Starless M16

[herne]

This is an ongoing project and by no means finished however being impatient I thought I'd have a quick play with the data captured so far (c. 7 hours worth of 2 min subs plus a few darks).  Just for kicks I also had a look at a starless version (below), something I haven't tried before, and I kind of like it.  It's not what I'd call natural looking but it has a certain drama (not sure if that's the right word) about it I think.  Perhaps once the project's finished I'll do with/without stars versions but it's certainly given me food for thought although I'm certainly in two minds about it - any thoughts?

For reference taken with a William Optics Z61ii, ZWO ASI 533MC Pro, Optolong L-Enhance filter.  Stacked in DSS, processed in Photoshop and Starnet++.

[tomato]

That has a very dramatic, brooding quality about it, and I think it has artistic merit. 
Personally although I now regularly extract the stars as part of the processing method, I will always put them back in albeit sometimes in a reduced form, as for me it isn’t an Astro image without them, as they are fundamental in shaping what we see.

Galaxy images certainly wouldn’t amount to much if we took the stars out.

[The Lazy Astronomer]

I agree, very dramatic! I normally prefer the hubble pallette for this object, but you've got great depth in the reds here - I like it. 

[ollypenrice]

The de-starring has worked well. Very well, in fact.  Personally I wouldn't publish a 'final' starless image, I don't think, but I use them all the time in my present processing because, as Tomato says, you can put the stars back at a fraction of the stretch given to the nebulae. Remember that, in amateur telescopes, stars would not exceed a single pixel without atmospheric blurring and other artifacts. I love the way that such de-starred/re-starred images can give that 'big telescope' look. (The bigger the telescope, the smaller the stars it will produce in images, all things being equal.)

Regarding your excellent Eagle, my suspicion is that it may be slightly black clipped. I may be wrong, but I'd want to hunt around in the bottom end of the signal for any faint stuff that might still be lurking there.

Olly

[herne]

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

The de-starring has worked well. Very well, in fact.  Personally I wouldn't publish a 'final' starless image, I don't think, but I use them all the time in my present processing because, as Tomato says, you can put the stars back at a fraction of the stretch given to the nebulae. Remember that, in amateur telescopes, stars would not exceed a single pixel without atmospheric blurring and other artifacts. I love the way that such de-starred/re-starred images can give that 'big telescope' look. (The bigger the telescope, the smaller the stars it will produce in images, all things being equal.)

Regarding your excellent Eagle, my suspicion is that it may be slightly black clipped. I may be wrong, but I'd want to hunt around in the bottom end of the signal for any faint stuff that might still be lurking there.

Olly

Yes agreed.  I think the de-starring / re-starring approach is definitely the way to go.

There probably is some more signal to squeeze out and will be interesting to try to get at it, especially once I add more data 👍.