M94 - Challenging processing

[Clarkey]

There won't be any awards for this one but I thought I would put this on the forum for any guidance. This is M94 which I took a couple of months ago. I have processed it on multiple occasions but really struggled to get a good background the the outer 'glow' Any ideas on improving would be appreciated.

Imaged over 2 nights with an RC8 @ F8 with a ZWO 1600mm pro in LRGB. L=264 mins, R=122 mins, G=88 mins and B=76 mins giving just over 9 hours in total. Seeing was not great and I have had to really stretch some areas to get a reasonable output. But for 9 hours I would expect better.

[tomato]

I've never imaged this galaxy so I have nothing I can compare it to directly, but  looking at published images, I think getting definition in the outer limbs on this galaxy is quite challenging. Interestingly you have good detail in the brightest core region but less so as you move out. I wonder if there was some thin cloud affecting the sky transparency? Were your FWHM numbers on the subs poorer than  average?

[wornish]

I downloaded your jpg and had a quick play in PS.  (I am no expert)

I used the Camera Raw Filter to adjust Clarity, DeHaze and the adjusted the curve settings for the darks and Shadows.

 

Not sure its what you were hoping for but there is certainly more detail in the outer glow area now.  Would get a lot more if starting with the original files.  The data is definitely there!  If you willing to share all the source files on dropbox I would be happy to give it a go.

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by wornish

[Laurieast]

Raised the dark point in PS levels then gave it more of an S curve in curves. There is more of a hint of details going on in the outer lower part.

 

[Clarkey]

6 hours ago, tomato said:

I wonder if there was some thin cloud affecting the sky transparency? Were your FWHM numbers on the subs poorer than  average?

You might be right about cloud. The FWHM was not brilliant. As I normally image while tucked up in bed, I don't see what goes on.......

 

@Laurieast and @wornish - Thanks for your input and attempts to improve. There is certainly more in the inner areas,  but the outer 'glow' is not too good. Also, both images are quite badly black clipped. I have done similar to some areas of the image and it is better, but I still do not like the outer. I'll keep trying and see if I can get it better. It might just be I need some more integration time next season.

 

New - slightly improved version:

 

[wimvb]

3 hours ago, Clarkey said:

You might be right about cloud. The FWHM was not brilliant. As I normally image while tucked up in bed, I don't see what goes on.......

 

@Laurieast and @wornish - Thanks for your input and attempts to improve. There is certainly more in the inner areas,  but the outer 'glow' is not too good. Also, both images are quite badly black clipped. I have done similar to some areas of the image and it is better, but I still do not like the outer. I'll keep trying and see if I can get it better. It might just be I need some more integration time next season.

 

New - slightly improved version:

 

Version 1 for me. The outer ring is very weak, and 9 hours isn't that much. I spent 15 hours on this target under Bortle 5 skies, and barely managed to isolate the ring from the background

https://www.astrobin.com/hqagp6/E/

[Clarkey]

1 hour ago, wimvb said:

Version 1 for me

I think you are right. Did not look so black on my other monitor.

Looking at your image I definitely need some more time on this target, especially at F8.