of the background, but that's just personal preference as I tend to prefer a little bit of grain - top shot! 

Thanks and noted about the noise reduction...its a fine line.

[ultranova]

Maybe the first time I have seen this,

cracking image, considering the amount of time

you have spent on it, it must be a very faint target indeed.

well done

Paul

[Gedan]

3 minutes ago, ultranova said:

Maybe the first time I have seen this,

cracking image, considering the amount of time

you have spent on it, it must be a very faint target indeed.

well done

Paul

Thanks Paul, yes many nights with Scottish skies!

[gorann]

Very very nice and new to me. Congratulations! Especially impressing considering your location.

By the way, I think you have an OK noise level - never really understood how one could have too little noise, but I have got that comment a few times so I now leave some noise for those that fancy it. For me the irritating thing about being told to have too much NR is that I usually find that I did the NR relatively early on in processing, maybe in version 10 (when I thought I was almost done), but then ending up posting version 30, so reducing NR would often mean starting over for me.

[Gedan]

5 minutes ago, gorann said:

Very very nice and new to me. Congratulations! Especially impressing considering your location.

By the way, I think you have an OK noise level - never really understood how one could have too little noise, but I have got that comment a few times so I now leave some noise for those that fancy it. For me the irritating thing about being told to have too much NR is that I usually find that I did the NR relatively early on in processing, maybe in version 10 (when I thought I was almost done), but then ending up posting version 30, so reducing NR would often mean starting over for me.

I know what you mean...more revisions than a politicians speech!- some politicians that is..

[Shibby]

Wow, very impressive image. You've done very well to capture so much data and bring out what I'm sure is a very faint target!

I think, as mentioned before, the NR is a bit strong but I can understand why you've felt the need. I think if you can apply it primarily to the really faint bits so it doesn't affect the stars and brighter parts of the nebula that might help.

Either way, your dedication (50 hours odd??) has certainly paid off.

[Gedan]

8 hours ago, Shibby said:

Wow, very impressive image. You've done very well to capture so much data and bring out what I'm sure is a very faint target!

I think, as mentioned before, the NR is a bit strong but I can understand why you've felt the need. I think if you can apply it primarily to the really faint bits so it doesn't affect the stars and brighter parts of the nebula that might help.

Either way, your dedication (50 hours odd??) has certainly paid off.

Thanks for that and very helpful comments!

Gordon