Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
Thanks Fred, yeah I hear the Botonic thing, I tried to counter that by tweaking the bi-colours with the RGB but in the end there are only two main data sets I guess and this was the outcome...?..I was happy with the nice blue OIII wisps in the fainter areas, remind me of floating thin cirrus  As for the darks?...As an older generation Kodak chip user it would be hard for you to understand but the Sony chip and in this particular camera architecture simply doesn't need them and in fact adding them (and/or flats and flat darks) is actually likely to make the noise level more  ...I was quite happy with the noise level in this image though..??  and that was with no noise reduction, just dithered lights and median combine. |
Hi Mike,
It's a nice Gabriela for sure.
But I have to agree with Freddy a bit, it could be better.
I looked at the larger images and some of the stars (Top RHS of the Ha image) are a bit not round, they seem to be elongated in a diagonal way. I even put on my glasses to make sure it wasn't my eyes. As your seeing and guiding were good, perhaps there's been a misregistration. I find that CCDStack sometimes does this in very dense star fields.
The image doesn't need darks as you have dithered, so they'll be eliminated mathematically as long as you get enough subframes for the mathematical rejection to work. But it could be sharpened a bit. Louie Atalas has a great tutorial on using PS to do deconvolution. I tend to go a bit overboard WRT sharpening, but as long as you're not introducing stuff that isn't there then you're just correcting out the atmosphere.
Colour is the choice of the photographer in NB imaging. Even more so with bicolour. Look at
mine, those wisps of OIII have turned green because of the way I treated the Ha data.
We should compare Ha images. Essentially the same scope design, mostly the difference would be atmospheric, though I can't remember the weather when I took my Gabriela.
Cheers
Stu