The Hand of God

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by jase

It's my shout Mike, sure you don't want a brew or two.

Seriously though, I'll justify my statement to explain what I see. Of course I could be totally incorrect. I used Photoshop (equalize tool) to validate the potential blue shift to the lower right of the image. The attached image below is the result. Perhaps this is related to the same phenomenon which was experienced with your Corona Australis image. I don't think it shows in the latter as the background was kept quite dark. Again, in a print you'd probably wouldn't notice. Again, Fine Work.

Sorry Jase but I have to say I am rather flabergasted that you felt it necessary to go to such lengths to highlight a percieved flaw in another persons image. I could manipulate any one of your images to produce a gastly result too, I am not sure of your motivation, a bit sad really and rather unnecesary.

Don't worry, I'm not angry, just slightly dissapointed I guess .

Mike

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Sorry Jase but I have to say I am rather flabergasted that you felt it necessary to go to such lengths to highlight a percieved flaw in another persons image.
Mike

Hey Mike.

Join the tall poppy club. You did good.

With Luck I'll see you at Parks (even if I don't rate this year with any images, CWAS has roped me in for a talk/presentation)

Cheers
Peter

[spearo (Frank)]

Great shot of a very rarely imaged target!
I've been wondering about this target for some time since seeing a pic in my software
looks great
well done!
16 hours! That's dedication!
I love it!
frank

[jase (Jason)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Sorry Jase but I have to say I am rather flabergasted that you felt it necessary to go to such lengths to highlight a percieved flaw in another persons image. I could manipulate any one of your images to produce a gastly result too, I am not sure of your motivation, a bit sad really and rather unnecesary.

Don't worry, I'm not angry, just slightly dissapointed I guess .

Mike

Mike, I’m sorry to have disturbed you. Rest assured my intentions were certainly not vindictive or as Peter puts it “chop’n the tall poppies”. I admire your effort and hold your work in high regard. To be honest, I’m surprised that you can’t handle constructive criticism. The manipulation of your image was to show the use of a tool to validate gradients. You may choose to use this in future or not. Sure, go ahead and trash/rework my images to highlight problems, I may learn a trick or two. This is the reason why I’ve started posting on other forums again such as SBIG… to get the constructive feedback. Again, Sorry.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by jase

To be honest, I’m surprised that you can’t handle constructive criticism. ......................The manipulation of your image was to show the use of a tool to validate gradients...............

Jase, Jase, Jase

I also could see that there were some small gradients in Mike's work even without the gamma burst.

Many of my images also have small gradients, doughnuts etc

But many imagers (self included) present their hard won photons "as is" and stretching/ enlarging them after the fact to buggery is a bit like running a UV light over a Picasso i.e. Who cares if it doesn't glow in the dark?

But with Mikes HOG image (...no offence Mike ) The background levels are so painfully close to the signal that it is very hard to control them without altering the signal data. So you make a call, and often leave it as is. While I try to avoid getting there, I see no problem with this, so long as the overall signal makes the noise trivial.


Cheers
Peter

[jase (Jason)]

Point taken Peter.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

But with Mikes HOG image (...no offence Mike ) The background levels are so painfully close to the signal that it is very hard to control them without altering the signal data. So you make a call, and often leave it as is. While I try to avoid getting there, I see no problem with this, so long as the overall signal makes the noise trivial.


Cheers
Peter

Absolutely Peter, you're spot on there. This was taken from a suburban sky over long periods and large movements over the sky so subtle gradients through the very faint nebulosity were inevitable. To have worked harder on these gradients would indeed have altered the object signal too much for my liking.



Mike

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by jase

Mike, I’m sorry to have disturbed you. Rest assured my intentions were certainly not vindictive or as Peter puts it “chop’n the tall poppies”. I admire your effort and hold your work in high regard. To be honest, I’m surprised that you can’t handle constructive criticism. The manipulation of your image was to show the use of a tool to validate gradients. You may choose to use this in future or not. Sure, go ahead and trash/rework my images to highlight problems, I may learn a trick or two. This is the reason why I’ve started posting on other forums again such as SBIG… to get the constructive feedback. Again, Sorry.

No hard feelings Jase

There's a fine line between a "know all" teachers lecture and constructive critisism .

Comments on an image is fine but as Peter says, a full crime scene investigation is just silly

Still love you and a beer sounds nice

Mike

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

Hmmmm, hope it's not too late to tell you what a stunning & beautiful image this is Mike!! 16 hours of data is a huge effort too! Well done!!

Cheers, Marcus

[Peter Ward]

I kept this RC data back until CWAS closed

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/galleryA1.html


Enjoy!

Peter

(It wasn't my RC! )

[dugnsuz (Doug)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I kept this RC data back until CWAS closed

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/galleryA1.html


Enjoy!

Peter

(It wasn't my RC! )

Good God!

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Craig_L

Mysterious and wonderful image. Craig

It's an awesome area I have always wanted to image since reading a David Malin publication that showcased it.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Very tidy indeed Mike. Well Done

Thanks Peter, glad you liked it.

Originally Posted by AlexN

Holy Crap!! 16 Hours of exposure!! Thats a marathon image!

Quite brilliant area too.. I'd never heard of it/seen it before..

16hrs these days is on the average side really Alex, more data = better results as far as noise and signal go. Hard to do without a permanent setup though

Originally Posted by Hagar

Another stunning image Mike, Your processing skill are great. The detail in the nebulus and dusty areas is spot on.
Something to aspire to.

Thanks Doug, as Jase so graciously pointed out and Peter Ward explained, when imaging such faint objsects dealing with gradients is rather difficult. I didn't have too bad gradients actually and the result is preeeetty accurate I think

Originally Posted by renormalised

Great shot, Mike

I wonder how many of those stars in that piccie are homes to the "bugs upstairs"??!!

Bugs what bugs?...where???

Originally Posted by Lester

Fantastic image Mike.

Why 16 hours? Do you do a calculation as to the brightness of this object and how faint you want to go, or do you see what others have done with similar equipment?

I knew it was faint and particularly in the Ha. Each 10min Ha sub had hardly anything on it and hence the 8hrs of it being necessary . I image by the seat of my pants mate and go with gut feeling and educated guesses

Originally Posted by h0ughy

This object has been very intriguing to me, great result Mike!!

Cheers Dave

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

Beautiful work Mike.
Love it.

Glad about that Janette! I love the object too, the hand about to grab the galaxy is unique in the sky.

Originally Posted by Robert_T

Sublime Mike... I like the larger view too you can visually swim about in this and come out feeling like you've been touched by the hand of god

Hallellulia Robert

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Another deep one Mike, well done. Megadata is silly he ?

Silly VERY silly...without a permanent setup

Originally Posted by rpsastronomy

Nice and intriguing image,i can see how it gets it,s name.
Well worth the effort .
A long time between images mike,i am sure the weather will come good soon

I am portable now so have to plan trips so I need to make my sessions count.

Originally Posted by Ric

What a stunning image Mike, I love the way it's reaching out to grab the galaxy.

A fantastic piece of work.

Thanks heaps Ric I am really gald you enjoyed looking at it, it came together pretty well how I was hoping.

Originally Posted by Tamtarn

It sure is an unusual object Mike. Agree with Ric it does look like it's reaching out to grab the galaxy. Well worth all your time and effort.

Cherss guys.

Originally Posted by Garyh

Very nice result Mike!
Looks like a ghost floating in space grasping at a far away galaxy! just like everyone else says!
Top work!
cheers

Or a worm..?

Originally Posted by Alchemy

big project there mike, reminds me of the monster in the star wars movie just coming up for a feed.

Exactly my thoughts Clive!

Originally Posted by Terry B

The only other version of this object I have seen is David Malins at
http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat071.html
Yours seems smoother but the colours are very similar.
Great effort.

Yes I found a few versions Terry but not many by amateurs, the Ha adds some depth though so the 8hrs of it I grabbed was worth it.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Hey Mike.

Join the tall poppy club. You did good.

With Luck I'll see you at Parks (even if I don't rate this year with any images, CWAS has roped me in for a talk/presentation)

Cheers
Peter

Tall Poppy?? big fat sunflower more like it

hope I get to hear your talk but if I don't hope it is well recieved, thanks for the support in ganging up on Jase too

Originally Posted by spearo

Great shot of a very rarely imaged target!
I've been wondering about this target for some time since seeing a pic in my software
looks great
well done!
16 hours! That's dedication!
I love it!
frank

AS mentioned, 16hrs is becoming common place these days Frank

Originally Posted by marc4darkskies

Hmmmm, hope it's not too late to tell you what a stunning & beautiful image this is Mike!! 16 hours of data is a huge effort too! Well done!!

Cheers, Marcus

Not too late at all Marcus thanks very much and yes 16hrs took me 4 nights in an 8 day period with a setup & pulldown rig!

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I kept this RC data back until CWAS closed

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/galleryA1.html


Enjoy!

Peter

(It wasn't my RC! )

Yes found this when I was looking for processing clues, amazing huh?

[tornado33]

Another stunning image. yes, going so deep presents awful challenges to keep the field 100% flat, as no matter how accurate the flatfielding, one cannot guarantee the sky itself, particularily over large chip images will be perfectly even.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I kept this RC data back until CWAS closed

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/galleryA1.html


Enjoy!

Peter

(It wasn't my RC! )

Yes, it is an RC scope alright, a 4 Metre one, bigger than the 3.9 metre AAT. The AAT has an F1 focal reducer system, imaging how deep that could go, though I dont know how big a corrected field it gives.

Note. Ive actually seen the brightest part of CG4 visually, at the inagural SPSP many moons ago, through Peter Brobroff's 20 inch dob, I verified it for him, confirming we both could see a definate nebulous area near that galaxy. I then pointed the ANSW's 16 inch dob to the same area and could see it there too!
Scott

[madtuna (Steve)]

what a gorgeous pic!

any deeper and you'd see the nuts of god too!

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by tornado33

Another stunning image. yes, going so deep presents awful challenges to keep the field 100% flat, as no matter how accurate the flatfielding, one cannot guarantee the sky itself, particularily over large chip images will be perfectly even.



Yes, it is an RC scope alright, a 4 Metre one, bigger than the 3.9 metre AAT. The AAT has an F1 focal reducer system, imaging how deep that could go, though I dont know how big a corrected field it gives.

Note. Ive actually seen the brightest part of CG4 visually, at the inagural SPSP many moons ago, through Peter Brobroff's 20 inch dob, I verified it for him, confirming we both could see a definate nebulous area near that galaxy. I then pointed the ANSW's 16 inch dob to the same area and could see it there too!
Scott

Thanks Scott and you are right, imaging over such a long period from East of the Zenith down to nearer the western horizon (didn't go below 25deg) does throw one challenges in processing but honestly the gradient damage done to this image wasn't too bad (although Jase just "had" to find its remains and make it known didn't he ) becasue I tried doing as much of the colour gathering at higher elevations.

I believe you regarding seeing the brightest bit visually but the Halpha was bloody faint I can assure you, 8hrs was probably really only half of what I wanted with the KAI11002 chip and using 10min subs.

Originally Posted by madtuna

what a gorgeous pic!

any deeper and you'd see the nuts of god too!

Yes they would be holly balls I guess

Glad you liked it...Mad Tuna..??

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

I must give this one a go one-day. Mind you they should rename it, it doesn't look like the hand of God to me. It looks more like the Great and powerful Flying spaghetti Monster...reaching out his noodly appendage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gos...ghetti_Monster

[iceman (Mike)]

Hey Mike!

You did it! http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080901.html

Congrats!

[Ric]

Well done Mike, a wonderful image to open your account.

Cheers mate.

[Amy]

Awesome photo! The technical stuff swooshes over my head but it's a very interesting photo and I enjoyed looking it over.