M45 What do you think?

[Hagar]

M45 taken from my home in Mt Beauty. Combination of 10 X 5 minute exposures calibrated with Darks, Flats, and Bias files. Images stacked using Images Plus with final adjustments using Photoshop CS3.

Telescope: Takahashi FS 102 with Tak focal reducer.
Camera: QHY8 Cooled CCD
Guiding: ED80 and QHY5 (QGuider)

Hope you like it.
I have included 2 final images bot processed using slightly different methods. Which is better and why?

[rally]

Its a difficult subject, both look good.

I like the enhanced nebulousity image because it has pulled out the detail but its come at the expense of the fainter stars in the wider star field (they appear to have gone completely)
Although funnily enough the main Sisters in the enhanced nebulousity image are actually smaller - not sure why that is.

What PP did you do ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

I like both, too....however, the 2nd piccie has somewhat more detail, especially in the neb' and smaller stars. I also noticed that you've managed to get rid of the amp glow along the edges of the piccie in the 2nd try. That made the background a tad darker, but it did get rid of some of the extremely faint background stars.

[Craig_L]

Came out well. Certainly like the detail of the second one best. Nice to see it in this landscape wide field.

[richardo]

Hi Doug,
I'm with the right had version as well.
More nebulosity and also starting to show some dust colouration to it.
I reckon you could even stretch it a bit more and bring up the dark point.
Just a tad though, I feel you might be able to eek out some more faint stuff.

All the best for now
Rich

[TrevorW]

Not bad Doug definitely on the right track check this out as an indication

http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/skyimage_2035_19658583

Cheers

[AlexN]

I like number 2 Doug,...

Seems to have a higher black point/flatter field, its not reaching the same magnitude stars as number 1, although its showing more nebulosity, and seems to have better contrast.

Personal preference? Which do YOU prefer? thats the important question you need to ask.

[MrB]

First image for me.
The extra detail in the second is good but it looks kinda 'pushed' if ya know what I mean? Like there's more 'noise' in the clouds than the first one?

[KenGee]

Number 1 for me as well Doug, Try taking longer intergrations, reflection nebs I have found need it. Do some tests I've found 2 X 15 is better then 6 X 5.

[Alchemy]

the slightly darker one, its cleaner. the second is ok its a personal preference i guess.... but you did ask , so there you have it

cheers

[multiweb]

I like the second one Doug. :thumbsup: When I think M45 I want to see those nebulosity, especialy the one that turns into a dirty yellowish color at the top. :)

[Hagar]

Mixed bag of results. The real dif is in the initial processing. No 1 is processed the way I normally do it, using Photoshop for all stretching and manipulation.

The second image was stacked in IP3 then Digital developed in IP before being moved into CS3. I sort of feel like I am flying blind with Digital Dev so I don't use it, prefering CS3 for all.The reduction of dim stars may well be just a mouse click in the final stages.

Personally I like No 1 to me it doesn't exhibit as much nebulosity but it does appear somewhat smoother and more realistic.

Who Knows.

[atalas]

They both look good doug...I would drop down to 3 minute subs and lots of them on these stars with your setup mate,then stretch them till they scream your my Daddy ! well done.

[Jeff]

Awesome!

Focal reducer does a nice job to help fit everything in. It's obviously well matched to the FS102.

Did you ever find a focal reducer which was well matched to your little ED80?

Cheers,
Jeff

[Hagar]

I did. A William optics Pflat2 0.8X It was by far the best Focal reducer for the ED80 and the APS chip in a DSLR.

[Jen]

:thumbsup: nice pic Doug you have been busy havnt you :lol::thumbsup: