[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Jeffkop

Geeze Mike ... every image a dead set poolroom classic !!!!

Thanks for your complimatary cometary...globule? Jeff

Originally Posted by Ric

Wonderful image Mike, the colour and detail look great.

Thanks Ric, I think doing things simply is the way to go if you have enough data from a dark sky. Of course this version used only 20% of the total data I gathered.

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Fabulous in all respects Mike.

Greg.

Cheers Greg

Originally Posted by spearo

beautiful
i prefer the first, I find the deep exposure one doesnt do justice to dust lane the way your other one does.

great images as always
frank

Thanks Frank.

Yes as I said above a number of people have comented that they prefer the more natural look where as others have prefered the Ultra Deep version, I think becaue it is something new and those from the old film school (like me) associate deep images with some degree of overexposure. Had I tried to evenly display the massive dynamic range in this data as well as showcase all the details in the dust lane it would have looked fake to me, like it was a painting. In reality (at least mine ) it is absurd to be able to see ultra faint 27mag/sq arc sec dust in the same image as the detail within the bright galaxy core millions of times brighter and again this is likely a view I have formed via infulence from my film astrophotography days? There are a number of CCD imagers now using layer masks and the paint brush tool to effectively "paint-in" the faint areas of an image and I am not too keen on this look and can't decide whether it is the real image or a "created" or "imagined" one..? Each to their own and never the less these images are indeed spectacular...just not realistic to me

Thanks heaps for your coments though and I don't disagree with you

Mike