Fireworks Galaxy

[Rodd]

This is a reprocess of data collected with C11Edge.  I was shooting at high gain at the time, experimenting to see if I could increase signal in short subs (30 sec).  I was shooting without the reducer and was not guiding.  This is the result--a much better image than I came up with before by a large margin.  Blur Exterminator certainly helped, but also less aggressive processing.  I did not include Ha as the Ha channel was weak, and the red channel seems top have picked up the Ha regions pretty well.  Unfortunately I only collected 1.5 hours of Lum.  I used a Super luminance (LRGB subs), but more L would have really made a big difference I think.

C11Edge native with ASI 1600--9 hours of 30 sec subs LRGB

 

[Sunshine]

wonderful image! it's so detailed, especially those tight dust lanes circling the core, great work!

[ollypenrice]

What we see is wonderful. It's detailed, contrasty, colourful... bang on the money. I can't help wondering, though, if there might be faint stuff in your data which we are not seeing. Obviously, I can't know whether this is so or not.

Olly

[Neil_104]

That is a fantastic image for such a faint galaxy. Really encouraging that you achieved it with 30 second subs - I'm going to try re-imaging M104 this spring using 30 sec subs with my C6 at f/10 so as to minimise tracking issues. My previous effort was 60 second subs but the long focal length ended up blurring the fine details in the dust lane. I just need to settle in for the long-haul and get many hours of data as you have done here 🙂

 

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, Sunshine said:

wonderful image! it's so detailed, especially those tight dust lanes circling the core, great work!

Thanks Sunshine!

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, Neil_104 said:

That is a fantastic image for such a faint galaxy. Really encouraging that you achieved it with 30 second subs - I'm going to try re-imaging M104 this spring using 30 sec subs with my C6 at f/10 so as to minimise tracking issues. My previous effort was 60 second subs but the long focal length ended up blurring the fine details in the dust lane. I just need to settle in for the long-haul and get many hours of data as you have done here 🙂

 

Yes—the more subs you collect, the more you can remove inferior ones. If your shoot on a night of good seeing it will fall into place. 

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

What we see is wonderful. It's detailed, contrasty, colourful... bang on the money. I can't help wondering, though, if there might be faint stuff in your data which we are not seeing. Obviously, I can't know whether this is so or not.

Olly

Thanks Olly.  There is definitely faint stuff around this galaxy.  Not sure it’s in my data though. This is not exactly a “deep” image.  I am even wondering if the real faint stuff in background that I worked a bit to surprise is really there, or a product of an inferior sky.  I think there is dust around this galaxy, but I am not sure I picked it up.  

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

f there might be faint stuff in your data which we are not seeing.

I pushed the data a bit further.  The faint regions of the spiral arms can be seen a bit more clearly.  But I think I like the original better.  Balance is so important

[Neil_104]

Agreed. The quality of the background star field frames the galaxy much nicer in the original IMO. My own approach is to do as little processing as needed to achieve an image I can look at and appreciate into the future. And to certainly stop before it starts looking like one too many Photoshop filters has been used. Otherwise why not just paint in what you want to see and leave out the hours of work actually imaging the thing in the first place!

Less is more. Except when it comes to aperture of course 😄

[ollypenrice]

On 10/01/2023 at 23:30, Neil_104 said:

Agreed. The quality of the background star field frames the galaxy much nicer in the original IMO. My own approach is to do as little processing as needed to achieve an image I can look at and appreciate into the future. And to certainly stop before it starts looking like one too many Photoshop filters has been used. Otherwise why not just paint in what you want to see and leave out the hours of work actually imaging the thing in the first place!

Less is more. Except when it comes to aperture of course 😄

Extracting the most from the data and painting things in are absolutely unrelated activities. I agree, however, that it is better to leave a bit left unrevealed than to push beyond what the data have to give.

Olly

[Neil_104]

Agreed also. Wasn't suggesting they were.