LDN1147

[ollypenrice]

Again, Paul Kummer drove the scope and gave me a pre-processed image for post-processing. RASA8/Avalon Linear/ASI2600MC. About 3 hours per panel. Really sweet data to work on. DBE, BXT and SCNR green in Pixinsight, then over to lovely Photoshop.  I see @gorann has taken this field over to join the Iris for a great resut. Since I have an Iris to Ghost an extension would seem obvious. There's a small gap to fill in.

I love it when you get these little bonus galaxies like NGC6951. It's only 3.19 arcmins across but shows nice detail. Distance is about 75 million LY.

Olly

[old_eyes]

Another super image Olly. How many panels? Most planetarium software and star charts are not good on the LDN and LBN catalogues (unless you know of one 🙂).

The bonus galaxies in these images are fun too.

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, old_eyes said:

Another super image Olly. How many panels? Most planetarium software and star charts are not good on the LDN and LBN catalogues (unless you know of one 🙂).

The bonus galaxies in these images are fun too.

2 panels, here. I don't have a good planetarium for these. It would be good to find one.

Olly

[old_eyes]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

2 panels, here. I don't have a good planetarium for these. It would be good to find one.

Olly

Yes, it is a nuisance. New cameras and telescope systems mean that we amateurs can tackle these fascinating fainter, bigger and more elusive targets. The information systems have not yet caught up with our needs. Few of them are in Stellarium or Telescopius, so framing and making mosaics is hit and miss.

[glafnazur]

Cracking image Olly. Amazing detail in that little galaxy 👍

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Magnificent stuff!

[ollypenrice]

I'm always fearful of  stretching dark nebulae so hard that they look backlit. However, I decided I'd been too cautious on this one. The data had no problem with going a bit brighter. OK? Too much?

Olly

[fwm891]

I think you could lift it a little more there's lots of stuff there sitting at the borders of visible/darkness and the extra in the brighter areas will do no harm. My TP's worth.

Great imaging Olly 🙂

[gorann]

12 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I'm always fearful of  stretching dark nebulae so hard that they look backlit. However, I decided I'd been too cautious on this one. The data had no problem with going a bit brighter. OK? Too much?

Olly

Getting better and better Olly! Not sure why you think "back lit" is a problem. My feeling is that they were darker in the old days just because we did not have such sensitive scopes and cameras. Obviously there are stars behind them that will illuminate the dust. Let's leave the dark ages and liberate the nebulosity!

Edited March 15, 2023 by gorann

[wimvb]

On 14/03/2023 at 12:47, old_eyes said:

Most planetarium software and star charts are not good on the LDN and LBN catalogues (unless you know of one 🙂).

Lynd's Dark Nebulae are listed in Kstars, but as yet I have not found the LBN catalogue. I also have no idea how complete the list is. It should also be possible to import a catalog from eg the Vizier database, although I have never tried this.

Unfortunately Aladin doesn't list labels by default, and is not intuitive to use.

https://aladin.cds.unistra.fr/AladinLite/?target=20 40 32.000%2B67 20 42.00&fov=5.55&survey=CDS%2FP%2FDSS2%2Fcolor

Great image, Olly and Paul.

[ollypenrice]

9 hours ago, gorann said:

Getting better and better Olly! Not sure why you think "back lit" is a problem. My feeling is that they were darker in the old days just because we did not have such sensitive scopes and cameras. Obviously there are stars behind them that will illuminate the dust. Let's leave the dark ages and liberate the nebulosity!

I say 'backlit' because, under a very hard stretch, the nebulosity of medium brightness outshines the densest, darkest dust to such an extent that my eye-brain thinks the light source must be behind the object. If the source were also in front of it (as I think it usually is, being starlight from several sources) the darkest parts would also be illuminated. Very highly stretched dark nebulae make beautiful images, no doubt about that, but I think they risk becoming deceptive. I may be entirely wrong about the physics, here, in which case I'll stretch away with the best of 'em!

Olly