Galaxy NGC247 repro already

[gregbradley]

I only just processed this image after having trouble in the past.
I have a more advanced workflow that is digging out the data in some not so great data sets.

Some of the data was affected by moon nights, others by a bit of cloud and most had bad gradients. Some was fine.

http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/image/132385515/large

http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/image/132385590 crop

Not my best image but worth posting.

Greg.

[atalas]

Hey Greg,how you doing?

Well,what a wonderful galaxy choice this one is! you've got to love the image scale.

Hope you revisit this one cause It's certainly worth catching good data for It and I'm sure you'll do a ripper of an image with good data!

Hm,this pic however looks like It's had the crap knocked out the luminance to me.....think the stars are the give away mate.

Still,I enjoyed viewing It,It's a great target choice.

[Craig_L]

Really nice image Greg. I'm always amazed what detail you get from relatively low exposure times. Wonder how this would look with three times or more the luminance data. Was the RGB bin2?

[gregbradley]

One reason I picked it is if there were enough data I am pretty sure this galaxy has some tidal streams. David Malin negatives show that.
It may require darker skies or simply more exposure time with no moon here.

Thanks Louie. I just did a repro (already!) as in the original processing it was going along well but one step seemed to wreck the stars and I patched them up rather than redo it. So I have redone it now and the stars are pretty normal.

There's some nice galaxies in the background as well.



Hi Craig,

Thanks. 17 inches of aperture goes a long way. The Proline 16803 is very low noise and quite sensitive. My skies are medium dark when there is no moon, especially to the west. I usually wait until the target is near the zenith and image it mostly to the west. RGB is binned 2x2 and luminance 1x1.

I threw out a lot of the subexposures.

Greg.