Cacoon Nebula

[Rodd]

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

 

 

[geoflewis]

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

[Rodd]

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

[Rodd]

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.

 

 

 

 

[Rodd]

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.

 

[ollypenrice]

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

[Rodd]

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

[wornish]

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.

 

 

[Rodd]

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

[Rodd]

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.

 

 

 

[Rodd]

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.