M42

[dpastern]

Ok, some will call this cheating, since the data for this image was taken using Lightbucket's LSB002 8" widefield astrograph. 6 x L @ 120 sec, 4 each of 120 sec subs for RGB. I also did a 2nd set of subs on a different night, 6 x L @ 6 seconds and 4 each of 6 sec subs for RGB for the core section. I stacked each nights images in Maxim DL and used the digital development filter and then manually combined them in Photoshop and blended in the core section using a mask.

Not perfect, I've clipped the Black point I know, I did my best. I suck at Astro PP, but I can only get better. Onto the image:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/5074863746_f7d9e33d28.jpg

Any CC etc welcome. *puts his newbie hat on*.

Dave

edit: I'm not sure why the image isn't displaying in thread, but is appearing as a link, is it cos of the size? I'm also not sure why the direct link in flickr is going to the small size, here's link to the 1024 res image:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidpastern/5074863746/sizes/o/

[TrevorW]

Small image have you got a bigger one

Cheers

[multiweb]

Great shot David. Nothing to shy about. Right up there with the bests. :thumbsup:

[dpastern]

http://www.ecn.net.au/%7Edpastern/images/m42combine_small.jpg

Is that better? I'm trying to keep the dimensions down so I can avoid overcompression.

Dave

[Liz]

Beautiful image Dave!! Love the soft nebulous swirly bits at bottom. :thumbsup:

[dpastern]

Thanks Liz. I'm a newbie to this, I'm happy with it, even if it isn't perfect from a tech point of view. Gonna pick up some 8" x 12" prints today @ lunch *grins*.

Dave

[troypiggo]

Good stuff mate. :thumbsup: I'd be proud of that shot.

Glad you're still keeping in touch with all things astro.

[dpastern]

I'm reasonably happy, but you know what I'm like, I'm a wee bit of a perfectionist. And I hate learning new things too. Once I know more about maxim dl and image processing, I'll be happier.

yeah, just got my celestron battery back from repairs (they replaced it with a new unit, top notch support and service from Celestron's Australian distributers and I'm very impressed with them), so I hope to get out more with the scope.

I've made the decision to keep the current setup visual only - the focuser is just not up to scratch on the Equinox 100ED - it slips even with the Andrews 80 degree 30mm 2" eyepiece in it. And yes, I've tightened the crayford focuser screws. Andrew's support on the problem hasn't really been great imho and I haven't bothered sending the OTA back to them. I'll just bide my time and save up for a Takahashi :-)

I still need help with drift aligning etc, so we'll need to sort out a night when you can pop over Troy and help me out. Missus and bub are welcome of course.

Thanks for the comments.

Dave

[irwjager]

That's an awesome image - very crisp!

[TrevorW]

Very nice shows up the colours and detail well

[dpastern]

Taken with a rental scope courtesy of the excellent www.lightbuckets.com setup. I used LSB002 which is an 8" newtonian astrograph.



Thanks Trevor. There's better versions of M42 out there, but it's a start. I'd really love to be doing this with my own setup. If I can get accurate polar alignment and get my guide scope working, I should be able to do this. Should being the operative word ;-)

Dave

[h0ughy]

not bad - especially given the weather ;). its better than anything i have produced of this

[dpastern]

Thanks Dave. The scope used to get the data is in New Mexico though ;-) I'm the blame for all the wet weather brissie is having - since I got my scope battery back on Friday.

Dave

[Hagar]

Very sweet image Dave. It has everything going for it. Clear and crisp without looking over processed. The data you have captured is very very good and your processing has done it justice. Well done.

[dpastern]

Thanks Doug - very kind words. I was worried about the black point (it is clipped), and over sharpening. When I look @ 100%, I can see elongated stars as I move away from the center of the image, so I don't think a field flattener is being used on that scope and I should raise it with lightbuckets.

I feel very insecure about my PP cos it's all so alien to me. astro processing is so so so so different to normal photography. There's so many PP tricks and techniques and learning them (and remembering them) is hard!

Dave

[OzRob]

That is a nice image but I couldn't resist playing with it a little, after all you do appear to be asking for help...:P

I don't know much about processing but I have found a couple of things that I find useful. If you have PS v5 there is a tool called Shadows/Highlights under Image>Adjustments. You can use it to bring out dimmer areas (increasing shadows amount) and reducing light in brighter areas (increasing highlights amount). The latter brings out details in the core of your image quite well.

Another useful tool is Noel Carboni actions for PS (http://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/Astronomy_Tools_For_Full_Version.ht ml). I used one of these actions to smooth out the darker areas in your image a little.

[dpastern]

whoa Rob that is AWESOME!!! I *knew* that someone could do more with the image than me. That has bought out a lot of fine detail, and I think I might go play with the image a bit more myself. I have Noel's tools, and Photoshop CS2, can you outline exactly what you did, so I can learn (pretty please)?

Dave

[OzRob]

I don't think that version 2 has the Shadows/highlight feature. However, if you did have a version that does you go to Image>Adjustments>Shadows/Highlights... and play with the two sliders until you are happy with the image. Remember to have preview selected so that you can see the result before applying the change.

After I adjusted the shadows and highlights I used the deep space noise reduction tool on your image. I would suggest just playing with all the actions just to see what they do.

[dpastern]

OK, following some advice, I tried a combination of HDR using Photomatix 4.01 (buy it now why the US dollar is so low!!!) and some shadows/highlights in CS2 and the deep space noise reduction action from Noel Carboni's tools (I bought this over a year ago and to be honest, had forgotten that I had it lol).

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/5128315270_ae5370a307_o.jpg

It's a big image (800kb). It's probably over processed now, but it does show considerably more whispy details.

What do you guys think?

Dave

[rcheshire]

Clearly, I have some distance to go to match that. Beautiful!

[dpastern]

I'd say your data was very similar to mine - I did 6 L subs @ 120 secs, and then 4 subs of 120 secs for RGB on the first night. On the 2nd run, I did 6 L subs @ 6 secs, and 4 subs @ 6 secs for RGB, so not really more data than you probably got. I did use Maxim DL to stretch it though and did PP in Photoshop (stretching via curves and levels). I'm sure you *can* match or probably, better this to be honest.

Dave

[troypiggo]

Core looks grey mate? (Side effect of Photomatix - bleh)

[Octane]

You've ruined what was a good image to start off with by blowing everything to grey via the Ph*t*m*t*x routine.

Be very, very careful with the shadows/highlight tool; this one is way overused and its tell-tale signs are readily visible in the way it ruins contrast in an image. It is a destructive tool in that in itself it cannot be applied as an adjustment layer unless you create a visible/merged stamp first, copy that stamp layer, and then play with shadows/highlights -- of course, with a layer mask, with the layer itself set to very low opacities.

H

[rcheshire]

Data is similar. There's some tricks to using Pixinsight that I've yet to learn, so it's a different approach. Looking at your results, I'd say that there is a lot more data available to stretch.

I know that the HDR option is not popular with some people, but I'm tempted to try it out in PI out of curiosity.

Did you use the factory calibrated frames, or did you calibrate your own.

[dpastern]

Yeah, you're right. Oh well, no harm in experimenting!



Yeah, agreed H. I personally rarely use the shadows/highlights tool, but thought that I'd have a play with it. It's up there now, I'll probably play with the original image a bit more to see if I can tease some more details out of it. Thanks for the honest comments, much appreciated.



I used the factory calibrated frames, just for ease of use. I've d/l both sets though. There's more data there, go find it!!!!!

cheers,

Dave

[mill]

Looks impressive and you could even do some selective sharpening to bring out more detail.
But be careful not to oversharpen :thumbsup: