M42 - Ha (HDR Test)

[Rodd]

I managed to combine 300 sec subs and 5 sec subs.  42 300 sec and 277 5 sec.  A little HDR compression and the core was revealed--4 tiny squares.  I combined the compressed image with a non compressed to make it subtler and less drastic.  I think its a good balance.  I included a more aggressive version as well as I can never make up my mind.Looking forward to adding the LRGB.  Just for kicks I added a cropped core region upsampled so the trapezium is visible.  I guess that's one way to check focus

 

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Rodd

[ollypenrice]

That's a really great job, Rodd. Lovely.

Ha is a mixed blessing in a broadband M42, I feel. The fact is that some features are notably absent in Ha, especially this curious 'finger' poking out of a hole. It's not entirely absent in Ha but it has lost much of its definition.

The other thing about the Ha in the surrounding region is that it mirrors the brown dusty stuff and I think that it's more natural to present this as brown dust rather than in the emphasized red of Ha. My own feeling was to include the Ha more lightly than I would usually do but I'll be interested to see how you feel about it.

Olly

 

[wimvb]

In my opinion, M42 is about the drama and the contrasts. I like the aggressive version. But as Olly remarked, broadband colour does a lot to lift the details. It's these details that add to the drama.

Hopefully we get to see a colour version of your image.

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

The other thing about the Ha in the surrounding region is that it mirrors the brown dusty stuff and I think that it's more natural to present this as brown dust rather than in the emphasized red of Ha. My own feeling was to include the Ha more lightly than I would usually do but I'll be interested to see how you feel about it.

Thanks Olly--your image looks in typical fashion, amazing.  What scope did you use for that?  Your stars are always just right.  I don't have much experience with M42.  I shot this during a bright Moon in similar fashion one shoots the Horsehead in Ha--The horsehead makes a great mono Ha image.  M42, not so much.  Its OK, but RGB is my preferred look.  I think your right about the dust--adding Ha to the nebula looks good if done with a light hand.  I get mixed results when I try adding Ha to nebula, so we'll see.  I have the Ha, so hopefully I will get some decent nights over the next month or so for shooting broad band.

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, wimvb said:

Hopefully we get to see a colour version of your image.

Thanks Wim.  I hope so, though it is a big project to work on.  We'll see if I have the fortitude to take it on.

[ollypenrice]

26 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Thanks Olly--your image looks in typical fashion, amazing.  What scope did you use for that?  Your stars are always just right.  I don't have much experience with M42.  I shot this during a bright Moon in similar fashion one shoots the Horsehead in Ha--The horsehead makes a great mono Ha image.  M42, not so much.  Its OK, but RGB is my preferred look.  I think your right about the dust--adding Ha to the nebula looks good if done with a light hand.  I get mixed results when I try adding Ha to nebula, so we'll see.  I have the Ha, so hopefully I will get some decent nights over the next month or so for shooting broad band.

Mine was with TEC140 and Atik 11000, Rodd.

Olly

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Mine was with TEC140 and Atik 11000, Rodd.

Olly

I guess I have to refrain from zooming way in--or cropping stand alone images from FSQ and ASI 1600 data.  The smallest stars are simple squares.  I guess this is why bigger pixels would be advantageous with the FSQ.  I don't know how it happened but I have a misconception that a small pixel scale is needed for fine detail.  This is obviously not the case as I have seen images taken at 3, 4 and even 5 arcsec/pix that show beautiful detail.  You always said that the 11000 was a great camera for the FSQ.  Now I see why.  Makes me wonder if upgrading to the 2600 is really my best option.  The problem is I have multiple scopes and not enough money to get a dedicated camera for each one.  But if big pixels are good for the FSQ--then the camera should be good for the other scopes as well.  It just flies in the face of theory.  Big pixels with short focal length.  All I know is I want round stars--small as well, but round...like yours.