Dancing in the Moonlight

[roundycat]

It may have looked like that to the neighbours but really I was just trying to stay upright on a frozen, waterlogged lawn walking to the obs and back. After the monsoon season clear nights are not to be ignored even if there is a near full moon about. Having set up my TMB in anticipation of galaxy season I had a shot at M81 and M101 before the high mist came in and made imaging impossible. Judging by the two results I should have stayed with M81 as it came out a lot better.

TMB 152, ST10XME, SBIG filters (Lm only) and 12x2 minute subs. Normal calibration in Maxim and thuggery in PS.

Dennis

[Jeff RV]

Nice one Dennis, Very sharp with lots of detail.

Jeff.

[jonbarr87]

What is the forground star at the three oclock position "in" the core?

Beautiful detail in that one!

[roundycat]

ok, ok it's a fair cop! That odd looking star is one that was overlooked in my usual rush to process. I took out a star layer twice and used a big high pass filter twice and somewhere in there the star layer ended up at not quite the right contrast everywhere. I could doubtless repair it but then I have a good book to read............

Dennis

[brendant]

Lovely detail Dennis.

Brendan

[jamesFSO]

lovely.......

[philj]

That is a nice image, a lovely galaxy well rendered sharp detail and contrast

Philj

[Psychobilly]

Quite exquisite

Billy...

[centroid]

That's a nice result Dennis.

How did you keep the moonlight out of the image, Ha filter ?

Dave

[Psychobilly]

or a HaHa ... its my secert and I'm not telling filter

Sorry couldn't resist....

[Tim]

Great image Dennis.

Is that really only 24 mins?????? That's amazing if so, I especially like the clarity on the dust lanes.

Just out of curiosity, as I have been 'doing' this one myself, although at a much wider FOV, did the two close stars bottom right appear seperated before stretching? My dilemma is this: I know that it is a pair, on the unstretched image it is a pair, but when the faint stuff is pulled out, they start to merge. So, would it be 'cheating' to replace them with two similar size stars to make the seperation evident? I am always careful to put stars back if ever they are obscured by a dust mote, or when touching up i'll put them back, so would it be any different to 'manufacture' the seperation between those two?? Answers on a post card please......

Cheers

TJ

[roundycat]

Thanks guys, some answers seem to be required. Dave, this was 24m straight Luminance with an SBIG clear filter. The Moon was in effect 'behind me' at the time so I ignored it. I took some lovely flats at the time and they worked a treat, it all helps. Tonight I have collected 4 hours of RGB before the moon rose so there might be an improvement on the horizon.

TJ, the double at the bottom is more obviously a double in the unstretched original. As soon as you start to stretch the data, even if you keep the white point high, those two stars start to merge. They are too close for Maxim's bloom removal tool to separate. Like you I wonder about 'painting' them in after all the processing. I might do that with my colour version but it would look wrong if I paint them in as clear, round stars when they are almost like a figure 8 blob.

As said before, I am after pretty pictures so a bit of manipulation is in order. I will come clean if anyone asks about it!!

Dennis