IC 342

[Rodd]

It’s amazing what a little tweak can do for an image. There were several tweaks in this case. I’m starting to see a bit of depth in the galaxy structures.  I botched the background. I know. A tad too dark. 
 

TOA 130 with asi 1600. About 33 hours HaLRGB

[TiffsAndAstro]

Don't think you botched the background at all this looks great.

[AstroMuni]

Wowsers 😍

[tomato]

Tremendous detail right to the core.👍🏼

[Earl]

I think the background is just a touch to smooth thats all

[ollypenrice]

Wow, a feisty image, Rodd, with lots to say for itself. Very impressive indeed, the main spiral looking more contrasty and dramatic than we usually see.

One of your best in my view.

Olly

[TiffsAndAstro]

1 hour ago, Earl said:

I think the background is just a touch to smooth thats all

Wish my backgrounds were a touch to smooth like this

[Earl]

1 hour ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

Wish my backgrounds were a touch to smooth like this

its a  very fine balancing act, I never got it right

 

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

Don't think you botched the background at all this looks great.

Thanks Tiff.  I admit it's hard to tell at times since each screen is different.  

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, AstroMuni said:

Wowsers 😍

Thanks, Pramod!

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, tomato said:

Tremendous detail right to the core.👍🏼

Thanks Tamate (eliminates the need for debate!).  

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, Earl said:

I think the background is just a touch to smooth thats all

Wow--THAT was not on my radar.  Perhaps you are right.  I tend to think of background in terms of brightness values (in PI its .07 or so).  Like a dope, I forgot to measure it!

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Wow, a feisty image, Rodd, with lots to say for itself. Very impressive indeed, the main spiral looking more contrasty and dramatic than we usually see.

One of your best in my view.

Olly

Wow--thanks, Olly. I'd like to capture this one with the C11Edge.  Despite having obtained that scope for galaxies, it seems to be always in its case during galaxy season.  I think the main reason is the number of imaging days I get and the length of time it takes me to collect data for a given image.  

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

Wish my backgrounds were a touch to smooth like this

The 32 hours didn't hurt, though even with lots of integration I often have poor background due to LP.

[ollypenrice]

Re backgrounds, I wouldn't hesitate to use the 'add noise' filter on special occasions. You can feed a bit of texture into an over-polished looking background.

Olly

[Rodd]

8 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Re backgrounds, I wouldn't hesitate to use the 'add noise' filter on special occasions. You can feed a bit of texture into an over-polished looking background.

Olly

The thing about this image is the surprisingly sparse true background - which only appears in a few patches due to dust.  For an expansive background, smoothness sticks out along with darkness.  For background patches that are not that extensive, I think darkness stands out, but there is limited expanse for the eye to gauge smoothness.

[Earl]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Thanks Tiff.  I admit it's hard to tell at times since each screen is different.  

That is a huge issue, not all use calibrated displays, I dont and I use a 49inch TV as my monitor which is also very different.

[TiffsAndAstro]

2 hours ago, Earl said:

its a  very fine balancing act, I never got it right

 

I current have 3 versions of my 2 hours on  witches broom: massively over stretched, barely any stretch and one roughly in the middle. I don't like any of them

[TiffsAndAstro]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

The 32 hours didn't hurt, though even with lots of integration I often have poor background due to LP.

My backgrounds are not great, or my foregrounds, for many reasons

[Elp]

I usually find images without noise to be a bit strange as that's a byproduct of digital capture device tech. In fact, if you integrate CGI with live video footage, you put the noise or grain back in on the CGI to blend and sell the effect. The "defects" sell the image that it was actually captured by a person for me, CA, tilt and all.

Edited May 22 by Elp

[TiffsAndAstro]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Thanks Tiff.  I admit it's hard to tell at times since each screen is different.  

My own very limited images look ok on my desktop monitor (not calibrated but not a million miles away) but look overstretched and pretty nasty on this mobile phone screen.

They look ok on my tablet.

Monitor calibration is usually a good thing but I CBA on my 6yo desktop gaming monitor.

 

[Elp]

Also depends if your monitor is LCD, IPS, OLED etc. Most mid to high end mobiles now use OLED, or OLED derivative, but they can also vary depending on how they're made, factory configured or user config options they may have.

Edited May 22 by Elp

[TiffsAndAstro]

2 hours ago, Elp said:

Also depends if your monitor is LCD, IPS, OLED etc. Most mid to high end mobiles now use OLED, or OLED derivative, but they can also vary depending on how they're made, factory configured or user config options they may have.

yeah my previous s8+ had an oled screen and images looked great on it

budget lcd on a budget phone, i should be happy its in colour