Jump to content

Sketches

2-Panel Veil Nebula mosaic from @Roboscopes - is this OK?


old_eyes
 Share

Recommended Posts

2-panel mosaic of the Veil nebula complex. Data takes on Pier 14 @Roboscopes in Spain (Reduced Tak FSQ106, ASI 2600 MM Pro, unguided Paramount MX). 3.6 hrs Ha and 5.8 hrs O3 in 240 sec subs.

I may have pushed the nebula too far and reduced the stars too much. Interested in your opinions.

Veil_Sm3.thumb.jpg.3e6158625aa05ebd03609ac105068c61.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautifully framed, I would agree it looks slightly over stretched with the brightest parts of the nebula a bit blown out. In my opinion the dense star fields can detract from the nebula so some star reduction is beneficial, how much is down to personal preference, yours look OK to me.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tomato said:

Beautifully framed, I would agree it looks slightly over stretched with the brightest parts of the nebula a bit blown out. In my opinion the dense star fields can detract from the nebula so some star reduction is beneficial, how much is down to personal preference, yours look OK to me.

Yes, that was my fear. I think I will have another go and try to produce a softer image. I find the shift in what an image looks like as you switch from .xisf to .jpg for posting hard to predict (at least for me, I am always being taken by surprise!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, old_eyes said:

Yes, that was my fear. I think I will have another go and try to produce a softer image. I find the shift in what an image looks like as you switch from .xisf to .jpg for posting hard to predict (at least for me, I am always being taken by surprise!).

New version. A bit softer. I like this better.

Veil_Sm4.thumb.jpg.c9589995194bc65393618a0eb93f0260.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I prefer the second one, more structure is now visible in the nebulosity.

That’s an interesting comment you make about changes due to file format. I must admit that despite PI’s dire warnings I don’t use their file format, just fits, tiff and jpg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, tomato said:

Yes, I prefer the second one, more structure is now visible in the nebulosity.

That’s an interesting comment you make about changes due to file format. I must admit that despite PI’s dire warnings I don’t use their file format, just fits, tiff and jpg.

I find the fantastic range of the .xisf format give me greatest flexibility when processing (particularly in the early stages). The only issue is that when you need to reduce the bit depth of the image for presentation, there are always going to be some compromises as you compress the image. Maybe it is my lack of understanding of how the process works, but I am sometimes taken by surprise by the difference between how the image looks in pixinsight and how it appears from a .jpg in a standard image handling programme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.