(Another) NGC 2070 - Narrowband

[Martin Pugh]

Hi all
a couple of people I shared this with really, really liked it. I hate it.

This nebula is so chaotic, that I simply cannot produce anything resembling 'typical' NB results from the data I have. The colours you see here have arisen from the 'balance' stage of NB image processing...no enhancements including the blue Tardis like centre. Its a bi-colour image of OIII and Ha data.

Anyway, let me know what you guys think and if the feelings are mutual its coming off the website!

http://www.martinpughastrophotography.id.a u/NGC2070-NB.jpg

A total of 14 hours Ha (6hrs) and OIII (8hrs)...I also have 8 hrs of SII..and you should see that result...even more discombobulated!

thanks for looking and clear skies

Martin

[multiweb]

Wow! Speechless! Never seen it like that before. Details, colors, depth. It's amazing. :eyepop:
I just love it. I was always wondering why every picture I take of this area are always so noisy. I understand now. The sharper and the deeper you go, the messier it gets, Looks like the structure gets more and more complicated and finer as you dive in. I think the lights and shadows you've captured are just superb. It pops right out of the screen.

[Octane]

Martin,

Without a doubt, the best NGC 2070 astrophotograph that I have ever seen.

That is truly 3D. I wish I had 3D glasses right now.

This is the stuff of inspiration.

Congratulations, Martin.

Regards,
Humayun

[strongmanmike]

I think you will find the majority of people, including on IIS, will find this image somewhat "amazing" and "incredible" (count how many times those two words are expressed :P ;)), it has depth, detail and a smaking of outright drama, like few other Tarantula images I have seen really so for these reasons I think is a beauty... but I am with you, something isn't quuuuite right :confuse3:??. It might be the browny look perhaps? or the confusing mess just isn't 100% aesthetic or "too" close-up"...I dunno?? I say this only because you asked and with critical qualification, I think it is a fine effort non the less.

I find few narrow band images "really" appealing, your DM/SPSP winning Lambda Cen shot is an example of where a NB image works beautifully though :thumbsup:

Be interested to see the Ha OIII SII version.

Mike

[dugnsuz]

OUCH!!!!!
That hurts Martin - in a good way!!

[Hagar]

Not a great fan of false colour images but this combination and image is simply outstanding. If I could produce an image like this I think I would retire on such a high note.
Simply magnificent Martin.

[gregbradley]

Interesting image Martin. My first reaction was; ooh that's nice, then it seemed like it was squashed a bit flat without much of a sense of depth.

Just me. Overall a wonderful image.

Greg.

[seeker372011]

love it myself

[AlexN]

Magnificent! 11/10 :)

[RB]

I agree with Mike and Greg, it's a mighty fine image Martin but there's something about it that just doesn't quite appeal to me for some reason.
Please don't get me wrong, I really enjoy your work and I only wish I could achieve 1/10th the level that you achieve.

[Garyh]

Very, very nice Martin! detail is astounding but maybe missing something like Mike,Greg and Andrew mention?
I would like to see the Silicone added version!
Maybe because the NB gives such tiny stars it lacks that stellar look to it?:shrug:
I think this will make a foundation for a real killer image with some more data added like some L or RGB maybe thrown in? :shrug: to bring back stars and color balance..
But I`m not one to judge on your outstanding work! I wish I knew just a fraction of what you would know!
Look out for the 2009 DM for this one!;)
cheers Gary...:thumbsup:

[strongmanmike]

I keep looking at this image Martin and it really does look astounding.

Something is bothering me though..?

In your description of how you processed your recent NGC 55 image you mentioned that you layer in a version of the Lum that has had the minimum filter and deconvolution applied. It is my experience that the minimum filter actually imparts or adds false detail in an image by skewing the stars and particularly the nebulosity, in an intricate spider web like fashion creating what apears to be enhanced fine structural detail but in fact is simply an artifact of the minimum filter process and not true structural detail.

It looks as though you have done the same here in this image to enhance the details and there is no doubt that the result appears highly detailed but is it "true" detail or simply enhanced processing artifacts contributing to an illusion (at least in part)?

This said and if we are describing the overall visual artistic impression aspects, then this image....it is a friggin corker :thumbsup:

Mike

[Martin Pugh]

Hi all
well, I can see that opinions are mixed on this image...some love it, some not so, but I agree with all the comments about it looking flat, and that there is something missing....I hate it! LOL

Mike....as you know, no 2 images are processed identically. I can say with certainty that a minimum filter was not used on this image....I would have done if it were a SHO pallette, but its not. Regardless, no one in their right mind would apply a Minimum filter to the entire image...when I use it, it is on a star selection only, and faded appropriately so that the effect is subtle but adds to the quality of the image.

Gary....sorry, this image will not be going into DM2009....in fact, I am not entering. I will instead go to the USA for 3 years in Jan 09, so that rules me out.

cheers
Martin

[strongmanmike]

Hate??? wha tha? :shrug:.... :screwy:



Fair enough :confuse3:



You'd be surprised, plenty of people do and think it makes the image look more detailed :screwy:.. just thought I'd ask.. :whistle:



Woohoo! ..ooops..:ashamed: ...I mean, what a shame :sad:.......ahhhh three years of hope for us all! In the name of the father...:prey:

:D

[avandonk]

Get over it folks, no single image can can show everything. Martins image shows delicate nebula/e structures and nuances I have never seen before. What we astrophotographers aim to portray is a 'real' image of what is in the sky. There is no reality as your vision is limited by your physiology. you can barely see HA and you cannot see infra red and let alone xrays. Just enjoy the efforts that all us astrophotographers bring you at very little cost. We spend countless nights collecting photons with complicated machines that sometimes do our bidding!

bert