NGC 3184

[Rodd]

I have been struggling with this image for a long time.  Never felt right.  Part of it was scale and part palette.  lately I have been in a galaxy mood, trying to decide if a 5" refractor really can yield satisfactory results on crops of medium small galaxies.  Any smaller than about this size and I don't think I would crop--though a nice wider field of view would be fine.  My goal these days is to achieve a respectable closer in shot.  Between Ursa Major, Canes Venatici and the Leo-Leo Minor regions, there are quite a number of galaxies in this size range.  It takes some effort, and quite a bit of data, but when conditions are decent and the Moon is not up, I think its OK.  I probably should throw the reducer on the scope and see if slightly more aggressive crops would yield the same results.  90% of the time, probably for my sky.

TOA 130, ASI 1600, about 27 hours.  Still not 100% convinced of the palette.  But the modification I think I need is not easy to apply

Red: 80 300 sec

Green: 56 300 sec

Blue: 58 300 sec

Lum: 92 300 sec

Ha: 40 300 sec

Quite an aggressive crop.  

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Rodd

[souls33k3r]

There's nothing wrong with this image mate. It's an absolute superb one. Plus I'm always amazed how stupidly round your stars are. Well done. 

[Rodd]

43 minutes ago, souls33k3r said:

There's nothing wrong with this image mate. It's an absolute superb one. Plus I'm always amazed how stupidly round your stars are. Well done. 

Thanks Souls.  

[ollypenrice]

I like it very much but think it's presented at a scale beyond one which the data will fully support. I'd accept a smaller galaxy on screen, with a reduced grain from the noise. I also wonder if it was worth stretching quite so hard. The outer regions, which are interesting, would still be visible and informative if they were left considerably closer to the background sky brightness and, as a result, would be smoother.

However, it is great when someone has the courage to go after the small targets like this and you have my hearty congratulations.

Olly

[HunterHarling]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

I'd accept a smaller galaxy on screen, with a reduced grain from the noise.

I agree. I'd like to see a larger field, perhaps with less stretch/ sharpening.

It is a great image though!

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I like it very much but think it's presented at a scale beyond one which the data will fully support. I'd accept a smaller galaxy on screen, with a reduced grain from the noise. I also wonder if it was worth stretching quite so hard. The outer regions, which are interesting, would still be visible and informative if they were left considerably closer to the background sky brightness and, as a result, would be smoother.

However, it is great when someone has the courage to go after the small targets like this and you have my hearty congratulations.

Olly

Thanks Olly.  Everything you said are the little dee Ed vials I have been struggling with all this time.    I agree.   If it weren’t so easy to cross that line!

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, HunterHarling said:

I agree. I'd like to see a larger field, perhaps with less stretch/ sharpening.

It is a great image though!

Thanks hunter.  I have a bunch of less cropped versions.  I was displaying the details that are hard to see when small.  But I agree

[alan potts]

As good as a capture as this is, and your are always top draw, I feel the red bits are just a tad too red. Only a little, I feel held back a bit will benefit the shot. Would be nice to see the full field as well though your scopes are such high quality one can crop. Love the little galaxy at 10 o'clock.

Alan 

[Rodd]

11 minutes ago, alan potts said:

As good as a capture as this is, and your are always top draw, I feel the red bits are just a tad too red. Only a little, I feel held back a bit will benefit the shot. Would be nice to see the full field as well though your scopes are such high quality one can crop. Love the little galaxy at 10 o'clock.

Alan 

The red bits are slipperly little devils--especially when they are this small.  I agree.  Here is a version, short of a full reprocess (I feel it coming on!) that may be a bit nicer

 

3 hours ago, HunterHarling said:

I agree. I'd like to see a larger field, perhaps with less stretch/ sharpening.

It is a great image though!

Here is a version that may be more to your liking.

 

5 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I like it very much but think it's presented at a scale beyond one which the data will fully support. I'd accept a smaller galaxy on screen, with a reduced grain from the noise. I also wonder if it was worth stretching quite so hard. The outer regions, which are interesting, would still be visible and informative if they were left considerably closer to the background sky brightness and, as a result, would be smoother.

However, it is great when someone has the courage to go after the small targets like this and you have my hearty congratulations.

Olly

Well put, all.  My flyby experiment failed.    Here is what I am calling my final version--until I reprocess.  I have to give it a bit more time for the ruts to smooth out though, otherwise my wagon will just follow the old path!  

 

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Much nicer I think, but personally I'd bring down the outer arms just a touch more.

[alan potts]

That is better Rodd, but I tend to agree with our friend above from Cornwall, lovely part of the world I lived in for 3 month, went to make my millions and came back without a pot, etc. I find this saturation of of object so so difficult. I am always looking not to but do, then on the final image still knock it back. I see some images on here that I need to wear sun-glasses to view, it is so difficult to remain just a bit above natural. I'm sure you said but which scope was that taken with Rodd.

Alan

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

Much nicer I think, but personally I'd bring down the outer arms just a touch more.

Thanks sir knight. Anymore and they will be gone. At least on my screens.  Now I think we are getting into the picking the smallest nits

[Rodd]

42 minutes ago, alan potts said:

That is better Rodd, but I tend to agree with our friend above from Cornwall, lovely part of the world I lived in for 3 month, went to make my millions and came back without a pot, etc. I find this saturation of of object so so difficult. I am always looking not to but do, then on the final image still knock it back. I see some images on here that I need to wear sun-glasses to view, it is so difficult to remain just a bit above natural. I'm sure you said but which scope was that taken with Rodd.

Alan

This is the TOA 130 and asi 1600.     

[Knight of Clear Skies]

It may depend on the screen setup. I've had to increase the brightness on mine as it's quite bight in here.

[Rodd]

12 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

It may depend on the screen setup. I've had to increase the brightness on mine as it's quite bight in here.

Definitely. I find great variation in screens

[alan potts]

13 hours ago, Rodd said:

Definitely. I find great variation in screens

Yes you could well have a point there about the screen. I am using  28 inch Dell screen (decent quality) which is not as good as the one in the obsey, that is aimed at graphic designers and may well be better. I just have all my screens set at normal settings, default if you like. No matter what screen your work is still of the highest order Rodd.

Alan

[Rodd]

12 hours ago, alan potts said:

Yes you could well have a point there about the screen. I am using  28 inch Dell screen (decent quality) which is not as good as the one in the obsey, that is aimed at graphic designers and may well be better. I just have all my screens set at normal settings, default if you like. No matter what screen your work is still of the highest order Rodd.

Alan

Thanks Alan!

[geoflewis]

Cracking image Rodd, the crop worked very well off that 5", but I do prefer the wider field view; it just looks more natural to me.

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, geoflewis said:

Cracking image Rodd, the crop worked very well off that 5", but I do prefer the wider field view; it just looks more natural to me.

Thanks Geof.  I was definitely to aggressive with the crop