Omega Centauri

[Matty P]

Captured this last night under very bright Moon lit skies and fast moving cloud.

I got the mount polar aligned good enough to start imaging in about 30 minutes without any problems. I setup the guidescope hoping to autoguide and spent most of the time trying to find a suitable guidestar. I don't know why, but I just couldn't find a guidestar. So this image was unguided.

6 x 1 minute subs with ICNR darks, ISO 800, Stacked in DSS and processed with PS CS3. C8 f/6.3 on EQ6 Pro.

I would like to know your opinion on which image looks the best in terms of processing and colour. The first image was processed on the Laptop and the second on the desktop.

Thanks :thumbsup:

[Screwdriverone]

Hi Matty,

Both look great, but I will take Door Number 1 please Larry. Nicer colours and darker background.

Chris

[gregbradley]

Image 1 is by far the better. You have some nice star colours going, its a bit brighter and image 2 seems to have a red bias. Both are good in that the core is not overexposed which is a common problem imaging globs.

It would be great to go for a much longer exposure. If its not autoguided then go for half an hours worth and if you have autoguiding go for at least an hour's worth.

You'll see the difference in the results.

Greg.

[AlexN]

image 1 is very nice indeed Matty.
Well done.

As Greg mentioned, more exposure will get you a deeper field of stars..

[jase]

Matty, technically there should be no difference between the laptop and desktop processed versions if your laptop screen and desktop monitor are calibrated and the processing routine is identical. Its a good rendition of this target. Are you taking flats? If not, this would be a logical step to improving the quality of your output.

[strongmanmike]

The first one looks pretty good Matt and yes flats will get rid of the vignetting or else you could crop it a bit..? Looks like had you not had the near full moon to contend with the vignetting may not have been noticable really?

Bloody Moon :mad2:

Mike

[renormalised]

Nice piccies.....#1 is the better, though. Much darker background and nice colours. The second pic looks like ol' Omega's embarrassed (slight reddish tinge):P:D

[TrevorW]

Matty

The first picture is more pleasing to the eye

Good shot

[prova]

Agreed, the first is more pleasing to the eye and better than my first attempt of Omega Centauri

:lol:

[Kirkus]

I think #1 is much nicer.

Does anyone else find it ironic that's it difficult to find a guide star when photographing a cluster like that? :P

[AlexN]

Kirkus, Yeah, You'd imagine there have to be one star somewhere in a field of 50thousand odd that you could lock on to....

Oh well.

[renormalised]

That's the problem...too many to choose from!!!:P:D

[Matty P]

Thanks for the comments guys,

The first image is my favourite out of the two.

Next time I when I get my guiding setup and working, I will definitely go for longer exposures and more of them. I was disappointed because out of about 20 1 minute subs, only 6 were suitable to stack. Too many tracking errors.

[madtuna]

your images / skills are just getting better and better :thumbsup:

[Matty P]

Thanks Steve,

Just wait until I get the guiding working. ;)

[Hagar]

Hi matty. Both are nice images. Flats will make a huge difference to the final image and well worth the little effort. Otherwise great stuff

[Matty P]

Here is a reprocess with synthetic flats. I used the Dust & Scratches filter and the Healing brush to get rid of any bright stars in the central area.

What do you think? Has the synthetic flats help? :shrug:

[Robert_T]

Hi Matty, looks great, nice resolution and plenty of detail even in the core. Well done:thumbsup:

[dcalleja]

I liked number 1. Much better after the synthetic flat treatment though to get rid of the gradient. Great focus too.

[Ric]

Hi Matty, number 1 with the laptop looks the better image. It has nice colours, depth and detail.

The reprocess with the synthetic flats is very nice as well and to me it seems to have increased it's depth.

How did you create the synthetic flats? Are they generated within PS?

Great work

[duncan]

Hi All,
No1 does it for me Matty. Just seems to be the more natural one i think.
Wonder what would happen if they all got pulled together by gravity.
One hell of a bang i guess,LOL.
Cheers:thumbsup:

[Matty P]

Thanks Guys,

Ric, I used the Dust & Scratches filter in PS to remove the bright stars in the central area and then when over the image with the Healing Brush. Then I used the Apply image function and subtracted it from the master image.

:thumbsup:

[Ric]

Thanks for the tip Matty, I'll find the relative functions in Paintshop Pro and have a go

Cheers

[richardo]

Hi Mat.
Nicely done on our favourite glob.
No. 1 gets my vote. The background lets you know your colours are there.
Just one thing, the central stars appear a little green, perhaps try to see if you can get them a more lighter blue without sacrificing the nice golden colours of the older out lying stars.

Other than that, cool image.
Well done.

Rich

[snas]

Well done Matt
Number 1 for me. I like the way Omega C appears almost 3D in a good image
Stuart

[Matty P]

Thanks Rich,

I have to agree with you on the colour. It does appear a little too green in the central area.

:thumbsup:



Thanks Stuart,

I'm glad that you like it. :)