M109 LRGB

[Rodd]

M109 is a huge galaxy--a trillion stars.  It's hard to believe we can image something 83 million light years away in such poor conditions.  This project took over 4 months--all of it frustrating.  I wanted to add Ha, but didn't have the patience to wait another month.  Not sure if M109 has appreciable Ha--I was not able to confirm this

C11Edge HD with OAG, .7s reducer, and ASI 1600--bin3

Lum-423 30 sec, Red - 115 120 sec, Green - 120 120 sec, Blue - 116 120 sec

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Rodd

[Rodd]

Photometric color calibration.  I think I like the regular CC above

 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Rodd

[Rodd]

I know I screwed this up--as usual.  But variations of screens and color calibration methods makes it hard to choose a course of action.  Here is the final.  Ended up the normal color calibration and less sharpening.  Also--bin2 instead of bin3

 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Rodd

[assouptro]

I like all three Rodd 

It’s really easy to get to a stage where you think you are finished and prematurely post only to see it on another screen and realise you aren’t seeing what you thought you had posted! 

really nice image, and such dedication! 
 

Thanks for sharing 

Bryan 

[Rodd]

6 hours ago, assouptro said:

I like all three Rodd 

It’s really easy to get to a stage where you think you are finished and prematurely post only to see it on another screen and realise you aren’t seeing what you thought you had posted! 

really nice image, and such dedication! 
 

Thanks for sharing 

Bryan 

Thanks Bryan. You describe my routine perfectly.  Part of the problem is I am so anxious to post, like a little kid running to show his mother the spotted newt he just caught.  It’s silly, for if j haven’t posted an image in 3 weeks or a month, what’s a few more hours, or days even.  

[tomato]

Great result on a galaxy that doesn’t seem to get much attention from imagers.

I also suffer terribly from the “I must post this now syndrome”. l think I should automatically defer from posting my first ‘final’ image as invariably I will produce  two or three more later on which I will deem to be better than the first one.

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, tomato said:

Great result on a galaxy that doesn’t seem to get much attention from imagers.

I also suffer terribly from the “I must post this now syndrome”. l think I should automatically defer from posting my first ‘final’ image as invariably I will produce  two or three more later on which I will deem to be better than the first one.

Thanks Tomato.  I made a rule awhile back that I wouldn’t post an image until 24 hours after I thought I was done.  I never was very good at following rules!

[Rodd]

I tipped over the paint can. It seems to be the popular choice these days.

[gorann]

All great images Rodd👍, maybe except the last one where you were not too kind to the stars...

[alan potts]

I prefer the lead photo, not a fan of in your face saturation, though having said that I often over do mine in an effort to cover up poor work.

Alan

[Rodd]

8 minutes ago, gorann said:

All great images Rodd👍, maybe except the last one where you were not too kind to the stars...

Thanks Goran--by the time I got to the last version I am surprised it wasn't filled with shot gun holes.  I fell off the wagon of multiple postings and ended up 2,000 feet down a ravine.  A major problem I have to solve is my processing screen looks very bright.  PI will say the background is .05/.05/.05 (similar to PS's 23/23/23), but it will look light gray.  So I reduce it.  By the time it looks good on the processing computer, it is almost pitch black on any other screen.  It is very frustrating.  On top of that, I have been looking at this miserable little patch of light for far too long, so I can't trust my eyes (or judgement).  Thank god my wife locked my sledge hammer and maul in the shed, or I would be out one laptop (and maybe a few scopes).  She is a wise woman.

[Rodd]

8 minutes ago, alan potts said:

I prefer the lead photo, not a fan of in your face saturation, though having said that I often over do mine in an effort to cover up poor work.

Alan

Thanks Alan--I agree.  To put things into perspective, there are...oh, lets see....,maybe 40 versions prior to the last one.  I am lucky it didn't end up chartreuse.  Its funny you should mention adding color to hide poor.......data (poor work can be revised, but when the data is poor, not much can be done).  I tried that approach with this target, never really feeling satisfied with the image.  It didn't work.  I would collect a bunch more data but I am not sure that would work either. 15 hours should be sufficient, and binned 2x2 it is really like 120 hours if you buy into the 4x rule (I don't).  Then again, I never collected 120 hours of data.  But if I did collect 120 hours of data and it ended up looking like this data set, I would turn chartreuse.