M81 Bodes Galaxy in LRGB

[Bassnut]

Hi Guys

Given the awefull night skies weve had for the last 2 mths in Sydney, I gave up and indulged in a little no-brainer Armchair-Astrophotography again :D.

Haveing said that, theres the usual hrs fiddling in PS, which is half the fun :P.

M81 Bodes Galaxy
LRGB : L 60min Bin 1, RGB each 25min Bin 2, all 5 min subs.
Taken on a TAK Epsilon 250 and ST10XME (GRAS G5 in New Mexico)

http://fredsastro.googlepages.com/

Given this a NH subject, done to death by utter gurus, it doesnt stand much in the way of comparison, but I must say its cool being able to take it from down here and post it as something different in IIS :lol:.

The exposure time is somewhat shorter than id do on my rig (well, by a lot ;)), and the subs are pretty short, but sheesh, it beats actually daring to attempt M42. Im on a mission, never image bloody M42, great for a 1st light and getting up to speed (in fact, how would one learn without it ! :rofl:), but done to death.

Anyway, enough rambling, M42 can look fantastic, its a classic, have a click on this and think of something different to do yourself :thumbsup:

[AlexN]

:) Nice Fred...

I do agree with you completely that using remote scopes is a great way to capture something different... You've done it twice now, M31 and M81.. Two largely NH targets that have come out brilliantly..

Im saving pennies to point GRAS05 @ something in the northern skies! :)

[Bassnut]

Alex, thanks, didnt mean it to sound like an add :P, id sooner see these done from here, hard but doable, and MOST impressive when achieved :D.

[AlexN]

:) I was impressed with my M31 (it was average, but my first galaxy image! :D)

I agree, these things can be done from here, but it cant hurt to get a few NH targets under your belt, without having to fight the horizon/poor seeing/rain/atmospherics.

Alex.

Oh, it didnt sound like an Add, I've used GRAS once or twice before. I love the idea (its the only way i'm going to use an RCOS any time soon...) I think I used Gras15 once :D

[multiweb]

Hey I love M42 ! Guilty as charged :lol: Very nice picture btw. Awesome colors and very good processing. The details in the core and arms are amazing . Top work. :thumbsup:

[iceman]

Wow Fred that's a beautiful image. Really nicely done.

[Matty P]

Wonderful image Fred. Lots of detail within the galaxy.

Well done. :thumbsup:

[Garyh]

Nice to see Fred! Enjoyed it!
Com`on Fred give in to the M42 syndrome! Lol
cheers

[RB]

Wonderful shot Fred !

Excellent work mate.

[Bassnut]

Alex, Marc, Mike,Matt, Gary and Andrew, thanks for your kind words.

I thought I might tread on a few toes on the M42 comment ;), dunno, might do a bit of it, close up, but its going to be hard matching some of the excellent efforts posted here :thumbsup:

[gregbradley]

Very nice Fred. Is it a bit too blue though (just a tad)?

Also - what's this an Epsilon 250? - now that is a serious widefield scope mate - what's going on??

Greg.

[Bassnut]

Greg, LOL, well, PS allows tweaking to whatever others more knowledgable than me proclaim to be appropriate, it sure wasnt that blue to start with :shrug:. And the stars are fairly colourless, need to work on that :P.

The FOV seemed to suit M81, with a bit of that "swimming in space" feel, although, yes its a bit wide for my tastes.

Sheesh, im resisting the WW path you blokes are taking in your lazy dotage, thinking you can cover your lack of balls with fancy refractors, astrographs and big field ABG (ugg) megacams :D. But you go with whats available on the night GRAS wise :).

[multiweb]

What about a NB version of it? Never seen it this way. That should be a walk in the park for a seasoned NB imager like you.:)

[Bassnut]

Marc, do mean on this Galaxy?. No they dont work with NB, they are broadband emitters :D.

On M42, well, ive seen a few NB M42s, dont look that good, but may work on selected bits :thumbsup:

[multiweb]

Cool. Looking forward to it. Yep. I'm meant M42, not the galaxy.

[strongmanmike]

Not bad Fred, an enjoyable image.

Although I haven't imaged it myself, my impression is that even though it is a reasonably bright galaxy, M81 is a lot harder to image than people think. It is a very subtle galaxy, a bit like NGC 6744 in Pavo, with subtle features and gentle colour gradations that are hard to render with a truly natural result it would appear? There are very few images of M81 that I have seen that don't look obviously processed with dodgy and harsh colour gradations and/or obvious masking to bring out the core and over sharpening to reveal those fine subtle details....but here are a couple of good examples to work from:

Modest gear:
http://www.dsi-astronomie.de/M81N.html

High end gear (and by a master image processor)
http://www.rc-astro.com/photo/id1025.html

Nice international work Fred :thumbsup:

Mike






Mike

[AlexN]

That shot with the DSI is actually very good when you compare the setup to the RCOS image.. Obviously the RC image is nicer, but dollar for dollar I reckon the DSI image has got to be the winner

[Ric]

Hi Fred, a very nice image. the spiral arms and the dust lanes look fantastic.

Very nicely done.

[robgreaves]

Nice Bode's Nebula - I know it's a galaxy, but Bode first reported it as a Nebula :doh:

How come there what looks like a light pollution colour gradient in the lower right? In New Mexico? Or was it some other light source very close to the scope?

Nicely framed though, and great arm detail.

Regards,
Rob

[Bassnut]

Thanks Guys.

Mike, yes you raise an interesting point there, the colour gradient on the unprocessed RGB stack doesnt have anything like ive seen posted, including your examples, very subtle indeed. Everyone pushes it, it looks a tad drab if you dont, so I did too, to give it some life. I dont pretend to be uber accurate in my images, just make pretty pics :D.

Alex I was stunned at that "DSI" pick, took a while to realise the cam used the same chip as the DSI (I think, is that what you mean?). A very good shot, puts mine to shame :P.

Ric. They detail is very subdued on M81, as Mike says, was hard to get what I did, others have bought it right out, I dont know how, perhaps seeing wasnt that good on mine.

Rob, yes that gradient at the bottom is a puzzle (its not pollution or stray light), it was already partly croped. The flats were old, that might have done it. Ive lost Rob Gendlers plug in, need to get that again.

[AlexN]

Thats what I meant, and I dont think it puts yours to shame, it just shows that resulting data vs. dollars spent is not a linear scale by any means. $10000 worth of gear will not produce a 100% better image than $1000 worth of gear. it would also depend on processing, but thats another equasion...

[Jen]

:eyepop: now that is a cool pic :thumbsup: once again Fred nice work i love your pics :thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

Thanks Jen, pleased you like it.

Alex, cause it puts me to shame, Im not that vain ;), look at it, it even stands up well against Robs effort, different, and lacking in some ways, but better in others. Given its with a DSI/Meade/Atalux, its a beedin masterpiece, I bet it took a lot of effort, and a prime example for your gear cost arguement.

Not that I totally agree with your arguement (but I do with the non linear aspect), that image is something out of the ordinary for the gear, theres something else going on thats not obvious :shrug: (exceptional seeing, uber processing skill/time).