M13

[Rodd]

I fianlly got this data to a balance point.  It has swung like a pendulumn for many months.  The challange for me was to resolve the core, retain color, but also keep the natural look of a globular cluster as seen in an eyepiece.  It is amazing how small changes can have major impact on teh appearance of the image.  I think saturation might still be too high, in fact I am certain of it.  But who wants to look at a white ball of stars?  A little heavy (emphasis on little)on the color in globulars is OK IMO, as it provides for a deeper look at these astonishing objects--provides more data than the eye can typically see,   This image is one of only several that I took with the  C11Edge native using 30 sec unguided exposures.  I have since installed an OAG, and an thankfull to not have to fill up my available storage in half a night.   I must say, though, that each of the unguided, short sub images came out well.  Since I have corrected my PA to 0.3' using the PHD2 guide assistant tool, I am considering trying unguided again.  Now I should be able to take 120 sec broadband and maybe even 300 sec narrowban subs.  Not sure how permanent the PA will be though.  getting it to .3 took a couple of hours.

C11Edge, f2,800mm, ASI 1600, 4.41 hours of 30 sec sibs RGB

[fwm891]

@RoddSuperb rendition Rodd

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, fwm891 said:

@RoddSuperb rendition Rodd

Thanks Francis

[Sunshine]

Beautiful, look at all those stars!

[Rodd]

42 minutes ago, Sunshine said:

Beautiful, look at all those stars!

Thanks Sunshine

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, Sunshine said:

Beautiful, look at all those stars!

Thanks Sunshine

[Rodd]

Sorry. This was posted in the wrong section.  Should be in deep sky.  Maybe SGL can move it?

[estwing]

Can we have this moved into the right section pls Mods

[jetstream]

2 hours ago, estwing said:

Can we have this moved into the right section pls Mods

No matter how excellent an image is of this object - it does not compare to the visual view through a large dob, IMHO.

[Rodd]

15 minutes ago, jetstream said:

No matter how excellent an image is of this object - it does not compare to the visual view through a large dob, IMHO.

Your right, it doesnt compare becuase it is not teh same thinbg--apples and oranges.  You must consider the location.  At my location, a visual image of this with a large dob would be pretty horrible.  I know, I looked at it with a 14": scope.  A camera collects light over 5-10-15-20 hours.  If collected well and processed well, the CCD/CMOS image will beat the visual image in every way but one--the thrill of looking at something in real life.  Its not a matter of quality, its a matter of inspriration.  Visually no stars can be detected in the core, and the image contains far less data--virtually no color.    You may enjoy the experience more, but if you were to take a snapshot of the view through teh eyepiece - say a 10 sec exposure (which would be way better than what your eye registers in a few seconds) and compare it to a long duration image, there would not be much contest.  Now--if processing is poor--that changes things.  

But this is a meaningless comparison.  This image was posted by mistake in this section.  

Edited October 25, 2021 by Rodd

[Stu]

On 23/10/2021 at 03:21, Rodd said:

Sorry. This was posted in the wrong section.  Should be in deep sky.  Maybe SGL can move it?

Done 👍

[jetstream]

2 minutes ago, Rodd said:

If collected well and processed well, the CCD/CMOS image will beat the visual image in every way but one--the thrill of looking at something in real life. 

Your image is superb Rodd 👍

I was talking about the "look" of M13 through the scope including the shape effect of "Herschels Hairs."  Combine this with the "propeller" standing out in contrast with the mass of stars and you have a visual that, so far, Ive not seen represented in images.

This comment is not a criticism of your image.

[Rodd]

17 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Your image is superb Rodd 👍

I was talking about the "look" of M13 through the scope including the shape effect of "Herschels Hairs."  Combine this with the "propeller" standing out in contrast with the mass of stars and you have a visual that, so far, Ive not seen represented in images.

This comment is not a criticism of your image.

What are Herscels Hairs?

[jetstream]

The little star trails off the main body, like in this sketch.

Edited October 26, 2021 by jetstream

[Rodd]

21 minutes ago, jetstream said:

The little star trails off the mail body, like in this sketch.

I see--they are there in the images--its just that so much more of the cluster is resolved that they get drowned out.  They are located in a dense star field so they can't be easilly identified.    Nice sketch BTW,  I miss visual observing.  I tried sketching a few times, but so few objects are visible from my house that I gave up.  That was a time when I had to set everything up each night--including a 14" scope on a fork mount  (the OTA and forks could not be separated)--it was a beast.  Now, with a semi-permanent setup, it would probably be easier to get excited about it.  I wish they would invent a system where one could flip a switch and go from camera to eyepiece without having to switch out the instruments and change focus point.  Since my images are invariably collected over many nights, and I am always in the middle of an image--I can't get myself to remove the camera and switch to visual.  But you are right--there is nothing like really looking at Saturn--or Jupiter, or the Moon (thats about all I could see really).  No image can comnpare to looking at the real thing.  Very much like the Grand Canyon.  No image can do it justice (short of a IMAX movie)

[estwing]

21 hours ago, jetstream said:

No matter how excellent an image is of this object - it does not compare to the visual view through a large dob, IMHO.

And that's why we love what we do.

[Rodd]

On 25/10/2021 at 09:43, jetstream said:

he little star trails off the mail body, like in this sketch.

Here is the image with less brightness--the hairs are starting to show.  This is a much closer in shot it seems than your scetch, unless that is an illusion.  I could get them better, but I need to start from scratch.  This is just a quick tweak

 

[DaveS]

Love these M13 images Rodd. They've inspired me to go and have another look at the latest data set from my ODK 12 rig, but so far cannot come close.

[Rodd]

please delete-double post

Edited October 26, 2021 by Rodd

[Rodd]

Thanks Dave.  The key for me was short subs (and lots of them).  Then again, I wasn't guiding, so short subs were required.  Fortunately GCs are fairly bright.

[teoria_del_big_bang]

Superb 🙂 

Steve

[jetstream]

3 hours ago, Rodd said:

This is a much closer in shot it seems than your scetch

Excellent!

I must say that the sketcher was member Qualia, not me and is the best Ive seen. My 24" drowns out the star trails but the 10" is good, the 15" is superb.

Edited October 26, 2021 by jetstream

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Superb 🙂 

Steve

Thanks Steve.

[Rodd]

19 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Excellent!

I must say that the sketcher was member Qualia, not me and is the best Ive seen. My 24" drowns out the star trails but the 10" is good, the 15" is superb.

Quite a collection you have.  I would give much to image thriough a 24" scope!

[jetstream]

59 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Quite a collection you have.  I would give much to image thriough a 24" scope!

The 24" is f4.1 with a mirror from Terry Ostahowski, same as the 15" (f4.8)in vg Astrosystems structures. These structures maximize contrast in many ways and I'm lucky to observe from 21.8 ish mag skies in NW Ontario. Hard to beat these USA made optics and structures.

Edited October 26, 2021 by jetstream