Where are the Swans?

[casstony]

I noticed a distinct lack of M17 images in the beginners section. I didn't put mine up previously because it was one of my worse images, but here it is. It's harder to get right because of the brightness range across the nebula.

[Karlzburg (Karl)]

Can't see a pic Tony.... damn it again 2nd time tonight. When I looked at your post it wasn't showing a picture, I post my comment and bam picture there.

[RyanJones]

I didn't post my swan before either. I know it needs more time spending on it but I got side tracked with other adventures. Here it is anyway.

230 subs @ 25 sec
ISO 1600
Canon 5d
Celestron C5

[casstony]

Looks like a swan Ryan. I wonder if we can build the flock?

I noticed your other thread about red not showing up: my Nikon d5600 seems to be noticeably more sensitive to red than the Canon 600D I was using.

[RyanJones]

Originally Posted by casstony

Looks like a swan Ryan. I wonder if we can build the flock?

I noticed your other thread about red not showing up: my Nikon d5600 seems to be noticeably more sensitive to red than the Canon 600D I was using.

Well 2 is a start. 1 more and I think we qualify for the collective noun.....

Thank you for your input regarding the different cameras. Its frustrating because I'm actually really starting to enjoy the look of my photos but I cant deny that its only half of it.

[xelasnave]

A very nice image Tony.
I have one so.eplace if I can find it I will post it.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Here is mine... burnt out but first time ...next time next year maybe fix that.
alex

[xelasnave]

Same problem center needs attention

[raymo]

Here's my 2cents. Best viewed at 120% screen.
raymo

[casstony]

Good to see some more images guys. I think Alex may have slipped a flamingo amongst the swans

[Retrograde (Pete)]

Hope you don't mind me adding mine (although I haven't posted in the beginner's forum for a while).
Just wanted to show that the brightness differential issue can be tamed somewhat. The biggest improvement in my images has been with my processing. One of the things I am doing these days is reducing the contrast in DSS before outputting the image to Photoshop. I can then fine-tune the sky background etc in the final image once I'm happy with it.
This was 12 x 5 minute subs through an ED102 with a modded Pentax DSLR.

[casstony]

Very nice Pete. Does reducing the contrast in DSS make any difference to detail visible in the final image?

[Retrograde (Pete)]

Originally Posted by casstony

Very nice Pete. Does reducing the contrast in DSS make any difference to detail visible in the final image?

Thanks Tony.

I feel it enhances the detail as there is more subtlety to the image and it becomes less "posterised" which also helps with star-colours. I use the Luminance sliders in DSS to do this (particularly the highlight and midtone sliders) and also ensure that I have a distinctly grayish sky background (by pushing up the RGB/K Levels sliders) so the image is not black-clipped before sending it to PS for post-processing.

I'm far from an expert in all of this mind-you and am just sharing what works best for me (after a lot of trial and error - mostly error ).

[xelasnave]

I have yet to fully read the 200 odd pages for star tools and it references other stuff so I lot to take in...I am flying blind to a large degree.. I have little control on the colour so far in star tools...I can work the sliders but its such a slow process I probably compromise to move on...and I am tryinh to do certsin things well one only really that is to control yhe stars take them from colourless oval sheres to colourful little gems...so I am syarting to t treat the stars and the dso as two different things...but I dont seem to be able to do a make for stars to the exclusion of the dso.

I am putting in all available hours...smakl steps.
Alex