Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_terminator_challenge_winners.thumb.jpg.6becf44442bc7105be59da91b2bee295.jpg

Rodd

Cacoon Nebula

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I was never satisfied with this image.  It was one of the first images I took with the FSQ 106 and .6x reducer.   This was taken when I did not yet know what was wrong with the setup--either spacing of sensor orthogonality--something was wrong since the stars were deformed in the corners.  The good news is I sent the FSQ back to TNR and they recollimated it--it had come to me slightly out of collimation.  Cant wait to test it.  But the stars were only one thing I could not get right.  My inclination was always to push the data too far--trying to bring out faint details, like the reflection nebula surrounding the core.  This would invariably cause a background issue around stars.  The data could just not handle it.  I think I have finally found a middle ground

Red: 214 30 sec

Green: 168 30 sec

Blue: 118 30 sec

Lum: 172 30 sec

 

 

a3-d4.thumb.jpg.91948571afc697c5e6563dcbaf925f9d.jpg

Edited by Rodd
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A superb composition Rodd. I've only ever imaged this close up, but I really like to see it alongside the adjacent dark nebula with rich star field background. Cheers, Geof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, geoflewis said:

A superb composition Rodd. I've only ever imaged this close up, but I really like to see it alongside the adjacent dark nebula with rich star field background. Cheers, Geof

Thanks Geof. I was the same way. I don’t have the Fov to get it widefield until I got the fsq. The nex time I do it I will get a lot more data.  

Rodd

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Struggled over the last few days--the more I processed the more unnatural things appeared.  I just was not satisfied with ful resolution viewing--even with a down sampled version.  I'll admit that these changes may seem at first subtle and unworthy of mention.  But its the last few honing sweeps that make a blade truly sharp.  To my eye the improvement in "naturalness" to the flower are obvious.  Also, I lifted the dust lanes without brightening the stars.  getting there.

 

 

 

 

Image05e5d.thumb.jpg.8e74a39c2601f06610c4c8a969e09bf3.jpg

Edited by Rodd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What the heck--its worth its own post as opposed to an edit.  Lifting the dust was very tricky--too much and it blows the image.  More data, of course, is the answer.  Not sure how much farther I can take this data to tell the truth.  I find the limiting factor in this image is the stars (hard to keep them natural and not overly bright), and the blue reflection envelope--very difficult to bring out without overdoing the emission nebula.   I have tried taking it a bit further (the dust lanes)--but it was too much.  EDIT:  I have included the next iteration--the one I am hesitant to call the final.  It may be just over the line as apposed to just in front of the line.  But opinions warmly welcomed--My eyes have been looking at this image too long and are not seeing clearly.

Image05e5d.thumb.jpg.b0ef4a661f7ef06a4f41f11b94122c8c.jpg

Image05e5f.thumb.jpg.fecc0507ada14ce5062a7335dd4c8261.jpg

 

Edited by Rodd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's good, Rodd. Do you know Fabian Neyer's very deep Ha widefield of this region? It gives a remarkable result which not all that many people try, but I found it was very well worth the effort. I think the Ha would need between 10 and 20 hours to strut its stuff (my own effort was nearer 10) but I think you'd enjoy it.

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

That's good, Rodd. Do you know Fabian Neyer's very deep Ha widefield of this region? It gives a remarkable result which not all that many people try, but I found it was very well worth the effort. I think the Ha would need between 10 and 20 hours to strut its stuff (my own effort was nearer 10) but I think you'd enjoy it.

Olly

Thanks Olly. Yes, his is the quintessential Cacoon.  I feel that he may have pushed things a bit, though I am sure it was intentional. My benchmark for making the statement (blasphemy though it is) is the appearance of “naturalness, or real”. I think his is remarkable, though a bit beyond what I envision as natural.  However, his is the image I had in mind as a benchnark (minus the Ha of course) though I knew I did not have the data to come close to his.  I pushed mine a lot further than what I posted, revealing quite a bit more, but it looked....well, “pushed”.  Shoved actually.  Not enough data (or skill for that matter).  I felt like I was squeezing the last drop of juice out of the last lemon while making lemonade.  I wonder how much data one would need to have the hard to render details stand out clearly upon integration.   Another lemon, as it were.

Rodd

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A really great image.  

The star field is a bit overpowering for me. I understand it is a result of bringing out the reflection nebula.

There are always trade-offs and it depends on what you want to show in your image.

Chance would be a fine thing! from my perspective.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wornish said:

A really great image.  

The star field is a bit overpowering for me. I understand it is a result of bringing out the reflection nebula.

There are always trade-offs and it depends on what you want to show in your image.

Chance would be a fine thing! from my perspective.

 

 

Thanks Wornish.  You should see the image before I dealt with the stars.  The above image is virtually starless in comparison.  The fact of the matter is there are A LOT of stars in this region. An amazing number.  IMO Too much star control is as bad as too much noise control or too much sharpening.  

Rodd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Goran pointed out that too many stars were blue.  It did have a blue cast.  Here's my best effort at reducing the blue in the star field.

 

Image05e5f9.thumb.jpg.61094575b5ba4ed5a3b0d188b3fa26d6.jpg

 

 

Edited by Rodd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a comparison, Here is the Cacoon shot at 1,000mm TOA 130).    Remarkably similar star profiles and palette.  Too bad the FSQ had a collimation issue.  The scope is supposed to arrive today--we'll see if it has been fized.

545749873_TOACacoon.thumb.jpg.d3101a0f6589c244a9b7add046ca2705.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.