Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
Yeah, both are good Greg, lovely tight stars and great field  ...in the words of Marcus Davies though, perhaps lacking some of the nuanced colour, subtle light and shade that makes this field really shine in straight LRGB but certainly still has some appeal
Mike |
Thanks Mike. Its funny how we view things a bit differently. I often find versions of this area lacking punch. I do have quite a bit of colour data here so I may try to do a HaLRGB version to see how that shapes up as the O111 S11 are adding some punch and contrast here but are not big elements. The good thing about having lots of data is I can try various combos in the impossible quest for the perfect image (dramatic music)!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir
The new version with more data is looking much better IMO. Colours are great and fainter nebulosities are skillfully presented. I have been a bit absent from the forums lately, but FWIHS this is one of your nicer images.
Really great work Greg |
Nice compliment ! Thank Suavi.
I have kind of concluded that the Honders is really best as a wide angle telescope and it does do best on emission nebulas and wide fields. My CDK17 is the galaxy and close up nebula machine. The Honders also seems very good at cutting through light pollution - particularly good, better than any other scope I have had.
The Microline 16 seems to complement it very well but the Proline 16803 would still be my choice on some very wide objects like the Orion Nebula for example.
I also use Sky X now to run the camera and autoguider. I prefer it now I am used to the little differences over CCDSoft. CCDSoft though is very robust but Sky X has dither which was hard to implement in CCDsoft (the little plug in also affected the autoguider making it dither on every guide exposure!).
Greg.