NGC 2403 Inquiry

[Rodd]

I rfrianlly managed to capture blue with the TOA 130.  I had previously posted a version using FSQ 106 blue data.  There is a significant improvement to the immage, in resolution and in color.  In fact, the color maybe too much.  That is my inquiry.  The first image is nom palette adhustments - this is the palette after color calibration.  I did not change the palette at all through processing.  Changes in dynamic ranfge have an effect on the palette, but that is just teh way it is.  The second image is identical to the first, but I bumped the saturation down just a bit in the galaxy (not the stars).

So, is the hyper blue of the first image better, or was I right to tame the color a bit in the second.  Should I tame it further? A second question pertains to the core - it lacks the reddish/yellowish glow that I expected.  I have a version where I add it by bumping red and green a bit, but that is a horse of a different color, and represents a manipulated palette.  If its correct, I will consider it, but it might not be.  Hard to say

EDIT: To complicate things, I reprocessed the image and did a manual color calibration and wow is it different.  The photometric color calibration made it hyper blue.  The manual one seems n=better to me--its the third version.

TOA 130 with .99x flattener and ASI 1600.  HDR image using 120 sec and 10 sec subs.  About 32 Hours

Full Color

 

Slightly reduced saturation

Manual Color Calibration

 

Edited March 5 by Rodd

[Rodd]

A vpretty simple question--is it too blue or is that OK. Opinions are like weeds, everybody has them.  Better to share when asks then when its not desired.  I have always considerd this forum a good place for questions.  Thats how we learn. No longer.  Its not worth the effort.  

[saac]

I think it really depends on what you are aiming for Rodd, colour saturation often is such a personal judgement call. I tend to favour less strong saturation so I am drawn to your last image.  For what it is worth I think that is a cracking image that does justice to your integration time. 

Jim 

[Rodd]

15 minutes ago, saac said:

I think it really depends on what you are aiming for Rodd, colour saturation often is such a personal judgement call. I tend to favour less strong saturation so I am drawn to your last image.  For what it is worth I think that is a cracking image that does justice to your integration time. 

Jim 

Thanks, Jim.  I tend to agree. I was befuddled when PIs photometric color calibration tool resulted in the hyper blue version. The manual CC tool rendered the less blue.  That’s a huge difference. Ad far as the image goes, I am ok with the core and disc. If seeing had been good, I suppose it would be pretty decent. The problem I have is the outer arms. 32 hours is on the long side, and the arms are barely visible and it took me about 50 tries to accomplish it. That means my sky just does not support what I want to do. It’s sad, but I am questioning whether I wish to continue; at least not from CT.  I am working on a move to Australia. Maybe then I will find what I seek. For the record, I have finally processed this image to my satisfaction.  Here is the final version: a bit better. I think I have squeezed all I can out of the data

[saac]

Oh yes,  I do like that last one, that is what I would aim for. I was wondering if your total time would allow more detail to be pulled out and I think you have the balance right .  Do you use SCNR after the photometric colour calibration. I find that it will sometimes knock the saturation down a bit although I think it is mainly aimed at removing the greener tint.  Anyway I think you have a gorgeous image there, reflecting very much the time and effort invested. 

Jim 

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, saac said:

Oh yes,  I do like that last one, that is what I would aim for. I was wondering if your total time would allow more detail to be pulled out and I think you have the balance right .  Do you use SCNR after the photometric colour calibration. I find that it will sometimes knock the saturation down a bit although I think it is mainly aimed at removing the greener tint.  Anyway I think you have a gorgeous image there, reflecting very much the time and effort invested. 

Jim 

I use scnr about every image. Mostly for green removal.  For broadband images, I try not to manipulate the palette much. I will occasionally bump it up if color is almost lacking, and for stars.  I think most color problems gif me are dud to my sky. 

[Rodd]

I managed to pull out more of the outer arms and glow