IC 342-Hidden Galaxy revisited

[Rodd]

I have been struggling with IC 342--struggling to achieve a realistic appearance.  I think my background was too dark and the galaxy too prominent, which are my usual mistakes.  A simple tweak may have fixed that though.  Opinions welcomed.  My goal is to represent the galaxy faithfully, which to me means how it would appear in an eyepiece viewed through Hubble--well, that may not be right--but perhaps a archetypal eyepiece in a perfect world.  Its hard to explain.  Anyway--here is my before  and after.  My thinking was to bring out more of the dust that obscures this galaxy, the reason for the nom de plume.  This meant lifting the dust a bit both around and in front of the galaxy without lifting the galaxy itself.  I have limited tools at my disposal at present--so the galaxy was lifted a bit as well-you might notice that the outer reaches of the galaxy are, in fact, lifted a bit more--and it is, in fact brighter.   But I think the difference, or the ratio, between the background and the galaxy is less, with more background dust visible.  Maybe I am falling prey to my own wishful thinking.....judging one's own rationality is trickier than performing astrophotography (well).  have I succeeded?  I know the disc features in #2 are not as sharp...which normally would make me prefer #1.  But, in this case, I feel it to be more "correct".  I think isolating teh disc and noching down the brightness is in order still--but I do not have access to that tool set.  Later I will try.  meanwhile...??

The old

 

The new

 

[Kinch]

In truth Rodd....the 1st was fine - though I can see what you achieved with revisiting it. Had it been mine....I doubt that I would have touched it. Either one gets my vote.

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, Kinch said:

In truth Rodd....the 1st was fine - though I can see what you achieved with revisiting it. Had it been mine....I doubt that I would have touched it. Either one gets my vote.

Thanks Kinch.  I tend to get a bit crazy about perfecting my images.  A great part of this, I am sure, is borne from the fact that I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO!😆  A good stretch of clear sky would no doubt cure me of my affliction (or at least force it into remission!)

Rodd

[almcl]

Both stunning images, but on my monitor at least, the second does show a little bit more detail in the outlying regions of the galaxy.

And than you for posting these and the original  - it inspired me to have a go at this very interesting (and rather different) target.

[geoflewis]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

I think the difference, or the ratio, between the background and the galaxy is less, with more background dust visible

Yes, definitely Rodd. The original was great, but I agree the subtle differences in V2 were worthwhile.

[Rodd]

2 minutes ago, almcl said:

Both stunning images, but on my monitor at least, the second does show a little bit more detail in the outlying regions of the galaxy.

And than you for posting these and the original  - it inspired me to have a go at this very interesting (and rather different) target.

Thanks!..definitely have a go.  its a fun project.  Good luck!

Rodd

Edited March 4, 2020 by Rodd

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, geoflewis said:

Yes, definitely Rodd. The original was great, but I agree the subtle differences in V2 were worthwhile.

Thanks Geof...it is nice to learn one is not crazy! (or at least not so crazy!) 

Rodd

[Adam J]

One literally looks better on one of my monitors and the other looks better on the other monitor. Probably entiearly due to the background being slightly brighter in the second image. 

Between the two, I think I like the original more. 

Adam 

[Rodd]

Ha Ha--me too--but I think the second is more accurate!  There is copious milky way dust and gas in this region.

Rodd