Pillars of Creation - in Technicolour/Hubble comparison

[strongmanmike]

Well, bored and thinking, man I really wanna finish this image :mad2: :question: and while I wasn't planning on using it for anything but colouring the stars (if that!), I decided to have a crack and used the sadly rather sorry and soft RGB collected on Thursday night and pinched some old (and also under par but not as bad as the RGB) SII and OIII data, I had collected on this area in the past....aaaand after a lot of fiddling, I managed to hack something together - a reasonably faithful original Hubble palette (with a bit more blue :))...and while I had started this exercise just for a bit of fun, surprisingly, I was quite happy with the end result really.. :shrug:...so here'tis :D

I was keen to get a good amount of SII and OIII, hopefully in similar conditions to the Ha (https://pbase.com/strongmanmike2002/image/173838880/original) and was/am planning this for next New Moon (?)... I really should because it should improve the image further.

M16 and the Pillars of Creation (https://pbase.com/image/173849909/original)

For a bit of fun, here is a close up comparison with Hubble (https://pbase.com/image/173855182/original)

Bit of weekend Playschool box fun :)

Mike

[RB]

Absolutely stunning Mike.

RB

:eyepop:

[JA]

Beautiful Image Mike :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Best
JA

[joshman]

looking really good! can't wait to see what the final product looks like with all new data!

[alpal]

Nice picture Mike,
well done.


cheers
Allan

[petershah]

I love that classic HST colour pallet and the level of detail is beautiful Mike......those lovely golden browns in the pillars are divine.....

[Dave882]

Wowsers that’s stunning Mike. Extremely sharp and clear

[markas]

Very clear and sharp and I like HST+blue palette. It'll be interesting to see what better SII and OIII data does for this already very nice image.
Mark

[strongmanmike]

Thanks a lot guys :thumbsup:...let's see if I can maintain my enthusiasm for completing this with 100% current data (currently, by exposure time, about 80% is new)..there was a bit of time spent in front of the screen processing/fiddling with this version..?..so, it's a bit touch and go now :question:. I get bored too easily :help: and start feeling I want to move on...to something else, especially with such a popular bright target :confuse3:....and that's not a GALAXY :face:

Mike

[ronson]

Resist the temptation Mike :) This one is very promising.
May the force be with you.

[strongmanmike]

I'm..:question:..tr...y...ing.... :scared: :help:

Mike :drink:

[Addos]

very nice, the 'glow' shows up quite nicely! well done!

[strongmanmike]

Cheers Adam :thumbsup: what do you mean by the "glow"?

Mike

[strongmanmike]

For a bit of fun and to confirm the details captured, I have made a comparison with the famous 1995 version from Hubble (https://pbase.com/image/173855182/original) :)

Mike

[petershah]

Definitely confirmation that you have captured the key detail in the Pillars...nice

[strongmanmike]

Yeah, comparisons like this are good to make I recon, you can really see what you have captured...aaaand are nicely reminded of just how amazing the beloved Hubble is...hope it lasts many more years yet :thumbsup: it will either break down or Musks network will make observations impossible...:sadeyes:

Mike

[Andy01]

Purple stars notwithstanding, that's a lovely homage to Hubble, and a fascinating comparison of the difference between amateur and ultra-professional equipment in the best of conditions. :)

Interesting to see what difference a few billion dollars and perfect seeing conditions makes! :thumbsup:

It makes one wonder about the not-so-distant future of amateur astrophotography, when one day, we amateurs may all have access to small satellite-based gear in low orbit.

[strongmanmike]

Totally agree, depending on how bad the effects of Starlink et al and the associated massive increase in low Earth orbit material becomes :mad2:, the future is sure to be fascinating, if perhaps a little tragic....

Regarding the slightly purple stars :D, It's funny, as per the very Hubble image in the comparison I have made, I have always liked the original narrowband images that came out of Hubble, whiiiiich yep, had purple stars, so have usually left some magenta in my stars in full narrowband shots, I just recon it works (my little quirk :shrug:) and adds a little extra to the image, after all, the nebulosity is in unnatural colour so why not the stars? I think all white stars can look a little bland for example, I don't like leaving a lot of magenta in there though but even a little usually garners attention and the odd comment from someone too, which is cool :thumbsup: :)

Mike

[RB]

I agree with you Mike, I've always liked the purple stars in NB too.

RB

:thumbsup:

[strongmanmike]

They can't be tooo purple, that would be too Willy Wonker'ish, juuust a hint

Mike

[RB]

No of course not, then they'd be Bloated Violet.

:lol:

[Addos]

I think the next step in the amateur astro industry is democratising adaptive optics. Come on ZWO/Synta.....

[Addos]

The blue glow around the 'finger', very nice!

[strongmanmike]

Ah yes, thought that might be what you meant, cheers :thumbsup:

Mike

[Benjamin]

Wonderful. Great comparison with Hubble. Tried something similar with lesser gear (and skill) but more to match colour and contast with Hubble but found this process killed off much of the wider field (the eagle’s wings were very clipped). With a narrower FoV it doesn’t matter one bit but curious if this was more about control of dynamic range (which can darken up a core and leave the wings a flappin’)? Pretty sure it’s just not a consideration here but maybe with other data you’ve worked with?

[TrevorW]

Actually prefer the JWT version :)

[Ryderscope]

A great result Mike. I'm enjoying the discussion on purple (sorry magenta!) stars :)

[strongmanmike]

Yes handling the dynamic range for a wide field shot of M16 would be different, if you wished to reveal the ultra fine details within the core as well as the outer spread wings of the nebula, you risk ending up with an unnatural spread of brightness ie a dark looking centre (aka not respecting the light as some call it). This unnatural look is most often seen in images of M42. The tighter FOV of my shot here meant it wasn't really an issue because it is all bright, so everything can be showcased believably :thumbsup:



Shhhh! Trevor.....I haven't told Angie yet we are moving to Lagrange point2 :scared3:



I really just see it as a processing choice, I know my slightly magenta stars are not to everyone's taste but I prefer it over all white stars or RGB stars that look "pasted" on top...but largely it's just a nostalgic processing choice for me I think :)

[N1]

I don't come to the DSO section too often but when I do, and something like this shows up, I'm reminded that I must visit more often. Great, inspiring work Mike!

[strongmanmike]

Hey thanks a lot Mirko :thumbsup: ...got another one in the pipe line, so don't be such a stranger :)

Mike

[Paul Haese]

I really like the detail Mike. The site you have definitely has the altitude advantage. Pity we don't have anything like the mountains of South America. Though I am sure you are content with your current locale.

[strongmanmike]

Cheers Paul :thumbsup: and yes, happy with the site conditions, as I have said before, it is no Atacama and after a long honeymoon of many nights with excellent seeing conditions, it has proved mortal and thrown up some soft evenings but as far as seeing and transparency are concerned generally, it's definitely the best site I have ever imaged from and darkness wise it's the second best I have ever viewed or imaged from, so I can't complain :thumbsup:

Mike