NGC 2359

[Rodd]

This was an "in betweener".  I shot subs periodically between primary targets-needing something to shoot during periodes of bright Moon, as well as after primary targets had set at relatively early times (12-2:00).  As such, it is not very polished, as many (most) subs were taken during poor seeing and transparency conditions.  In addition, this target is in a very tough spot for me--typically bathed in a light dome of the city of New Haven.  The FOV orientation is wrong as well.  But its better than no image at all, from my perspective.  Considering the condition and location, I was surprised that I was able to render an image not destined for the digital waste basket.  Only having 18 OIII subs doesn't help.

FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and ASI 1600 with 3um Astrodon filters

Ha-95 5min

OIII-18 5min

[MikeODay]

Lovely image - I love the colours and the detail.

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, MikeODay said:

Lovely image - I love the colours and the detail.

Thanks Mike.  I guess I should clllect more OIII

Rodd

[cotak]

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, cotak said:

?

[Guest]

I like it!

With Thor's helmet usually occupying the entire frame of many examples of this I've seen it's really interesting to see it set in the wider field of the surrounding cosmos.

It really stands out with the blue appearing very striking.

Excellent that you included your doubts and circumstances of it's capture. It's often easy to simply view an image like this, appreciate it for whatever quality it has and then move on. Knowing your thoughts about it while you where capturing it gives it "added" quality ?

David

[Rodd]

44 minutes ago, David_L said:

I like it!

With Thor's helmet usually occupying the entire frame of many examples of this I've seen it's really interesting to see it set in the wider field of the surrounding cosmos.

It really stands out with the blue appearing very striking.

Excellent that you included your doubts and circumstances of it's capture. It's often easy to simply view an image like this, appreciate it for whatever quality it has and then move on. Knowing your thoughts about it while you where capturing it gives it "added" quality ?

David

Thanks, David.  Plenty of doubts to go around!  I collected a few more hours of OIII last night--we'll see if it helps.

Rodd

[Rodd]

Added a bunch of OIII (and removed a few Ha subs of low quality).  Final count  Ha: 86 and OIII 55.  Still noisy.  Noise is in the Ha channel, which is strange.  The Moon and poor conditions take their toll.  Perhaps a too saturated--reminiscent of Odysseus's red wine sea.

Rodd

 

[ollypenrice]

Don't push it too hard. I think it's great to see this nebula in widefield. We rarely do. Super.

Olly

[Rodd]

16 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Don't push it too hard. I think it's great to see this nebula in widefield. We rarely do. Super.

Olly

Thanks, Olly--Too much I know.  I think the helmet is OK--its the background (as usual) that is a bit shaky.  I don't think more data will fix it.  I added 40 5min OIII subs and didn't see too much of a reduction in noise--somewhat.  Maybe a slight downward curve over the whole image will help.

Rodd

[Rodd]

49 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Don't push it too hard. I think it's great to see this nebula in widefield. We rarely do. Super.

Olly

Thanks, Olly--One can never hear these wise words enough.....not too hard.  I have backed off a bit.  Really just a histogram reduction.  I find bi-colored images to be a bit tricky.  Maybe I should play around with a small percentage of Ha in the green.  

 

 

[ollypenrice]

12 hours ago, Rodd said:

Thanks, Olly--One can never hear these wise words enough.....not too hard.  I have backed off a bit.  Really just a histogram reduction.  I find bi-colored images to be a bit tricky.  Maybe I should play around with a small percentage of Ha in the green.  

 

I think that would be a good experiment. The natural colour of the planetary is considerably more green than this, so far as one can tell.

I must say that what I'd do would be shoot a brief RGB set and than apply the Ha to red before then adding to the result image, in one case, the OIII to green and in another case the OIII to blue. By then putting OIII to blue over OIII to green in Layers you could balance the green-blue to taste.

What's also intriguing about the image is that it's hard to tell field Ha from gasses driven by the stellar winds.

Olly

[gorann]

A really nice image Rodd but maybe it bit too grainy for my taste. Could it be that you pushed up the faint background more than the data allows? It is as allways a matter of taste. Here is a version where I suppressed the low light areas a bit (without clipping) using curves to show what I mean.

[Rodd]

5 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I think that would be a good experiment. The natural colour of the planetary is considerably more green than this, so far as one can tell.

I must say that what I'd do would be shoot a brief RGB set and than apply the Ha to red before then adding to the result image, in one case, the OIII to green and in another case the OIII to blue. By then putting OIII to blue over OIII to green in Layers you could balance the green-blue to taste.

What's also intriguing about the image is that it's hard to tell field Ha from gasses driven by the stellar winds.

Olly

Yeah--I used SCNR to get rid of much of the green.  I forgot this is planetary.  I can apply lesser amounts of SCNR green to leave some in, similar to your method in PS.  I have realized that what you meant by don't push it too much was "back way off!"  I fear that due to the conditions and the data, I will have to reduce the stretch significantly to achieve a smooth, noise-free background.  This will remove much of the background Ha emission as well, unfortunately.  I may be able to recover some with judicious use of exponential transform.  I looked through the Ha data and realized that it was not very good (worse than I remembered).  Oh well.  All it will take is a few dark hours to turn things around.  The OIII is much better (still not great though).  

Rodd

[Rodd]

5 minutes ago, gorann said:

Could it be that you pushed up the faint background more than the data allows?

Absolutely--for my skill set, but...not yours

 

6 minutes ago, gorann said:

I suppressed the low light areas a bit (without clipping) using curves to show what I mean

Show off!  Wow.  One tweak and its a keeper.  I tried that but obviously, I don't know what I am doing yet.  The Ha is too opaque looking though (my error), and the red is too ruby deep (my error).  I will reprocess this again and take my time--maybe adding data as the weather permits.  It will get there.  I will not take it past this season, however--When Orion is gone--Thor will sleep.

Rodd

[gorann]

I do not think that you need to reprocess it from start. You can just do a few final tweaks with curves and color, and I do not think it is your fault (or SCNRgreen) that it is less green than it would be in RGB. You only have Oiii and Ha data so there is really no green in your data. If you want the blue to move a bit towads green then you could just adjust the color balance a bit. Easy to do in PS and maybe also in PI. If you use Selective Color in PS (I know you have PS?) then choose blue and there turn up the yellow a bit (like this), here I also suppressed the background a bit more (maybe too much)

I promise I will stop messing with your image now?.

[Rodd]

8 minutes ago, gorann said:

so there is really no green in your data

Well--I mapped OIII to blue and green, so there is as much green as there is blue (before I removed the green with SCNR green).  the nebula was quite teal looking at first (until I butchered it).  I am not at my processing computer now so I can't demonstrate--but I will post a new version soon.  

You may mess as much as you like--in fact, I can upload the FITs stacks if you like.  Let me know.  

Rodd

[gorann]

1 minute ago, Rodd said:

Well--I mapped OIII to blue and green, so there is as much green as there is blue (before I removed the green with SCNR green).  the nebula was quite teal looking at first (until I butchered it).  I am not at my processing computer now so I can't demonstrate--but I will post a new version soon.  

You may mess as much as you like--in fact, I can upload the FITs stacks if you like.  Let me know.  

Rodd

You are too nice Rodd and I have no data of my own to mess with right now so any fits stacks are allways appreciated (but I will probably not do it better than you)

[Rodd]

11 minutes ago, gorann said:

but I will probably not do it better than you

Now you are just buttering me up.  When I get home I will upload the stacks.

Rodd

[gorann]

Just now, Rodd said:

Now you are just buttering me up.  When I get home I will upload the stacks.

Rodd

Thanks! I can only promise it will be different - but it may not be better in any way. I will probably have a go at it tomorrow (my time).

[carastro]

I love this image.

Carole 

[tooth_dr]

Great image Rodd. 

[Rodd]

18 minutes ago, carastro said:

I love this image.

Carole 

Thanks, Carole--It is one of my favorites, both close in and wide field.

Rodd

[Rodd]

11 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Great image Rodd. 

Thanks, Doc.   It's getting there!

Rodd

[Rodd]

13 hours ago, gorann said:

I will probably have a go at it tomorrow (my time).

Here you go--I did not have time to reprocess.  I will try over the next couple of days

Calibrated but not cropped or processed in any way.

h86.fit

O55.fit