M31

[smr]

Whilst on Holiday last week I managed to get 5 hours of data on M31.

The subs consisted of 3, 4 and 5 minutes.

Gear used in sig, but as I was imaging from Bortle 4 skies near the coast I didn't use a Light Pollution filter.

Processed in Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom.

Edited August 13, 2019 by smr

[smr]

I think I prefer this one, the colours are a bit more subtle. What do you think?

[Adreneline]

I agree! Nice framing too.

[smr]

1 hour ago, Adreneline said:

I agree! Nice framing too.

Thank you.

[tooth_dr]

Both are nice versions, but I think the second has the edge. Great job 👍🏼

[DaveS]

Yes, nicely framed. I think I prefer the second version, the core stars look too magenta in the first. Just my humble opinion of course.

[smr]

On 14/08/2019 at 18:40, tooth_dr said:

Both are nice versions, but I think the second has the edge. Great job 👍🏼

Thanks very much.

On 14/08/2019 at 18:53, DaveS said:

Yes, nicely framed. I think I prefer the second version, the core stars look too magenta in the first. Just my humble opinion of course.

Thanks very much. 

[Alien 13]

Very nice image but I am confused as none of the kit in your sig would give that field of view unless heavily cropped.... I would much prefer the whole frame.

Alan

[smr]

14 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

Very nice image but I am confused as none of the kit in your sig would give that field of view unless heavily cropped.... I would much prefer the whole frame.

Alan

Thanks, yes it has been cropped in quite a bit.

[Daniel-K]

i like the 2nd but loose the added diffraction spike IMHO 

[DaveS]

Yes, have to agree. Diffraction spikes are acceptable (Inevitable) with spiders, but shouldn't, IMHO, be added where none exist in the original data.

[smr]

Thanks for the feedback. Currently sitting on top of reddit r/astrophotography with 1.2k uovotes in 13 hours. Very happy with that!

[Stub Mandrel]

Number 2, the first one lacks contrast.