M16 Starless and more stars

[Bassnut]

Hi guys

On recent feedback, here (http://4256458530705943474-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/fredsastro/home/Mean%20M16%20Ha%20SII%20Ha%20OIII%2 08bit%202400%20with%20stars%20B.jpg ?attachauth=ANoY7cqcWJyjBROvWi_8a7a f2xOpxez5oZ9xgFUf9RupyRfanNArkGsIeK nGGzm2T_JnIp994MHzaPfMUEG4Faeum4FI2 w_cadkrfrPzAdmFUYMY1z_Stjc7vGJlZdar 29F44esZQbtMqdueK3p91o4c8dpAzCCc_yq bgiA9p8jWPqjGt6LxjeHnlQ8Vq6wFGy6ceE 7jUY4tqHKcrsCMH2pwLkPj2nfBLPHUeKBuz 1n0Qjxe1iGOyww2_XSYlW7ELgEbX2JwL7gX&attredirects=0) is a (bigger) Sid with more stars, slightly less bright and a bit more star colour (although not on the big ones :mad2:, I give up).

And here (http://4256458530705943474-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/fredsastro/home/Mean%20M16%20Ha%20SII%20Ha%20OIII%2 0K%208%20bit%202400%20B%20starless. jpg?attachauth=ANoY7crIN-y6txuJDTv3aM0_6a4H2pU8XCLp-U1KmaByzAGk1EOpOKrkSVfoFMVkm5XaQuaA IH5Q4ta5_uwpBCuUy4lfMqy0UCxxXIEOlUj nJjtpGYq-UZPXb4RHWvhOL2OzaRprZ5S9pJkBb4aV0i_ s6oXhWyn-dPo1fLsao6AX56rzBIm7UhSTln4Zr1YJJ24 61QaFHQx7F9bJYsSyLT7aFXnqf2PgCSppaB fz_hC5C17vIxrRYb-UQwFhkM7wV9VkOK30aDLN&attredirects=0) is my favourite, a STARLESS version, this is what I like, none of them pesky, irritating, distracting, wouldnt-see-them-if-you-were-right-there punks :P. God got that seriously wrong when he left them there after they do that creation thang, very unasthetic :mad2: :D.

[RobF]

OMG Fred! That's sublime. Utterly unthinkably good for an amateur.
Who would have thought such things would be possible in our lifetime.
Thanks for sharing, and I hope you don't mind this adorning my desktop for quite some time.....:D:question:

[Octane]

That starless version is a watercolour landscape painting from heaven.

H

[marc4darkskies]

The bigger version with stars - GORGEOUS! (but I'm repeating myself :D)

The starless version - YUK! (so there!! :P:D)

[Phil Hart]

wow fred.. that's some serious ^&(* you're pulling together there.

i also like the starless version. are you using a continuum filter to subtract from your narrowband images or doing it all in software?

[gregbradley]

Super images Fred. I like them both. Did you put a bit more red in them or were they always like that? They seem a bit more balanced.

By the way the star one has a little processing artifact bottom left like a healing brush scar on the image.

Greg.

[astroron]

Beautiful Images there Fred, both stunning:eyepop:

[richardo]

Fred, like the revamped 'star- more' version as it's larger.

Now this is really weird, BUT, I think I like the starless version the best, there's just something about it..... might be the 'within the neb' feel to it.. the un-speckled, lovely sea of blue.... love blue things in space!
Gol darn, what have you done to me.....:sadeyes:

All good Fred.:thumbsup:

Rich

[strongmanmike]

Fred, you are the Grunge, the Heavy Metal and the Punk of astroimaging, loud in ya face and a bit crass.... but... it can kinda sound pretty cool :rockband:

;)

[TrevorW]

ditto on my previous comments

[Bassnut]

hehe, thanks Rob, Ive seen a few in this manor, cant claim to be 1st and gear and PS advances lately have certainly helped thats for sure. Im chuffed its on your desktop and pleased to see the pic gets some real use :thumbsup:



Thanks H, how to get it really smooth is the next challenge.



thanks Marcus, sigh, well, im tempted to keep doing starless, but ill always do a (squirm) stared one too, for you ;).



:thanx: Phil (and pulling is pretty appropriate ;)). I tried the continuum filter some time back, but its a tedious painfull way to do it, no wonder not many ppl bother. So I pretty much process stars out as per Astroanarchy (http://astroanarchy.blogspot.com/2009/04/neaic.html) s "tone mapping" (in PS), now right there is the Heavy metal punk of astroimaging . In fact the stars are removed early on and reinserted at the end, processing is MUCH easier in every way, and you can push much harder without worring about stars being destroyed.



The (RGB) colour in the small stars was already there, I never "add" colour (or anything) I wouldnt be comfortable with that, or it would be open slather :P. Star colour is often more round the edge of stars, gradually becoming white in the middle, so when you make them smaller, the colour dissappears (on the big ones), and NABG cams saturate fast, I often have trouble with saturation in the middle of stars (with RGB), need to work on that.



Thanks Ron :thumbsup:



thanks Rich hehe, I dont pretend to be accurate, so I understand those that like stars in pics but might accept a bit of artist license on occassion :D.



:thanx: Mike, and for your patience on a bit of eye bashing on ocassion. I like a bit of metal too, but it has to be LOUD :thumbsup:.



Thanks again Trevor.

Im chuffed by the kind comments, but I might be pushing it now, so enough Sids for now, onwards and upwards :).

[spearo]

OMG !!!
I'm working on the Pillars myself but this is just unbelievable.
Amazing
frank

[multiweb]

Awesome stuff Fred. :thumbsup:

[iceman]

Incredible. Switching between the two is amazing.

[RB]

Fred, superb !
Allows you to focus just on 'structure'.
I love both actually.

BTW the kids absolutely loved it too.

:thumbsup:

[jjjnettie]

"Starless" is the way to go. I love the comparison.
:bowdown:

[iceman]

This is now IOTW (http://www.iceinspace.com.au).

[multiweb]

Well done again mate. Congrats on IOTW. Well deserved. :thumbsup:

[RB]

There goes the neighbourhood......:lol:
J/K of course.

Congrats mate a well deserved accolade indeed.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[h0ughy]

wow - could this be a trip to parkes?

[Bassnut]

Frank. Thanks and keep workin on those Pillars, get some Ha if you can.

Thanks jjj, yep, Starless, thats what I recon too ;).

Thank you very much for the IOTW Mike, im honored :D :thumbsup:.

And thanks to Marc, Andrew, Dave :D.

I might send it in to DM, but not the starless methinks, I was lucky to get away with doing that just the once :P. I dont think this kind of thing is really DMs cup of tea either, but what the hell, might as well give it a poke :).

[strongmanmike]

...recon there might be more than one starless image this year actually. See?...you opened the flood gates amd popularised a fad, you da ground breaking heavy metal punk Fred ;)

[jase]

Not absolutely certain which one I enjoy the most Fred. Stars or no stars, the details are impressive. Truth be told, its about time you got that rig working harder for your money. Will look good on a print no doubt, but would probably help if you had a few more pixels to play with. Upscale, upscale!

[PeterM]

Wow, and 500 wows! Was looking for something spech to pin my 500 post to and this is it.

PeterM

[Bassnut]

mmm, I got a verbal caneing from DM ;), youd have to be game to submit starless again now, I think :question:. And take it easy with the rest of your praising big boy, startin to get a bit out of hand he :P :lol: (thanks anyway, enjoying the fleating ego trip :)).



Well, that has ocurred to me.....many times Jase, Id like to stick with NF, but more res would be nice and maintain a high QE, thats hard and expensive (eg longer FL and a bigger cam). Despite the ST10s age, I just cant find anything else much better with the same QE without spending mega$. Upscaling 2 or 4 times in PS seems to be working well in the mean time. Trading the 10" RC to a CDK17 or 20" is appealing though :)



Hehe, glad to help with that one Peter, congrats :thumbsup:

[Remus]

My god that is stunning. Not sure why but the starless one is growing on me for sure... love it!

[Ric]

Hi Fred, I like em both.

The starless image really catches the eye and the imagination though.

Lovely work

[TechnoBill]

:prey2:
Wonderful imaging as usual Fred. Thanks for sharing.
It was stumbling across your web site when I was first thinking of getting into Astro Photography years ago that convinced me it would be an awesome hobby.

Regards
Bill D

[Bassnut]

Thanks Tom, Ric, Bill

Gaud Bill, so if it turns to shiet, its my fault :P. No, really, glad you felt inclined to delve, the challenge alone is a life long pursuit :thumbsup:.

[marki]

Definately like the starless version best, just seems more .........:shrug:. I like it :P:D.

Mark

[Bassnut]

Yeah, just more........ :shrug: :). I dunno, sometimes I dont know which way to go, I need to drink more, then things get crystal clear :P.

[StellariuS]

Yeah dude, that's intense.. almost looks like an oil painting. cant wait for my Tmount ;)

Awesome effort. :thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

Thanks. Whats a Tmount?

[Octane]

Something you use to connect a DSLR on to the back of a telescope.

H

[Bassnut]

of course it is, doh :doh:

[Kal]

I love the starless version Fred. Quite often I find the funny colours of stars in NB images to be distracting. While you have tamed that to some extent in the version with stars, there is absolutely no distraction for me in the starless version where I can enjoy the majestic NB view of the nebula!

[bluescope]

Very nice Fred ... I can see why you took the stars out of the image as they seem a bit eggy in the large version ... possibly due to the focal length of the scope ?

What FL were you imaging at ? Was it done with the RC 10" ?

Not criticising by the way ... it's still one of the best M16 images I've ever seen from an amatuer ... detail is great :)

[astroron]

I have the Starless version as my wallpaper:) thanks Fred:thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

Thanks Andrew. Yeah, I kept green to a minimum ;). Its odd, some times starless looks so wrong, other times neb backgrounds especially suddenly jump out and look quite different.



Thanks Steve.It was at 2250mm with the RC and croped a bit. Yes, the stars are not perfect, I dont quite know why they are worse on the left edge yet. Its not always like that. I use a rotator a fair bit, I may have flex in the very long image train.



hehe, thats a few wallpapers now (and mine), starless suits that :D.