I've always liked this galaxy, but I've never imaged it before because it only rises to 47 degrees here and I don't image targets below about 45 degrees. Due to the low maximum altitude I've always thought I'd get poor quality, soft data, so I never tried it.
Recently the seeing made a turn for the better, with some of the best I've seen here. Certainly a pleasant change from the garbage we've had lately. Given that, I decided to give this target a shot. I'm pretty happy with the result.
I had planned on getting more RGB (I only got 2.5hrs, while I got 10.5hrs of L), but after what was meant to be a preliminary process this morning, I don't think it really needs it.
At the fit to screen resolution this looks awesome. Great detail even at full res. Colour is very pleasing. I must revisit the data I took of this years ago.
Wow! look at all the shining gems and background faint fuzzies, beautiful Lee.
Thanks Lucinda and Josh, appreciate your feedback! Sorry I missed your posts earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marco
As usual you managed to extract amazing details on the galaxy, it is a lovely picture indeed!
Cheers
Marco
Thanks very much Marco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
That is a nice uncomplicated and lovely field of view. Nice one!
Thanks Bart! I tried to keep the processing a bit more subtle on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
At the fit to screen resolution this looks awesome. Great detail even at full res. Colour is very pleasing. I must revisit the data I took of this years ago.
Thanks Paul! Yeah I'm pretty happy with the view at "fit to screen". It's a great target, definitely worth digging up some old data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by topheart
What an excellent capture Lee!!
Cheers,
Tim
Thanks Tim!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
Great shot Lee! I do wonder which of the background galaxies (and there are many) is the culprit for distorting NGC 2442!
Thanks Colin! ESO says:
Quote:
The galaxy’s distorted shape is most likely the result of a close encounter with a smaller, unseen galaxy
So assuming they're correct, it's not any of the visible ones in the field.