Jellyfish Nebula SHO - not great

[Tommohawk]

Hi all. I was having a bit of a sort out of old data partly to clear some space on the hard drive and came across lots of Veil Nebula and Jellyfish nebula stuff.  I spent ages processing the Veil and was just about to post it when I realised I'd already processed it in a different folder, and posted the result here 12 months back. Out of interest the second effort was no better!

Anyhow, the Jellyfish gave me grief when I tried to process previously and I abandoned it - but thought I'd give it another go before scrubbing the data. I think this is my most tricksy target to date - but then I say that about all of them!

Added some Ha to the SII and OIII, and tried to avoid stretching the stars but not a great result. I ran it through Starnet which only served to highlight just how noisy the background is, plus big artefacts on Propus and Tejat, so havent posted that. Theres quite a lot of subs - but somehow not much detail. I tihnk the main issue is I've stretched the OIII to blazes which has make it all a bit blotchy.

Ha 92x300secs, OIII 75x300sec, SII54x300sec, ASI1600cool at -20, Astropixel processor + PS. I think this was undithered.

Happy to hear any thoughts!

 

[carastro]

I find this a difficult target to get a decent result on.  I think you have done well.

Carole 

[MartinB]

I sometimes think of processing as taking a long walk into the trees so that we can no longer see the wood.  If you go hunting for artefacts and processing "failings" you will find them, even in Hubble images.  Take a step back and have a look at the image that you have created.  It's great, not my favourite colour scheme but that is immaterial.  One thing I do look for in  jellyfish images is the faint wisps of OIII around the fringes and these are showing very nicely.  There is no need for you to apologise for this image, it's a cracker!

[Tommohawk]

On 18/01/2021 at 11:49, carastro said:

I find this a difficult target to get a decent result on.  I think you have done well.

Carole 

Hi Carole - hope you're keeping well and thanks for your positive comment. Actually having left it a few days it looks better! I guess by the time I'd spent hours squinting at it and generally prodding the data around I just got a bit cheesed off with it.

4 hours ago, MartinB said:

I sometimes think of processing as taking a long walk into the trees so that we can no longer see the wood.  If you go hunting for artefacts and processing "failings" you will find them, even in Hubble images.  Take a step back and have a look at the image that you have created.  It's great, not my favourite colour scheme but that is immaterial.  One thing I do look for in  jellyfish images is the faint wisps of OIII around the fringes and these are showing very nicely.  There is no need for you to apologise for this image, it's a cracker!

   Thanks Martin you're too kind! I have to be honest I like working with NB and whilst I know its not everyone's cup of tea, I quite like the palette. TBH part of the reason I've favoured SHO is because I've been disappointed with my LRGB images. But I've sorted out some issues with that, so hopefully will get back to some more conventional colour work soon - skies permitting!

BTW I watched your SGL night time landscape talk on catch up and really enjoyed it - lots of nice ideas, thanks for sharing!

And thanks all for the other likes too!

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Tommohawk

[astro mick]

Nothing wrong with that Tom.

Mick.